The club of tyranny’s Falked tongue

Joshua

The correct comparison is between Richard Falk and Julius Streicher.

Beedeekay.

I do hope David Cameron follows John McCain's lead on creating a union of democracies.

The U.N., which JFK once referred to as "our last best hope", is now nothing more than a repository of hatred and bigotry. Its demise is long overdue.

Hereford

Couldn't agree more. The UN was a busted flush years ago, but has moved to being an anti democracy, anti west, anti american mouthpiece for the enemies of the free world.
I would joyously welcome McCain's idea. It's about time that the West stood up and said that our beliefs are RIGHT and their beliefs are WRONG, then acted on it. Time is getting short.

Tony S

I knew you would have something to say about this disgraceful individual and how right you are to draw the issue in to the wider problem that is the UN itself. I wonder what the candidates on the Democratic side in the US would say if asked about a 'Union of Democracies'. It would be an interesting question.

Verity

Frankly, I don't think a "union of democracies" is workable, frankly. We'd have to decide who to let in, and given that, with the exception of China, every country poses as a democracy, it would never get off the ground. Weeding out dictatorships disguised with "elections" and fighting the cases against them would take years. And little by little, as we know, once the left got elected to a government of a member country, they would begin pushing for "greater inclusion" for dictators and thugs.

So, no to the idea.

More realistic is a formal Anglosphere. That is, countries where English is the first languag and whose legal system is English Common Law.

Frankly, having the United States, India, Oz, Canada, Malaysia, Singapore, NZ - all successful economies, all with disciplined militaries - in our club would serve us best. As it would best serve the other members.

The Anglosphere could admit Associate Members, at its discretion but not by right. I.e., the Scandinavian countries, Holland, Germany, France, Poland, Mexico and a couple of others. But they would remain Associates in perpetuity.

The engine would be the Anglosphere, and anyone who doesn't like it is welcome not to apply.

Robert Whiston

Whatever the merits, pros and cons, of Israeli policies it surely shares the 'busted flush' status with the UN (referred to), for without billions of US dollar aid it would not be able to function. Is it therefore a country, part of a country or an independent country ?
If it was an independent country it would have to balance its books and encroachments into Palestine would prove too expensive.
Why does America, which says it wants peace in the region, side step knocking heads together, or in this case, step on the money supply ?
The IRA bombing campaign has also been mentioned. Where was Israeli comment when the IRA was active in the UK ?
Finally, which Irish or IRA politicians were targeted, assassinated, strafed and/or buzz bombed by circling helicopters when Britain was seen to be ‘the occupation force’ ? How often did UK forces cross the border to pursue its enemy, to take reprisals and demolish homes and farms etc ?
Why didn't they ?
Having worked after the War in factories with Poles, Czechs or Slavs, I heard their experience of reprisals under Nazi occupation.
Tolerance, even of fanatics is sometimes the hardest task but the most profitable of all.

Soreofhing

Verity has rejected the idea of a union of democracies very logically. The idea is a lead tennis ball.
How about following Melanie's line of reasoning and do away with the United Nations altogether.
We could replace it with The United Pax Americana.
American law would reign supreme throughout the world, private gun ownership would be obligatory and criticism of Israel would be a capital offence.

alan stoddart

LInk to BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7335875.stm

The vote on the second resolution for the Iraq War showed the limitations of the UN...countries (Russia, France, Germany) voting for national interest rather than 'universal values or morality' which completely neuters the UN as a body that enforces human rights or the rule of any kind of international law if it can be over ridden by national interest...the US was therefore correct to carry on regardless and take unilateral action against Saddam.

As Woodrow Wilson said: 'Right is more precious than peace, the world must be made safe for democracy.'

Ann

"encroachments into Palestine" - on which planet is this individual living? There is no country called 'Palestine'.

"Where was Israeli comment when the IRA was active in the UK?" - and how exactly was it Israel'a place to make ANY comment, pray?

Clearly, you come here to vent your hatred of Israel. What a sad person.

ahad ha'amoratzim

Robert Whiston, the American aid has been primarily in the form of loan guaranties, which cost the US nothing. Israel has repaid every one of those loans. Many of the loans are earmarked for the purpose of American military equipment, so the US benefits economically, as well as getting a free testing ground for its latest hardware. In return, the US gets to tell Israel not to defend itself, and gets to force Israel to make things easier for those who are trying to wipe it off the map.

Your IRA analogy is beyond silly. The IRA sought the end of British rule over Ulster, and the severance of Ulster from the UK. The IRA did not deny the status of the UK as an independent country and did not pledge itself to the end of British self-rule or the extermination of all Brits -- or even all Englishmen. Nor did they set up rocket launchers in civilian neighborhoods and launch thousands of rockets into England in a matter of months.

Verity

I thas to be the Anglosphere. We have the best countries and the best laws.

Others can apply to be associate members and we will make the decision about whether to admit them. Even if we admit them, they don't get a vote. Ever.

This way the world will be run rationally and unexcitingly.

Edmund Standing

Are you aware that he's also a 9/11 conspiracy nut as well?

He even wrote the forward to loony theologian David Ray Griffin's 9/11 conspiracy theory book, 'The New Pearl Harbor'.

Anne K

Good news everyone, you can all stop panicking. The Israeli Foreign Ministry has announced it will bar entry to Falk.

See here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3529347,00.html

Jack

If the UN is our "last best hope", then we are virtually without hope. But while hope still exists, lets get busy on this Free Democracies Forum or Union and start telling the tyrannies and despots and bigots and racists and anti-Semites and Islamists of the world that "we are tired and fed-up and we are not going o take it anymore".

Michael B

Falk is a buffoon, an intransigent, morally confused and malevolent buffoon.

The U.N. is perhaps the single most prominent indicator that far too many are not responsibly engaged and instead content themselves with the status quo and the PR and gloss which fronts that status quo, no matter how debased it has become. The oil-for-bribes scandal; a litany of U.N. based sex scandals; moral inversions of monumental proportions, such as is reflected in the OIC's - I mean the UN's - approach to Israel; the UN's absurdly tragic and farcical "human rights" council; the systematic and even enthusiastic cooptation of UN agencies such as the UNRWA and the aforementioned UNHRC; Durban; etc., etc.

At least McCain is thinking in the right direction, it does little good to criticize the UN if its status quo, morally inverted councils are simply left on auto-pilot, or whatever the better expression might be. But it's long past time for mere thinking, some action in the manner McCain is thinking is what is necessary, absolutely necessary. If people were more responsibly engaged there would be a hue and cry among the representative democracies of the world and some changes, some fundamental and institutional changes, would be in the making.

Joe

If the UN is our "last best hope"...

Then what is Babylon 5 for?

Terry

Both the US and Israel should withdraw from the UN. In Israