A light in the gathering darkness

stanley Jerusalem

There's nothing more to say. He has said it all; may God protect him from some of his fellow Iranians.

compayee

>At this time of grievous trial and peril for the Jewish people, when the leaders of the western world appear to have tossed both reason and conscience overboard

How true! Sadly this seems to be indeed the case...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece

Augustus

The demonstrations and uprisings
in Iran since last summer should have shed new light on the nuclear dispute, because defusing 'the bomb' is now an essential link to the ultitmate victory of the democracy movement. Massive sanctions, both from America and the EU, are what is required, not soothing words. Everyone knows that last year's elections were totally fixed, so public condemnation and isolation of such an illegitimate regime should be voiced repeatedly. The democratic uprising is not against an Islamic state, but it is directed towards a religious neutral state, which if successful would reduce considerably the danger of a nuclear threat.

JSC

The descendants of Cyrus the Great live on...

Joshua

"may God protect him from some of his fellow Iranians."

And may God protect us for these are indeed the 1930s all over again.

Carlos Perera

Israel's very success as an lamp of Western Civilization shedding light on one the world's dark places (_pace_ Conrad) is what neither its neighbors nor the leftist intelligentsia of that same Western Civilization can forgive. And, yes, that includes the Obama regime.

Those who bemoan the naïveté or clumsiness of Mr. O's Israel policies are getting it exactly backwards: This Administration finds Israel intolerable because its Western dynamism highlights the "inept[ness]," to borrow Mr. Imani's descriptor, of the surrounding Muslim societies (and, by extension, of non-Western societies in general). That has become the great, unforgivable sin for our left-wing intelligentsia. In fact, much about Mr. O's economic, social, and foreign policies that seems inexplicable becomes quite comprehensible when one analyzes it in terms of its _deliberately_ adverse impact on the pillars of modern Western Civilization. Mr. O's policies are undermining Israel's security because they are intended to do so.

The Israelis, unfortunately for them, are the most exposed salient of Western Civ at present; but their sacrifice to the gods of anti-Western animus will but presage the decline and fall of the core.

God, I hope I'm wrong!

David

Yes. None of that means the settlements aren't wrong, or that Israel shouldn't be told of that.

gareth

Yep - it's all shaping up nicely for a disaster of biblical proportions. You won't hear voices like this in the MSM.......NONE.
I hope we in the UK get a Labour government returned at the GE. It would bring a lot of chickens home to roost, so many, that even the most cynical lying spin machine England has ever had in governance - would be destroyed, and the scales might fall away from people's eyes.

Miranda Rose Smith

G-d bless Amil Imani.

Archie

Hugely moving words indeed Miss Phillips, and all of Israel's must now stand up and be counted.

david elder

He has said it all about the Islamofascists like Ahmadinejad, and commenters like JSC have said it all about such descendants of Cyrus. I (protestant) should like to hear more from the likes of Amil Imani. We've heard more than enough from his Islamofascist opponents and from the sort of Western journalist who seriously thinks that Ahmadinejad and co. give a damn about settlements legal or not, passports, casualties real or supposed in Gaza, or whatever drama has been confected for this week.

Jon_Boy

David settlements are the most peaceful means ever divised to deal with genocidal enemies whose only goal is the anihilation of their Jewish neighbours and their state.

The only other alternatives is that the Jews in Israel sit tight and voluntarily submit to genocide for the west's political and economic convenience, or withdraw behind the 1967 lines and thenn begin an all out fight with its neighbours for survival ending up with mass casualties on each side and organised and systematic genocide if Israel ultimately loses.

Now tell me all knowing David why are settlemnts so morally wrong. The settlements mean that a psychotic enemy is gradually pushed back with out mass casualties on either side. The mad pittbull dog may not like having to wear a muzzle but if we take it off then he may wrip our throats out and we may well be forced to shoot him.

dogsbody

No, David; what is wrong is saying that "the settlements" are wrong.
This is just as wrong as saying that the earth is flat, an error which almost the entire world believed for millennia.

Larry in Tel Aviv

a little OT, but Alan Dershowitz in a Wall Street Journal piece compared Obama to Chamberlain with his appeasement on Iran. Credit to the D for putting his loyalty to Israel ahead of Obama who he has always defended in the past.

Is he prepared now to apologise to Melanie for his incoherent irrational defence of Obama on Israel and his tiff with her in this regard? Don't count on it.

Robert Mitchum

Hope all you fellow Gentiles were watching BBC4 last night which showed you how to bake the perfect challah. A charming wife of a Rabbi was the instructor. The BBC slipped up there. They'll be getting some stick from their anti-semitic friends from the Left.

rippon

The settlements and wall are wrong according to international law and numerous UN resolutions.

Should the law and the UN be ignored?

phil

I wish David Milliband had exhibited a little of the decency shown by Amil Imani when coming to his conclusion to expel the Israeli diplomat .
-----------
Am I wrong ? but have we seen any action from him against Palestinians for their part in the Gilad Shalit affair ? or even the terrorist master who was assassinated .Does he even remember that his father and grandfather were saved from the worst terrorist of all time and that 6M of his fellow Jews were massacred because nothing was done to stop Hitler.--Does he really think Israel should sit back without an attempt to counter those that seek to annihilate them .?
----
Of course Israel should not have stolen passports (if in fact they did) ,but could Mr M assure us that the UK has never done the same or disposed of enemies of our state for the protection of our citizens -I do seem to remember that we had an office for deception during the second world war and did we not steal the enigma machine ? a necessity for the well being of our citizens , just as Israel has done -.the hypocrisy is of biblical proportions ,but nevertheless a wonderful way to curry favour in the Arab world ,something that his office has always been famous for .

Peter T

I can see no logical reason why the West should turn its back on Israel. Indeed, in many ways the West is doing more than just turning its back. It has become actively hostile. Why? Israel is a small country surrounded by those who hate it and call for its destruction. Why? It is also the only country in the Region which has a modern Democratic form of government. It is not perfect - but are we perfect? I stand with Israel.

john Norman

Don't count on the Obamaites for help.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Robert Mitchum
March 26th, 2010 9:34am
You seem to imply that the BBC is habitually anti-semitic. What is your evidence for this extraordinary claim?

Dixon

The problem is, if Iran does try to attack Israel and gets struck back, it will be Israel that is blamed for nuclear war, nobody else. There really is no prospect of an end to this.

dogsbody

rippon, hasn't it dawned on you yet that the UN is morally bankrupt?
Haven't you ever read that international law, in 1922, acknowledged the Jewish People's right to a nation-state in the Land of Israel up to the Jordan River (at least)?
Don't you know that in international relations, when a state or states don't agree with something, they call it "illegal", whether it is or it isn't?
I presume that you are an adult. Where have you been all your life?

Dixon

Robert Mitchum, I thought you were very good in "Night of The Hunter". What do you think of De Niro's remake?

Linda Smith

Ripon, Hamas apologist on these threads, asks "Should the law and the UN be ignored?"

Answer: Yes:

"...jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders (and the further reaches of todays jihadists) bloody, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, across the globe. And unlike Christianity, which has issued formal mea culpas for its past imperial warfare, authoritative Islam has never renounced the living, genocidal legacy of jihad. Thus today, jihad war remains the central pillar of Hamas’ foundational ideology, as featured in its 1988 Covenant, which highlights unequivocal statements fomenting the annihilation of Israel’s Jews via jihad.

Despite repeated public appeals to the UN Human Rights Commission since 1989, this charter of jihad genocide has never been condemned by the 57 member nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)—which represents the entire global Muslim community. On the contrary, the OIC held a special meeting during 2004 to commemorate Sheikh Yassin, founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, who co-drafted this document sanctioning jihad genocide."
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2010/03/25/all-islamic-things-not-considered-at-npr/

PS International Law is nothing but a political football.

Joshua

"Don't count on the Obamaites for help."

I'm not counting on anyone to help. The world abandoned the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust and it looks like we are in for a repeat performance.

Truthtriumphs

Melanie,
How about sending the link to CommentisFree at the Guardian, and timing them to see how long it takes before it is deleted?

phil

YOU WROTE
rippon
March 26th, 2010 10:48am

The settlements and wall are wrong according to international law and numerous UN resolutions.

Should the law and the UN be ignored?

The answer is no -but first find the right law,and the right resolution -like the one that voted that Israel should exist 1947-the rest are Arab resolutions .There can be no doubt that there are more of you rippon but that does not make you right ,so when our time comes to face our maker ,we will find out, and if I were you I would not be too confident of my fate .

Carl

Joshua wrote: "The world abandoned the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust'. Has he perchance forgotten about the Second World War?

Logz

Thank you for this posting Melanie.

I would like to echo the sentiments of well being towards Mr. Imani.

He is a brave man and his coherent analysis will have many of the Islamofacists and their fellow travellers in the West spitting feathers.

They hate all who both speak and defend the truth.

Truthtriumphs.

Rippon.
I wish people like yourself would read up a bit as to the actual law pertaining to the "disputed" territories, instead of repeating mantras just because they have heard them before, without applying knowledge or critical faculties.
The so-called settlements are actually re-settlements on land legally owned by Jews, from where they were brutally evicted in 1929, and 1948,in an illegal occupation by Trans-Jordan(subsequently Jordan),a political fait accompli recognised by no-one.
The Jews were ethnically cleansed from land where they had lived for 2,000 years continuously, and so East Jerusalem became "Arab" East Jerusalem.
Why one rule for the Arabs in conquest, and another rule for the Jews, who re claimed owneship of their land in a DEFENSIVE war?
Do you uinderstand the difference?

Archie

Apologies! I missed the word "friends" in my earlier post.

Linda Smith

Carl, the Second World War was not fought to save the Jews. The French, notably, sent the Jews to the camps without being asked, as they have now admitted.
The allies fought the Second World War to save their own skins from Nazi/Japanese fascism. Will the Third World War be fought against the Islamofascists?

Isaac Bickerstaff

If a country, surrounded by others with nuclear weapons, two of whom have promised to topple its current regime by any means, tries to get its own nuclear weapon, is this surprising?

Is it surprising if it hurls abuse at those who hurl abuse at it?

If the regime is intent on a holocaust that will without fail cause its own utter destruction, why does it devote so much energy to muscling in on every profitable business going? Why bother to acquire control of what is soon to be radioactive dust?

If martyrdom is to be their crowning achievement, why the worldly vanity of the endless scrabbling for money and for power that will soon be for nothing?

Why bother with all the multifarious tasks of government, industry, diplomacy, education, health...?

Why bother to function as a modern state, and not just a nuclear reactor?

If Iran is intent on a holocaust, why does it behave like a normal medium sized power?

Iran is certainly a threat to Israel's regional hegemony, and an example of disobedience the US cannot tolerate - but why this maudlin melodrama? Propaganda is no doubt effective in carrying opinion (even so far as to support unconscionable acts), but why should those conscientiously seeking the truth go along with this noxious absurdity?

Adam B.

Carl, perchance you are ignorant of the inaction of the allies during the Holocaust. Not one bomb landed on the death camps, and reports of what was happening were dismissed both in Washington and London (indeed, there is a notorious memo where one Foreign Office offocial had written that these detailed reports of the genocide were coming from "hysterical Jews." At Yad Vashem, one can see the aerial photographs taken by allied bombers of Auschwitz and other camps - yet nothing was done.

Please research this. Your post seems to imply, inaccurately, that the allies fought the Second World War to help the Jews. They didn't.

Robert Mitchum

Dear "DIXON", you are right in that I starred in "Night Of The Hunter" but the film you are thinking of is "Cape Fear". Say it myself but I was far more menacing than De Niro, more handsome, a better actor, and it was all done without the aid of tattoos. I think you will agree I was both mesmeric and unbelievably butch.

Adam B.

Isaac, you apply all your Western liberal values to a situation which has none. You simply won't understand the Iranian regime, and its commitment to destroying the Jewish state, through rational logical thinking.

You say that it doesn't make sense for the Iranian regime to launch a nuclear holocaust against the Jews. As if anti-semitism has to be motivated by rational thinking. In the last months of the Second World War, when the Germans knew they had lost, they increased the speed of the killing machine. They took valuable manpower and resources to do this, when they had neither in abundance. It makes no military sense whatsoever. But nonetheless that's the truth. That's what such visceral hatred does. You do things that just don't make any sense.

Can you explain it?

Do you expect Israel to do nothing in the hope that Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean what he says? The Jews did that once before - and they must never do so again. Just like last time, no-one else is doing anything to prevent a calamity.

sleeping dolls

@Linda Smith.
Britain could have easily saved its own skin (as you put it) by staying out of the war - this was an option Hitler was keen on. Many British people died fighting Hitler. If they hadn't you can be certain a lot more would have suffered (including Jews). Why do you, and so many on this blog, seek to make British people feel guilty for their heroism?
OT Obama is doing rather well at the moment, don't you think?

Linda Smith

Isaac Bickerstaff asks re Iran: "If martyrdom is to be their crowning achievement, why the worldly vanity of the endless scrabbling for money and for power that will soon be for nothing?"

Isaac Bickerstaffe makes the fatal mistake of trying to understand the Islamist mindset through western spectacles:

""During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, the semi-official Iranian daily Ettela’at wrote the following:

In the past, we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone.” Such scenes could henceforth be avoided, Ettela’at assured its readers. “Before entering the mine fields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves.”[2]

The children who thus rolled to their deaths formed part of the mass Basij movement that was called into being by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. They consisted of short-term volunteer militias and represented about 30 percent of the personnel on the battlefield. Most Basij members were between 12 and 18 years young. They went enthusiastically and by their thousands to their own destruction. Before every mission, a small plastic key would be hung around each of the children’s necks. It was supposed to open for them the gates to paradise.

“The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies,” a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War has recalled, “It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander’s orders, everyone wanted to be first.”[3] Several tens of thousand of Iranian children were sacrificed in these suicide units – a crime that the world has yet to really acknowledge. How was this mass suicide rendered palatable to the Iranians? Here Khomeini’s theological worldview comes into play.

According to his preaching, life is worthless and death is the beginning of genuine existence. “The natural world,” Khomeini explained in October 1980, “is the lowest element, the scum of creation.” What is decisive is the beyond: the “divine world – that is eternal.”[4] According to Khomeini’s mindset, the martyrs’ death is nothing but the transition from this world to the world beyond, where they will live on eternally and in splendor."

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/antisemitism-messianism-and-the-cult-of-sacrifice-the-iranian-holy-war

Dixon

Robert Mitchum, thanks for correcting me. But I did like both of those titles. The Night of The Hunter probably came to mind because of theme of religious extremism. Iran and that.

Yes, you are the better actor, but I did like the way they had De Nero bobbing up through the foam quoting the Bible in the maelstrom at the end. Clearly the protagonist in both films had a lot in common, both with each other and Achmedinajacket.

De Nero was good as The Devil in Angel Heart, using the best of his three facial expressions to sustained effect.

Prefer Meryl Streep

Robert Mitchum only convincing and subrtle portrayal was in Night of the Hunter. Otherwise he was just the quintessentially all American, middle to lower middle class,uninteresting, colourless bore, in roles which could have been played randomly by John Wayne, Rock Hudson, William Holden, James Srewart etc etc ad nauseam As an Australian in the Sundowners he was eclipsed by Meryl Streep's portrayal of Lindy Chamberlain.

James Hicks

Yes,Gareth, it's shaping up for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Archie: I am not a Jew but am prepared to stand up and be counted; even as the temple falls.

James Hicks

Carl, Your comment to Joshua; I'm a bit thick, enlighten me please.

Aaron

An excellent article. I have Bahai friends and am sickened by thier treatment in Iran, where is the outcry? almost zero media coverage...but meanwhile here the latest headline from the BBC "Israeli tanks roll into Gaza" Surely the headline should read israelis soldiers killed. or are they trying to create another Jenin myth.

Aaron

@Sleeping dolls...i think the point being made about WW2 was that the allies, Did not have time or did not see it as a priority to bomb the railway lines to the camps or worse did not want to further convince the German public that they were in fact in league with the jews. Either way, it highlights the need for the realisation of the jewish homeland. The actions of the allies (members of my family fought) was potentialy one of the most important victories of all time, always to be respected but also understood.

James Hicks

Adam B, You'll notice I've asked Carl to enlighten me regarding his posting as I'm a bit thick. Perhaps we should give the guy a break he may have forgotten something.

James Hicks

Dear Mr Isaac Bickerstaff, As I've said in another of my postings, "I'm a bit thick". For the last half hour Ive navel searched, yours, as well as mine, but am perplexed for I thought this was a serious discussion and not a mincing of words; spell it out.

Linda Smith

@sleeping dolls

Britain could have easily saved its own skin (as you put it) by staying out of the war - this was an option Hitler was keen on.."

You were presumably asleep during your history lessons.

"Britons never, never, never will be slaves!!!!!!!"

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B. and Linda Smith,
My question is, if they are intent upon a holocaust, in which they themselves will without any shadow of a doubt be incinerated, why do the behave in a manner so familiar from other middle-sized states? Their rhetoric does not constrain their actions; their actions are not such as would be expected from the propaganda of the US and of Israel. Israel is Iran's enemy: Iran paints a monstorus picture of Israel. Iran is Israel's enemy: Israel paints a monstrous picture of Iran.

Linda Smith

Isaac Bickerstaff asks re Iran "why do they behave in a manner so familiar from other middle-sized states?"

They ain't built their bomb yet.

aaron

Ohhh! Isreal is painting a monstrous picture of Iran! what a laugh Issc, read the linked article, its from an iranian and why not read up on the Bahai's. ...and then ask yourself what is your fasciation about Israel really all about?

phil

Isaac Bickerstaff
March 27th, 2010 10:23am -I know you never answer my questions because I believe they have been to incisive .so I will not ask for an answer but merely tell your that the man you seem to admire so much aka dinnerjacket has threatened the annihilation of Israel,Can you find anywhere that Israel has threatened to annihilate Iran -no answer expected of course ! Just as quid pro quo can you at least stop writing nonsense here .

You may of course demonstrate your confidence in the word of your hero by moving to Tel Aviv ,after which we can give more weight to your feelings of goodwill towards both Israel and the Jewish people .

Linda Smith

Ooh, and Isaac, it doesn't have to be a great big in-your-face sort of conflagration. Iran's got its proxies, Hamas and Hizbollah to do the dirty work. A few nuclear tipped rockets etc. for starters.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Linda Smith,
You say that, although Iran has acted up to now as a middle-sized state would be expected to, once it has the nuclear weapon that any state in its postion would seek to obtain it will opt for incineration. It is more likely that it is seeking the nuclear weapon for the obvious reason, to try to enhance its security against explicit threat from outside, and to sustain the current, increasingly unpopular, regime in power.

Your remarks to Sleeping Doll are not quite consistent with the historical record. There is still debate among historians, as there was among politicians at the time, whether Britain could have staved off bankruptcy and saved its Empire by an accomodation with Hitler. Hitler did indeed expect such an accomodation, as the most rational course for Britain. Traditional concerns about the balance of power on the Continent, and a belated understanding of Hitler's unreliability (if not of his full intentions), fortunately prevailed. I think similarly that Sleeping Doll conveys a mistaken impression that Britain fought for moral reasons and not for reasons of grand strategy.

phil

Isaac B -,having been away for a while I checked my drafts and alighted on the NO WONDER thread and lo and behold found this little masterpiece by you -march 18 at 10.35 when "answering" Adam B
---------------------
your quote--- "Can I make a modest proposal, that you deal plainly with those you engage with. Make your point clearly and simply and answer theirs honestly."---- was that really you that wrote that ? There will be many that doubt it, as you never follow your own excellent advice ,and your history does follow you around.

James Hicks

Come now Mr Isaac Bickerstaff,(see Adam B and Linda Smith). Your "why this and why that" is so much duck shoving, try making your point without gobbledygook. I give you O/10. Please, no "what ifs?"

Logz

"If Iran is intent on a holocaust, why does it behave like a normal medium sized power?" Isaac Bickerstaffe

Would this be the 'normal' kind of state that executes 16 year old girls, for the crime of being raped and tortured?

Or the kind that sentences 13 year old girls to death by stoning, for the crime of being made pregnant by their older brothers?

To draw moral equivalence here between Israel and Iran is a crime against reason.

Robert

Prehaps theleaders of the western world appear to have tossed both reason and conscience overboard, but the people of the western nations have not, and they are Pelosied as hell.

Silence Do Good

Amil has courage. God speed.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Logz
March 27th, 2010 1:04pm
I understood we were talking about Iran's behaviour as a regional power in its relations with other states. (For the record, I do not condone judicial murder.)

Augustus

After three decades of modern-day experimentation in ideological theocracy the successors of Ayatollah Khomeini
have had to pursue their revolutionary ideals whilst at the same time safeguard their practical interests. This makes Iran into something of a peculiarity. A growing population, with many of young and knowledge-seeking age, national interests in a turbulent region, on the one hand, and a clerically cosmic mindset on the other that divides the world between oppressors and oppressed, and invests Iran with a mission of redeeming the Middle East for its righteous cause: Islamic fundamentalism. To the mullahs, the task of governing is in itself a clash between ideology and pragmatism, putting them often in a paradoxical position of having to secure their objectives within a region which instinctively they are pledged to subvert and undermine. So, to satisfy their revolutionary impulses, Iran's leaders have turned to anti-Americanism and an overbearing opposition to Israel, and made these policies pillars of state.
They support Hamas, Hezbollah, and every Islamist militia under
the sun which either oppose US forces fighting in Iraq, or Israel's conflict with the Palestinians. Until now, however, Iran has managed to avoid direct military confrontation with either state.
Ideological purity, it seems, is less important than retaining
power. And to the present ruling elite power is also represented in a robust and extensive nuclear programme, especially at a time of domestic turmoil when political fortunes need reviving. But nuclear weapons are by definition really only a narrow
category of arms. They can accomplish only a limited set of objectives. They do offer a deterrent capability: Iran would not be invaded, unlike Saddam's Iraq, and its leaders would not be deposed. But Sunni regimes in the region would be unlikely to yield to a belligerent Shiite state, and the Persian Gulf states would take even more refuge under the US security umbrella. Paradoxically, a weapon designed to ensure Iran's regional resurgence and preeminence could, and probably would, further alienate it from its neighbours, and even thwart it hegemonic ambitions. Like others before them, the guardians of theocracy might discover that having a nuclear arsenal is simply not good for diplomatic leverage or strategy.
Also, considering Israel's strength and nuclear capability,
Iran will not risk a nuclear confrontation by transferring a crude nuclear device to one of its terrorist proteges, because, although the danger would be real, such a move would place Iran squarely in the cross hairs of America and Israel and invite retaliation.
The real danger in Iran going nuclear, however, is the collapse of the Nonproliferation Treaty. Countries like Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, and Turkey, scrambling to join the nuclear club, unleashing a wave of nuclear proliferation around the globe.
A free for all, and all on hair-trigger alerts, minutes away from annihilation. Is that what the future holds?

Carl

Adam B wishes that the concentration camps had been bombed by the Allies. Perhaps he might just be able to see the flaw in this thinking?

James Hicks

Phil, I see your comment re Issac B. Now, I'm a new boy to this blog and on the first day have sussed out Mr Isaac Bickerstaff; intelligent discussion? 'tis now 0415 hrs here, am off to bed.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Carl
March 27th, 2010 2:48pm
I have read testimony of survivors that they would willingly have sacrificed themselves if bombing could disrupt the foul work of the extermination camps.

Dixon

OOh er, look at Professor Mewryl Streep, she refers to herself in the third person ( wez me glasses ) ;-)

Dixon

"Carl
March 26th, 2010 4:48pm
Joshua wrote: "The world abandoned the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust'. Has he perchance forgotten about the Second World War?"

U shall treasure the above comment. Indicates Carls complete ignorance of the history of the topic. The persecution of German Jewry began almost a decade before Britain went to war with Germany. Britain would nit have gone to war with Germany had not the latter invaded all of Western Europe in the meantime and posed a threat to the existence of the British state. Had Germany not done that there is not the remotest reason for belief that Britain would have started a war on behalf of the Jews. Plainly a potty idea. Where does he get it from ( peer-to-peer chit chat on some anti-Jew website or other maybe Guardian CIF ). The US didnt go to war with Germany even then.

Carls comment really takes the biscuit. I shall be quoting it again as needed.

Logz

Isaac Bickerstaffe - with respect you said...

"Why bother to function as a modern state...why does it behave like a normal medium sized power?"

To which I replied above.

You may not condone judicial murder and you may wish to believe that it is both a 'modern and normal state' but I posted what I did to highlight the fallacy of both these positions and to prove that whatever it may say, or you wish to believe, the reality is somewhat different.

Henceforth it cannot and should not be trusted under its present regime.

It can then be imagined what it will do or say with nations it regards as its enemies by understanding in terms of how it deals with its own people.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Logz,
I think you are right to press me on what I said. I thought my meaning clear in context, but I stand corrected.

"why does it behave like a normal medium sized power?"

- in its relations with its neighbours.

"Why bother to function as a modern state..."

- if it is all to be incinerated, why go to the considerable trouble of pursuing all the activities required of a state by its people. The point is, why the effort if they believe they are going to incinerate themselves and everything they are currently striving for. The point was not to comment on the interpretation of Islamic law imposed by the mullahs, which is in many respects barbaric, or their authoritarian, not to say tyrannical, interpretation of what constitutes an Islamic state.

As for the question of how civilians (at least those who are not our citizens) are treated, and the question of trustworthiness, I do not think we in the UK, US, or Israel can take too high a moral tone.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Augustus,
A lot of what you say seems sensible to me, but there are at least a couple of oddities.

First, you talk as if Iran has chosen at random and on a whim to see the US as its enemy and Israel as the US representative in the Middle East. Surely it has reasons in addition to misdirected revolutionary zeal and religious bigotry for arriving at these conclusions - good reasons, in the case of the US, debatable reasons in the case of Israel, although, even without a mistakenly manichean view of the world, Israel does represent regional competition for Iran in attempting to assert hegemony.

Secondly, you say that, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be undermined. This seems to me odd or hypocritical. The US and UK have consistently reneged on their obligations under this treaty. The US has winked at Pakistan and India acquiring nuclear weapons. Israel has refused to sign the treaty. If we are concerned to uphold the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as goodness knows we should be, then there are more obvious ways to go about it than brinkmanship with Iran.

phil

James Hicks
March 27th, 2010 3:20pm -James you may be new here but you are sharp -Isaac never answers questions that are too incisive ,he likes to obfuscate and be "clever"-he does give entertainment ,but sense, absolutely not .He also uses a nom de plume of a man famous for writing comedies and who ran away to France for reasons I will not go into here ,perhaps he wishes to be seen as a comedian ,so why disappoint him ?-We do not have the use here of a fish hook anyway .:)

Augustus

Isaac B. Obviously, I am not privy to the Israeli government's calculations about Iran going nuclear, but the riskiness of a nuclear standoff between the two would vary with the nature of the size and capability of Iran's arsenal. Obviously, Iran with only the capability to build a weapon poses far less of a threat than
an actual weapon waiting to be launched. Secondly, factors such as America's willingness to deter Iran, America's continued long-standing support of Israel, and any doubts Israel may have about America's leadership in failing to stop Iran going nuclear in the first place. As regards nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, Iran's regional rivals might try to catch up, but then again they might not of course. there is always the expense involved in developing nuclear weapons, as well as having the missiles to launch them. Then there is the time factor involved; it takes years to build nuclear reactors, acquire nuclear fuel, master enrichment
technologies, and build the weapons themselves. And given the three countries' (mentioned in my previous post) business interests with the United States
and Europe, I agree that they would be more vulnerable to economic sanctions America or
NATO could impose on nuclear proliferators than even Iran.

However, Iran's nuclearization undoubtedly makes the Middle East a more dangerous place. It heightens tensions to a degree that immediately raises the prospect of mass catastrophe. History shows that US containment policy, using military, economic, and diplomatic strategies to temper the spread of Communism, worked.
It might not proove a foolproof or a perfect policy in countering Iran and the subversive and terrorist groups which it supports. But its very success depends on the willingness of America to use force against Iran, or threaten to do so, because applying pressure without a commitment is a recipe for failure, and will prove more of a failure the more violent and dangerous the Middle East becomes.

Adam B.

Carl, that really was very predictable. I thought that maybe I would have to spell it out in my original post, but then thought you couldn't possibly be so dim. I was wrong.

Bombing of the camps did not necessarily mean bombing the whole camp. The railway lines could have been targeted - they weren't. The crematoria could have been targeted - they weren't. Indeed, as Isaac has pointed out, the survivors have all said that they would have welcomed bombs in any case. The allies knew this. They knew how these death factories operated (even if some Foreign Office anti-semites put the stories down to "Jewish hysteria.")

Please do some research before talking about something you have obviously spent two minutes thinking about. Indeed, I find it interesting taht, in conjunction with your deep seated anti-Israel views, and expressed admiration of Hamas, you now claim tha allies fought WWII for the sake of the Jews.

A bit worrying, that.

Linda Smith

"Adam B wishes that the concentration camps had been bombed by the Allies. Perhaps he might just be able to see the flaw in this thinking?"
The Allis should have bombed the railway lines leading to the camps.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Augustus,
I think we can agree that no-one who wants to avert war would support Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. I think everyone who wants to avert war should support a nuclear-free Middle East. Likewise, they should hold signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to their promises, and encourage any nuclear powers who are not yet signatories to sign up.

Adam B.

Isaac, I'll give you another example of the "logic" of the Iranian regime.

Under the law in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a woman cannot face the death penalty if she is a virgin. However, they can still be convicted of a "crime" if a virgin (and the definition of a crime, and the weight of "evidence" is somewhat different to what we would expect). The solution? Rape the wman the night before her execution. This is carried out by the Basij.

It is an utterly despicable regime. Yet you won't hear that from Obama - he's too busy attacking Israel for building some flats.

The reason I point this out to to demonstrate a thought process that is completely alien to Western liberal values - whether logical/rational or moral.

Adam B.

Isaac, by a uclear free Middle East, I suppose you are referring to Israel.

Israel is unique in the Middle East, because it is the only country facing a concerted effort to destroy it. It should never relinquish its nuclear deterrent - until such a threat disappears. One could not argue that Iran is facing a genocidal enemy who wants to erase Iran from the map. Such equivalencies are intellectually and morally lazy.

Logz

Isaac Bickerstaffe - Thanks for your respectful reply, in which you state "The point is, why the effort if they believe they are going to incinerate themselves and everything they are currently striving for."

That is exactly my point.

The Iranian regime under no circumstances imagines that it is "going to incinerate themselves".

However, I dont believe it will have much compunction about seeing vast swathes of its people, 'incinerated', if by such action, it will result in the destruction Israel.

They are kind of regime that will happily convince others of the righteous path to martyrdom while studiously avoiding such a path themselves.

During the Iranian/Iraq war of 1980-88, they willingly allowed young teenagers to be incinerated in minefields to determine just where these mines lay!

And thats my point. You are applying your understanding of Israel, to your analysis of Iran.

You are using this criteria to produce a moral equivalence when by no stretch of the imagination such parallel exists.

Tommy Peters

Thanks Melanie. He happens to be my history teacher. Keep him safe.

When I read him, I read his opponent on the same page. Amil and yourself are obviously not in the Bucaille genre, which holds sway within the syndicated discourse.

I would post Esposito and Armstrong on the same page for a full, and at times comical, effect.

Fabio P.Barbieri

A LITTLE REMINDER TO THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY LICKING THEIR CHOPS AT THE THOUGHT OF ISRAEL'S DESTRUCTION...

Five kings rule o'er the Amorite,
Mighty as fear and old as night;
Swathed with unguent and gold and jewel,
Waxed they merry and fat and cruel.
Zedek of Salem, a terror and glory,
Whose face was hid while his robes were gory;
And Hoham of Hebron, whose loathly face is
Heavy and dark o'er the ruin of races;
And Piram of Jarmuth, drunk with strange wine,
Who dreamed he had fashioned all stars that shine;
And Debir of Eglon wild, without pity,
Who raged like a plague in the midst of his city;
And Japhia of Lachish, a fire that flameth,
Who did in the daylight what no man nameth.

These five kings said one to another,
'King unto king o'er the world is brother,
Seeing that now, for a sign and a wonder,
A red eclipse and a tongue of thunder,
A shape and a finger of desolation,
Is come against us a kingless nation.
Gibeon hath failed us: it were not good
That a man remember where Gibeon stood.'
Then Gibeon sent to our captain, crying,
'Son of Nun, let a shaft be flying,
For unclean birds are gathering greedily;
Slack not thy hand, but come thou speedily.
Yea, we are lost save thou maintain'st us,
For the kings of the mountains are gathered against us.'

Then to our people spake the Deliverer,
'Gibeon is high, yet a host may shiver her;
Gibeon hath sent to me crying for pity,
For the lords of the cities encompass the city
With chariot and banner and bowman and lancer,
And I swear by the living God I will answer.
Gird you, O Israel, quiver and javelin,
Shield and sword for the road we travel in;
Verily, as I have promised, pay I
Life unto Gibeon, death unto Ai.'

Sudden and still as a bolt shot right
Up on the city we went by night.
Never a bird of the air could say,
'This was the children of Israel's way.'

Only the hosts sprang up from sleeping,
Saw from the heights a dark stream sweeping;
Sprang up straight as a great shout stung them,
And heard the Deliverer's war-cry among them,
Heard under cupola, turret, and steeple
The awful cry of the kingless people.

Started the weak of them, shouted the strong of them,
Crashed we a thunderbolt into the throng of them,
Blindly with heads bent, and shields forced before us,
We heard the dense roar of the strife closing o'er us.
And drunk with the crash of the song that it sung them,
We drove the great spear-blade in God's name among them.

Redder and redder the sword-flash fell.
Our eyes and our nostrils were hotter than hell;
Till full all the crest of the spear-surge shocking us,
Hoham of Hebron cried out mocking us,
'Nay, what need of the war-sword's plying,
Out of the desert the dust comes flying.
A little red dust, if the wind be blowing--
Who shall reck of its coming or going?'
Back the Deliverer spake as a clarion,
'Mock at thy slaves, thou eater of carrion!
Laughest thou at us, in thy kingly clowning,
We, that laughed upon Ramases frowning.
We that stood up proud, unpardoned,
When his face was dark and his heart was hardened?
Pharaoh we knew and his steeds, not faster
Than the word of the Lord in thine ear, O master.

Sheer through the turban his wantons wove him,
Clean to the skull the Deliverer clove him;
And the two hosts reeled at the sign appalling,
As the great king fell like a great house falling.

Loudly we shouted, and living and dying.
Bore them all backward with strength and strong crying;
And Caleb struck Zedek hard at the throat,
And Japhia of Lachish Zebulon smote.
The war-swords and axes were clashing and groaning,
The fallen were fighting and foaming and moaning;
The war-spears were breaking, the war-horns were braying,
Ere the hands of the slayers were sated with slaying.
And deep in the grasses grown gory and sodden,
The treaders of all men were trampled and trodden;
And over them, routed and reeled like cattle,
High over the turn of the tide of the battle,
High over noises that deafen and cover us,
Rang the Deliverer's voice out over us.

'Stand thou still, thou sun upon Gibeon,
Stand thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon!
Shout thou, people, a cry like thunder,
For the kings of the earth are broken asunder.
Now we have said as the thunder says it,
Something is stronger than strength and slays it.
Now we have written for all time later,
Five kings are great, yet a law is greater.
Stare, O sun! in thine own great glory,
This is the turn of the whole world's story.
Stand thou still, thou sun upon Gibeon,
Stand thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon!

'Smite! amid spear-blades blazing and breaking.
More than we know of is rising and making.
Stab with the javelin, crash with the car!
Cry! for we know not the thing that we are.
Stand, O sun! that in horrible patience
Smiled on the smoke and the slaughter of nations.
Thou shalt grow sad for a little crying,
Thou shalt be darkened for one man's dying--
Stand thou still, thou sun upon Gibeon,
Stand thou, moon, in the valley of Ajalon!'

After the battle was broken and spent
Up to the hill the Deliverer went,
Flung up his arms to the storm-clouds flying,
And cried unto Israel, mightily crying,
'Come up, O warriors! come up, O brothers!
Tribesmen and herdsmen, maidens and mothers;
The bondman's son and the bondman's daughter,
The hewer of wood and the drawer of water,
He that carries and he that brings,
And set your foot on the neck of kings.'

This is the story of Gibeon fight--
Where we smote the lords of the Amorite;
Where the banners of princes with slaughter were sodden.
And the beards of seers in the rank grass trodden;
Where the trees were wrecked by the wreck of cars,
And the reek of the red field blotted the stars;
Where the dead heads dropped from the swords that sever,
Because His mercy endureth for ever.

- Gilbert K. Chesterton (yes! Believe it or not.)

Nicholas

Meryl Streep in The Sundowners? Surely some mistake? That was Deborah Kerr.

lucien

the British Gov did not care a fig's leaf about the Jews in the concentration camps. its been shown that reports on the slaughter of Jews were filed in the waste bins at the time under Anthony Eden.
Besides until it became clear that the Russians would liberate Auschwitz and not the allies no bombing took place as it was obvious that the huge IGFARBEN industrial complex would have been a huge bonus for the allies. It was producing synthetic rubber and oils for the nazi war effort.
It was of course bombed by the allies at the end of the war when it became obvious it would fall in Russian hands.
But the crematoria and the gas chambers were left standing.
Imagine the sorrow of the inmates who witnessed that!

Carl

Dear Adam B - bombing in world war 2 was notoriously inaccurate. They were no cruise missiles then, in case you were unaware of that fact.

Dixon, as for my visiting "anti -Jew websites", I really wouldn't know of such places but it does show how scared you are of my opinion that you have to sink to such slurs. Still, only to be expected as fools like you can only deal with criticism of Israel by whining about anti - semitism.

Adam B.

Nice try Carl. No attempt was ever made to bomb any of the death camps, nor the apparatus needed to make them run. So it wasn't a case of "being inaccurate." Indeed, the allies repeatedly flew missions against railway lines throughout the Normandy campaign, with success. Typhoon aircraft fitted with rockets did the job. Alternatively, are you seriously saying that a wing of B-17's couldn't do the job of breaking up a railway line? How do you explain that?

The allies knew about what was happening in the camps, they understood how they functioned, yet did not attempt to stop the genocide.

I see that maybe you gave it another minute's thought.

And your attempt to portray WWII as being fought for the sake of the Jews is worrying at best, and deeply sinister at worst.

You have to admit you've got this one wrong.

Carl

Adam B - my post was in response to Joshua claiming that the world abandoned Jews during the Holocaust. I was simply pointing out what else was going on at the time which is, in the weird mindset that some here have somehow anti-semitic.

I'd also be interested how a Typhoon fighter would actually have got to any of the Concentration camps but that is just me being practically minded.

Gil

Carl, the second para of your comment @10:21 has to be one of the bext examples, ever, of intellectual dishonesty.

People merely point out to you that the Allies did not bomb the camps and and you revert to the Livingstone defence, that refuge for all who try and shut down the debate about antisemitism by claiming that they are merely criticizing Israel.

Gil

Carl, don't you have anything to say about the topic of the post?

Gil

Isaac Bickerstaff, Iran certainly wants regional hegemony all right. That's why, I suppose, it has delivery systems that can enable payload that can reach Europe.

For Islamofascists, Europe is also their 'region.'

If you stopped trying to rationalise the irrational, you'll realise how wrong you are.

Elise

There is always that lone voice in the wilderness, like a Biblical prophet. Noone listened to the voices in the 30s and I fear the powers that be are not listening now. However, unlike anytime before in the history of man, individuals can take matters into their own hands and call for action agaisnt tyrannts. We do not need the cowards who lead our nations to decry evil, we all have the ability to stand up and be counted. Now is the time.

Adam B.

Carl, the railway lines ran a long way - within range of allied aircraft - they did not only lie at the entrance to the camps. So no, not so "practical" of you.

As I pointed out to you previously, the allies had aerial photos of the camps - you can find these with a little basic research. The camps were within range - no-one denies this except you.

First you have tried to say that the allies fought the war for the Jews - or, as you put it - "did not abandon them." What about 1933-1939 Carl? What about the Evian Conference - where every country expressed great sympathy for the plight of the Jews, and then did precisely nothing to help them. All refused entry to large numbers of Jewish refugees - they didn't even arrange sharing the refugee problem. Roosevelt shut the door altogether. The one exception was the Dominican Republic. Observing the conference, the then journalist Golda Meir said "That's the last time I ever want to hear words of "sympathy"". Words are cheap - and I'm afraid that was all the world offered the Jews then. It is all the world is offering now as well - with Iran steaming ahead with its nuclear weapons programme, with a lunatic threatening a new Holocaust whilst he denies the last one.

You've got this badly wrong Carl. At least have the grace to admit the allies could have done something.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Logz
March 27th, 2010 11:24pm
"The Iranian regime under no circumstances imagines that it is "going to incinerate themselves".

However, I dont believe it will have much compunction about seeing vast swathes of its people, 'incinerated', if by such action, it will result in the destruction Israel."

I think you are correct that this is the crux: whether the Iranian regime wants to survive as rulers of a regional power or a poisoned wasteland devoid of people, incapable of sustaining an economy, or of projecting any power whatsoever. I suggest that there is no credible evidence that they would consider opting for the latter.

I would remind you that, in the war with Iraq, Iran was fighting for its very survival. The fanaticism and grotesque waste of life were in pursuit of ends we can at least comprehend. It seems to me wrong to think Iranians would show the same eagerness in seeking the utter destruction of themselves, their country and their civilisation.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

The Hebrew people are free people, they get liberated slavery from the Pharaohs of Egypt with the help of G*d and Moses and this is why until now they celebrate Passover to keep the memory alive, they are free and have a good justice and some people are jealous, people who don't have freedom like the ones in those Middle Eastern countries etc, the German narrow minded racist Hitlers didn't want the Jewish because they said only the Germans was the pure race, no good
anyhow I wish you all a wonderful Pesach!

Dixon

"Carl
March 28th, 2010 10:21am

Dixon, as for my visiting "anti -Jew websites", I really wouldn't know of such places but it does show how scared you are of my opinion that you have to sink to such slurs. Still, only to be expected as fools like you can only deal with criticism of Israel by whining about anti - semitism."

No Carl, this latter comment simply shows how convincingly I showed up as an hilarious idiocy uour earlier "opinion", that you cannot try even to responsd but apply the very principle of ad-hominem that you accvuse me of.

I'll just remind folks what Carl said and my responsse;
1) Carl said WW2 was fought to save the Jews.
2) My response was to point out that he obviously knows nothing, as yje Jews of Germany were being persecuted for most of a decade before Britain went to war...then only because the British state itself was under threat. That nobody in their wildest dreames would imagine that Britain would have went to war otherwise and that even then, the United States did not go to war and was perfectly happy to allow the death camps by then in full swing to conyinue, for as long as it took them to do the job. But for Pearl Harbour, there is no reason to believe the US would have lifted a finger, to help Britain, let alone the Jews.

Then I added that the only explanation for Carls head being full of such cr-a-p t( such as believing the warwas fpught on behalf of Jews ) was that it is the common currency among his peers who exchange such twaddle alongside their distinction between bigotey towards Israel and bigotry towards Jews.

But so lacking in balls is he that Carl can only snipe back at the tail and not the body of what I said.

I told you Carl, if you keep this up I shall just keep reminding people whatyou said: indicating that you think WW2 was fought on behalf of the Jews.

roger

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement. (Bernard Lewis)

Rob-NY

It seems Melanie is finally vidicated in her feud with Alan Dershowitz who is now publicly expressing doubts in President Obama in The Wall Street Journal.

Augustus

roger - Whereas presumably the majority of Iranians would reject your apocalyptic scenario, it is certainly debatable whether the radical clerical elite might contemplate
revolutionary mass martyrdom. The most important heritage which Ayatollah Khomeini bequeathed to his successors was
the ideology of martyrdom. Life was always regarded by him as valueless, and death was regarded as the beginning of true life. In 1980 he explained:
"The natural world is the lowest
element, the scum of creation. What is decisive is beyond: The
divine world that is eternal.
This latter world is accessible to martyrs. Their death is no death, but merely the transition from this world to the world beyond, where they will live eternally in splendour. Whether the warrior wins the battle or loses it and dies a martyr, in both cases his victory is assured: Either a mundane victory, or a spiritual one." If one knows the background to this theological mindset one comes to
acknowledge that there is a real danger for some of Khomeini's followers at least to contemplate the sacrifice of Iran itself, if necessary. The Ayatollah also said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.
For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Now obviously we are dealing here with a fantasy ideology in which reality is purposely ignored. The laws of reason have been excluded for the cause
of Allah, and Zionism and Israel
becomes the scapegoat. It could even be argued that Ahmadinejads
Holocaust tirades prove that he is obsessed with the subject, not for the refusal to come to terms with the fact that it actually took place, but because he is secretly fascinated by the possibility of a second (final) Holocaust.

James Hicks

Augustus ... and a new seven to start off the first week.

James Hicks

Roger: I liked your "During the Cold War" comment: logical and concise.

Carl

Dixon, you are a fool and a cowardly liar. I will point out to people that your only means of argument is to lie about what has been posted.

Derek BLADES

Dixon, 26 March wrote "The problem is, if Iran does try to attack Israel and gets struck back, …”

Contributions to this blog grow weirder by the day. What possible reason does "Dixon" have for expecting Iran to attack Israel? Please remind me when was the last time that Iran attacked another country. While you are plumbing the depths of what passes for your brain to find an answer, you might also want to remind me when Israel last attacked another country.

If Iran really does intend to acquire a nuclear weapon, its only purpose can be to level the playing field (a little) with Israel and her hundred plus nuclear weapons.

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith wrote "The French, notably, sent the Jews to the camps without being asked, as they have now admitted."
Regrettably, Ms Smith’s comments are typical of the deplorable level of debate on this blog. For "the French" read”ministers of the Vichy government". To attribute that crime to "the French" smacks of the worst kind of racism. Many French people in both the occupied and free territories sheltered and protected Jewish families. Anti-Semitism in France during the occupation was confined to a small lunatic fringe.

Adam B.

Blades, Iran attacks another country - Israel - all the time. It does this through its in situ proxies, Hamas and Hizbollah, both of which it funds, trains and arms. It has also supplied IED's to Shia insurgents in Iraq - who in turn have killed British and American troops.Indeed, Iranian military personnel have been deployed in Shia regions in order to train in the use of these IED's.

I am surpised at your inability to see the likeihood of an Iranian attack. Do we really need to reiterate Ahmadinejad's speeches? He has repeatedly claimed that Israel will "soon disappear", has called for the annihilation of an entire country from the map repeatedly, and denies the Holocaust whilst preparing for the next. This all in the light of his religious zeal - he believes in the necessary destruction of the world.

I am afraid your assertion that a "lunatic fringe" was involved in the rounding up and deportation of French Jews during the war is ahistoric revisionism. The French state carried out these deportations -(not exactly a "fringe", and neither were they "lunatic)" before even being asked to do so by the German authorities. Indeed, the French police were so adept at these arrests and round-ups that the Germans tried to slow the process, as they couldn't cope with the rapidity and efficiency displayed. Whilst it is true that there were incredibly brave souls who either took part in resistance activities or hid Jews, there was a large minority who actively collaborated. It is a rather taboo subject even today in France.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades asserted:
"If Iran really does intend to acquire a nuclear weapon, its only purpose can be to level the playing field (a little) with Israel and her hundred plus nuclear weapons."

Based only on his premise that previous regimes in Iran have not attacked another State in recent history, he asserts that the current regime in Iran will therefore never attack another State, namely Israel.

The actions of previous Iranian regimes neither constrains nor predicts the actions of the present regime. The present regime in Iran are human beings with free will, who will act as they think fit according to their own Islamist ideology.

Derek Blades lamented in his next comment, what is, in his opinion "the deplorable level of debate on this blog". His own contribution certainly merits being described as deplorable.

wonderer

But is it only Ahmedinejad? I have certainly read comparably bellicose statements attributed to allegedly moderate Iranian cleric-politicians, ie Khatami and Rafsanjani in recent years.

Derek BLADES

It is truly wearisome, and probably useless, to correct any of the lies and misinformation that pass for debate on this blog. Adam B (29 March) asks "Do we really need to reiterate Ahmadinejad's speeches? He .... denies the Holocaust..."

It is true that Ahmadinejad has questioned the extent of the Holocaust and he organised an international conference in Tehran to debate the issue. He publicly accepted the conclusion from that meeting that the Holocaust happened so he is not in any sense a Holocaust denier.

What Ahmadinejad did, and still does, is to question why the Palestinian people have had to suffer for crimes committed in Europe by Germany and its allies. That is a not a silly question. Perhaps "Adam B" would like to answer it? Please take your time old chap. I know serious thought is not your strong suit.

Isaac Bickerstaff

"Israel is unique in the Middle East, because it is the only country facing a concerted effort to destroy it. It should never relinquish its nuclear deterrent - until such a threat disappears."

This is a succinct statement of the official rationale for Israel's nuclear deterrent. It is clearly an argument of some force. But, in early discussions about deterrence, Rabin, Allon and others argued that nuclear weapons were an expensive distraction from the conventional weapons that were sufficient to meet any attack (events from 1948 onwards have supplied them with evidence). Since these early discussions, Israel has acquired an ever more baroque array of conventional weapons which have made Israel's military dominance ever more starkly obvious. The ever more baroque array of nuclear weapons have therefore arguably been unnecessary for deterrence, but fortuitously have proved very effective for cowing the neighbours.

The diplomatic row between Israel and the US continues at a tangent to the real world. The latest is a senior colleague of Netanyahu's telling the press that the US administration's policy is "diseased and insane". What is this policy? what has the Administration been requesting? - that Israel temporarily abide by the international law it claims to observe, while the US tries to cobble together a "peace settlement" it hopes will reduce the threat to its own security (reported by Gen. Petraeus) while continuing to guarantee Israel's. And what does this "peace settlement" look like? - we already know. Look at any “third world” country pacified by the US. You will find a privileged elite who get the money, the weapons and the power, who in return keep the population down ( “collaborators”, you might say). The bulk of the population you will find live in abject hopeless poverty, and dutifully vote at regular, or irregular, intervals.. In Palestine, the work is almost done. All that is needed is a modicum of "contiguity" to allow the hired thugs of the PA to “sell” the deal (or, as Arafat put it in implementing the similar Oslo pacification, avoid getting a bullet through the head). So what on earth is all this talk of "appeasement", betrayal and a "final solution"? Is it that Israel wants a US guarantee of its security, a PA willing to "police" the ghettoes, AND all the land it deems necessary to expropriate?

Matt Pryor

Probably shouldn't even bother replying to Blades, it's clearly here to annoy people and it just encourages it.

However, in reply to its previous post, it thinks it is acceptable for the leader of a country to publicly call into question the precise nature of probably the single most horrific and traumatising event to happen to a people in all of human history.

Yet it doesn't seem capable of understanding just how offensive and sick this is to those that survived that event (or anyone else of sound and reasonable mind for that matter).

If we debate the matter further with it, it will probably tell us that it wasn't just Jews that were murdered in the holocaust, but also gays and gypsies. Therefore somehow that makes it unreasonable for Jewish people to continue to be affected by it today, and unreasonable for anyone to take offence to Ahmadi's dangerous, nasty, vitriolic ranting. We shouldn't pay attention to his threats to Israel either. It's all just a misunderstanding (or a long series of inexplicable mistranslations). We should all just stop whining, ignore it, and hope it goes away.

It won't. It will get worse.

If Ahmadi was a friend of Israel, a supporter of the Jewish state, and sympathetic to the enormous injustices and suffering that have befallen Judaism in the 20th century then perhaps he would have some place in a civilised debate about the inconveniences that Palestinians endure. He's not, he isn't, therefore it's none of his damned business. The Palestinian cause to him is a political banner to stir up hatred against Israel, as it is will all radical Islamists.

As for Britain's reason for fighting WWII, let's just let that be shall we? Our aims weren't entirely altruistic, it was a matter of survival. The fact is that we fought, we didn't capitulate to Hitler, and as a result of that millions of lives were saved. All of us owe a huge debt of gratitude to those men and women that fought to free Europe. Wishing things had been done differently gets us no-where and detracts from the current crisis.

Matt Pryor

Note that Bickerstaff uses language that is deliberately cruel and insensitive. The reason it does this is to shock and silence people that might take offence at it.

Final solution?
Ghettos?

What kind of sick individual would post this stuff? Someone that gets a kick out of rubbing peoples' nose in their peoples' suffering?

Bickerstaff is clearly so incensed by Melanie's blog that it feels the need to insult and offend her regular readers.

I think such "people" - although that is a generous use of the word - are probably best ignored, and continue discussing the blog amongst yourselves.

Adam B.

Blades, so you've dropped the guff about a lunatic fringe in France? At least that's one step forward.

Ahmadinejad is on record as stating in 2005:

"They have fabricated a legend, under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."

What's that say to you Blades?

In Der Spiegel he also said "there are two opinions on it."

The very fact that Ahmadinejad invited such luminaries as the Ku Klux Klan to debate the fate of the Jews in Europe, and to "question" the Holocaust in any sense, is lost on you. The fact that in conjunction with this sham of a conference he organized a Holocaust cartoon competition to be displayed in an "art" gallery in Tehran (the winner had Anne Frank in bed with Hitler - how sensitive). And to top it all, your assertion that the Arabs are paying the price of Hitler - it is the Jews who have paid the price of the Arab world's obsessive intent to destroy the Jews, a genocidal war which predates the Second World War - you would know that if you had any rudimentary historical knowledge. It may also interest you to learn of Palestinian complicity in the Holocaust in the shape of the Mufti of Jerusalem, who not only spent the war as a guest of Hitler in Berlin, but also toured the death camps, extolled the virtues of the Final Solution and established an SS division in Bosnia made up of Muslim soldiers.

Blades, you really need to take a hard look at yourself.

Adam B.

Matt, I understand your point, but lies as articulated by Blades need to be countered. They must never be allowed to stand unopposed.

SayItLikeItIs

Derek, your posts stand out in this commentary. Specifically, you consistently seem to attack anyone who disagrees with you by referring to them as stupid, misinformed liars. I don't know you any better than I know Matt Pryor, Linda Smith or Adam B. who upset you so much, but their posts are a lot better presented, reasoned and ... well, 'balanced'!
Stop hurling insults at those who disagree with you. Try to control your personal attacks on others and focus instead on reasoned 'give-and-take' debate....You may not win every point by doing so, but you'll certainly be taken a great deal more seriously. Even better, it'll lead to at least a 50% improvement in the standards of the debate, the quality of which clearly vexes you.
If you're not interested in doing this, why not try out another sites/blogs where unhinged insults are considered to be the essence of any decent debate.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Matt Pryor
March 29th, 2010 7:37pm
For the record, the "final solution" obscenity was the blogger's own felicitous phrase. As for "ghettoes", that is precisely what they are. Your indignation is wholly misplaced.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Matt Pryor
March 29th, 2010 7:37pm
In addition, you appear to have what may simply be a nervous tick: you question the humanity of anyone you disagree with ("people" for people is puerile).

You also appear to be selective in your ethics. "the inconveniences that Palestinians endure" is a wonderful locution. It is indeed inconvenient to catch a falling bomb or stop a bullet. It is inconvenient to be detained without charge. It is inconvenient to make do with insufficient water, to live in squalor, to be confined and humiliated. Inconvenient!

Isaac Bickerstaff

Derek BLADES
March 29th, 2010 6:40pm
While I am in harrumphing mode: if you wish to introduce some subtlety and nuance, not to say realism, into the discussion of Iran, surely Ahmadinejad's bugbear about the Holocaust is not the place to start. That he called a conference at all is offense enough. The only remedy would be an abject whole-hearted apology for his ignorance or cynicism. I have read transcripts of conversations with senior members of the Iranian government who, weary and bemused, hazard a guess that he persists simply because it causes such outrage in Israel and the West and because it reminds people that the West is not the bastion of all things moral it makes itself out to be. I have also seen surveys of public opinion in Iran. Those who know about it appear to consider it a European crime with little bearing on their own lives. He also does the Palestinians no favours. The Holocaust played a big part in the way Israel finally came into being, but it has little to do with a settlement of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, beyond going some way to explaining why Israel is wholy justified in requiring absolutely cast-iron guarantees of its security which do not require it to rely on others. His antics allow Israel pseudo-justification for avoiding sincere negotiation.

Adam B.

Isaac, all the "inconveniences" to which you refer are a direct consequence of Hamas' actions. If they didn't fire rockets and send suicide bombers, there wouldn't be military action to stop it. If they spent some of the huge amounts of aid money (more than any sub-Saharan African country - despite the need not being nearly so great)on building new housing, roads and hospitals, instead of buying arms from Iran and supporting their terror network (including the fascistic governance of Gaza by Hamas henchmen), then perhpas things would improve. There comes a point when Western leftists need to stop this knee jerk blaming of Israel for everything. In short, it is time the Palestinians took a little responsibility for themselves.

phil

Matt Pryor
March 29th, 2010 7:37pm

You are so right ,I have asked both Adam and Linda many times to just ignore both blades and bickerstaff ,they are merely agent provocateurs and are being fuelled by the answers they get -they are not here to suggest solutions to the problems of the area but just to cause aggravation ,if I were a psychiatrist perhaps I would know why they do it ,neither ever answer a straight question ,so even if Adam thinks he needs to reply maybe we can persuade him to try our way -just ignore them ,they will get bored .Adam,s way has been done to death for years without any change from the blade in particular ,who has been caught out telling untruths many times ,so much as I admire the indefatigability of Adam I think it is time he tried our way - ,bickerstaff just wastes our time .

Isaac Bickerstaff

Adam B.
March 30th, 2010 10:41am
It is time you did a bit more research on the history of the West Bank and Gaza under Israeli occupation. I get the distinct impression that many here deliberately avoid too detailed a knowledge of what actually goes on there.

Matt Pryor

Isaac BIkerstaff:

Yes questioning your humanity was probably a bit rude, and I offer my apologies. I'm sure that like most people on this blog you are here because you care about the situation.

Now onto your next post.

All of those things you mention could be solved tomorrow if Palestinian leaders were prepared to a) make peace with Israel and b) establish principals of good governance.

With regards to water deprivation, it is not an isolated problem to Palestinians - it is an arid region. You may be interested to know that the Oslo accords covered this and Israel was required to provide a certain amount of clean water to the Palestinian territories in exchange for the PA agreeing to sort out its sewage problems. The international community provided the PA with a large sum of money for a new sewage treatment plant, which was never built. The money went missing. Israel continues to provide the PA with more water than it is obliged to, and the PA have not to date sorted out their sewage problem, which also affects Israelis (it leaks into the water table). You can verify this information by visiting the Israeli Water Authority website and reading the information there.

Nonetheless I have not heard of anyone dying of thirst in any of the disputed territories, have you?

As for the risk of getting killed, wounded or arrested, yes that can happen if you throw stones at men with guns. Simple solution is to not throw stones at men with guns. If I go to Heathrow airport and start throwing stones at armed police, what do you think would happen to me? Why is the situation any different?

As for poverty, lack of infrastructure, etc, both Gaza and (West Bank / Judea and Samara) have been autonomous since 1993. 17 years. During that time there has been substantial international investment and more than a little help from Israel, and yet still those conditions persist and continue to get worse. It would take a very strong argument to convince me that the world should not be holding Palestinian leaders to account for conditions, instead of Israel.

Linda Smith

Isaac Bickerstaff - and Derek Blades - it is about time you both did a bit more historical research:

By the beginning of the World War II, bilateral cooperation between Iran and Germany had become extremely strong. In 1940, Germany accounted for 47,1 percent of all Iranian exports and 42,9 percent of imports.[6] Eighty percent of all machinery in the country came from Germany. But that is not all that was imported: at the same time, European antisemitic ideology was brought to Tehran in Farsi via a Berlin-based short-wave radio transmitter.....

It was understood that German-style antisemitism would have little resonance in Iran. “The broad masses lack a feeling for the race idea,” explained the propaganda expert of the German embassy in Tehran. He therefore laid “all the emphasis on the religious motif in our propaganda in the Islamic world. This is the only way to win over the Orientals.”[12]
But how exactly could Nazi Germany, of all countries, conduct a religious propaganda campaign? Ettel had an idea.

“The way to directly connect up with Shi’ite ideas is through the treatment of the Jewish question, which the Muhammedan perceives in religious terms and which, precisely for this reason, makes him susceptible to National Socialism on religious grounds.” Just as hatred of Jews would provide the point of entry into the Shi’ite faith, so religion would serve as the natural medium for the propagation of Jew-hatred. “A way to foster this (anti-Jewish) development would be to highlight Muhammad’s struggle against the Jews in ancient times and that of the Führer in modern times,” Ettel recommended to the Foreign Office. “Additionally, by identifying the British with the Jews, an exceptionally effective anti-English propaganda campaign can be conducted among the Shi’ite people.”

Ettel even picked out the appropriate Koranic passages: firstly, sura 5, verse 82: “Truly you will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans”; and, secondly, the final sentence of chapter 2 of Mein Kampf: “In resisting the Jew, I do the work of the Lord.” “By successfully bringing the country’s clergy under the sway of German propaganda, we can win over broad layers of the popular masses,” Ettel wrote in February 1941.[13]

...Among the regular listeners to this material was a man of whom the world was later to hear much more: Ruhollah Khomeini.... Many mullahs and talabehs would gather at his home, often on the terrace, in the evenings to listen to Radio Berlin [= Radio Zeesen] and the BBC.”[17]....

Research on the impact of the Nazi’s radio propaganda in Iran has just begun and many additional discoveries can be expected. What we can conclude today is that this radio propaganda changed the perception of the so-called Jewish danger in two respects. Firstly, Radio Zeesen radicalized the hatred of Jews by fusing early Islamic Jew-hatred with the myth of the Jewish world conspiracy.

In 1963, twenty years later, these Nazi seeds bore fruits when Khomeini enriched his anti-Shah campaign with anti-Jewish slogans. Now his religious warning cry “Attack on Islam” was replaced by the antisemitic battle cry “Jews and foreigners wish to destroy Islam!” “Remind the people of the danger posed by Israel and its agents”, he ordered his supporters in Tehran and elsewhere. “Recall and explain all the catastrophes inflicted upon Islam by the Jews and the Baha’is.” Khomeini’s most important book, The Islamic State, published in 1971, is full of antisemitic invective. “It is the Jews who were the first to begin with anti-Islamic propaganda and ideological conspiracies,” he says in his foreword. “And that continues, as you see, until the present day.” Thus, by connecting Mohammad’s story of the seventh century with the present time, he unwittingly follows Ettel’s concept.

The second way in which radio propaganda changed the perception of the “Jewish danger” was that Radio Zeesen propagated the kind of genocidal anti-Zionism which is prevalent today. We have to analyse the revival of this ideology, keeping in mind that no other Muslim country between 1906 and 1979 had a more enlightened religious leadership, a leadership that also accepted Iran’s excellent relationship with Israel. As early as 1967, however, Khomeini started to preach a genocidal hatred against the Jewish state. It is the “duty” of all Muslims, he told his followers during that year, “to annihilate unbelieving and inhuman Zionism … The duty of the Palestinian people is the duty of every Muslim even in the most distant lands.” He also insisted on a comprehensive boycott of Israel: “The whole Islamic nation must know that whoever deviates … will be considered an enemy of Islam and the Muslims.[18] ...

....It is true that Ahmadinejad has received, and even embraced, some members of the Jewish renegade sect Neturei Karta. It is also true that some Iranian synagogues are open. However, what is of more importance is that firstly, even before Israel was founded, a particular stream in Iranian Islam had fallen prey to the demonizing delusions of the Nazis. Secondly, the leaders and adherents of this stream views the world through a lens with two superimposed distorting filters: one of early Islamic Jew-hatred and the other of modern antisemitism. Finally, Ahmadinejad’s anti-Jewish statements today resemble the statements of the Nazis.

It is not the technology that makes the Iranian nuclear programme so dangerous, but the ideological context within which it arises. For the first time since the splitting of the atom, we find the destructive force of the bomb linked to the fury of a holy anti-Jewish war."

Read the full article here:
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/iranian-antisemitism-stepchild-of-german-national-socialism

Isaac Bickerstaff

Matt Pryor
March 30th, 2010 11:54am
My response to Adam B. applies.

As an illustration: the water so kindly supplied (which allows each individual much less than the World Health Organization minimum requirement) comes from aquifers in what international law explicitly designates as illegally occupied territory. Israel's Water Authority has warned that its over-drilling has polluted with sea water the sources of fresh water within Israel's borders.

As for the rest, the "making peace", the "autonomy", the killing, I think you should go study (much of the necessary information has long been readily available from the Israeli press).

One final point, if you had read what I said, instead of waxing indignant about the blogger's inappropriate choice of words, you would know that I am no supporter of the PA, quite the contrary. I agree with you that the Fatah leaders should be held to account, not instead of Israel, but as well as - they are after all doing Israel's work.

Gil

Isaac Bickerstaff, you come across as an intelligent person. Therefore, one has to wonder why you feel the need to respond to Derek Blades in the soft spoken manner you did.

It's clear that Blades is a troll with antisemitic views. Yet, you seem to indulge him.

Regarding your comments on Israeli nuclear deterrence: Israel, being geographically miniscule, can afford to lose a war only once. And then it's over for the existence of an independent, functioning Jewish polity. There are many Arab states and they can take losses as the historical record shows, yet survive.

The Israeli nuclear force (if indeed exists, probably does) is there as a deterrent. The 'bomb in the basement'. The weapon that prevented Syria in '73 from crossing a 'Red Line'.

The fact that Israel didn't destroy the Egyptian 3rd Army in '73 when militarily it would have been able to do so due to US pressure is notwithstanding its nuclear deterrent. So much for Israel 'cowing' its neighbours.

The issue is Israel being a client state of the US, contrary to what the antisemites say.

Isaac Bickerstaff

Matt Pryor
March 30th, 2010 11:54am

"Yes questioning your humanity was probably a bit rude, and I offer my apologies. I'm sure that like most people on this blog you are here because you care about the situation."

I'm sorry, I had meant to say thank you for the apology. I believe you are one of the "most people" you describe.

Matt Pryor

Isaac, you must be aware that in a dry country that supports ~10 million people it is not a case of simply drawing the water you need from the river. There is a huge infrastructure in place to treat and recycle water, as there is in the rest of the developed world. That infrastructure was built by Israel and Israelis pay the vast majority of the cost of maintaining it. The situation remains that the PA has not fulfilled its obligations under Oslo while Israel exceeds its obligations.

I agree with you that the Israeli government has a part to play in improving the situation, and it is trying to. The main responsibility however must go to the people that claim to govern and represent the Palestinians, and with the Arab nations that caused this entire problem when they conspired to invade Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

And the PA does the USA's work, not Israel's.

Charlotte

The IDF broadcasting on You Tube, presented by Capt. Avichai Adraee, an Israeli officer speaking Arabic, showing and explaining in full clarity what is really going on in Gaza and how Hamas terrorists operate from the midst of civilian neighborhoods, schools and mosques and how they used a United Nations school as shelter while firing mortar bombs at Israeli soldiers, thus endangering Palestinian civilians.

However, You Tube wants to remove this video by using the excuse that not too many people are logging in. So please watch the video once, twice or more and also forward this e-mail to as many people as can also log in. Thus the IDF will be able to have its voice heard.

Just this one time, please send this mail to your entire list of friends, foes, distant relatives and acquaintances. This rally is most important as the Arab propaganda machine has cranked up and stands to completely drown out Israel's position. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sznMP3dnCg&feature=PlayList&p=24B34659

Isaac Bickerstaff

Matt Pryor
March 30th, 2010 1:35pm
The Israelis invest in the infrastructure to extract the water they now depend on from aquifers in territory explicitly designated as occupied territory under the international law Israel professes to observe, and you say this is okay because Israel pays for the infrastructure it uses for the extraction... it's a bit like saying the bank robber was within his rights because he supplied his own gun.

I assume when you say that Israel is fulfilling its obligations under the Oslo Agreement that you refer only to its supply of sufficient water to supply considerably less than what the WHO stipulates as the minimum for health. One of Israel's other undertakings had to do with building settlements...

There is a wider point about Oslo and its place in the "peace process" of the last forty years. Israel has sought to expropriate land piecemeal (it attracts less attention that way); to concentrate the remaining Palestinian population in a series of separate cantons, and especially to divide Gaza from the West Bank; and to install Palestinian collaborators to continue the dirty work of pacifying the population (it attracts less opprobrium for Israel). In this sense, the "peace process" is close to completion.

You say the PA is doing the work of the US. It is presumably mere coincidence (close cooperation between Israel and the US notwithstanding) that the work it does for the US has dovetailed so neatly with the interests of Israel.

"The main responsibility however must go to the people that claim to govern and represent the Palestinians, and with the Arab nations that caused this entire problem when they conspired to invade Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973." - Once again I have to say that you should take the time to study the history. The only way to begin to understand it is by reading scholars from across the spectrum, not just those you find ideologically congenial.

Adam B.

Thank you Charlotte. With almost one million views, it makes no sense for Youtube to say it hasn't got enough viewers!

Carl

Charlotte, that is just Israeli propaganda. Why do you think that they have to use it?

Adam B.

Because, Carl, to counter the endless deluge of lies and distortions (propaganda in case you didn't notice) aimed at Israel.

Carl

No Adam B, it is to attempt to cover up Israel's brutal behaviour towards the Palestinians.

Adam B.

Carl, did you see the video? It shows how Hamas uses its civilian population from which to fight behind - the same antisemitic Hamas terror group for which you have expressed admiration.

I suppose fighting behind civilians is OK?

Carl

Adam B - why on earth would I watch Israeli propaganda? If you don't recall, the IDF denied firing white phosphorous shells at civilians until they were exposed by the international media. The IDF and their spokesmen are not credible commentators.

Adam B.

er no Carl, they admitted white phosphorous was used, within international law. Meanwhile, Hamas broke international law by firing indiscriminate weapons at civilians. The racist Hamas you admire.

It must annoy you that Israel dares to defend itself.

arya irani

Why anyone expect the so called free world leader to do something about this Evil Islamic Regime of Terrorists in Iran? Wasn't this exactly what America and Britain together with their European Gangsters created in 1979 in first place?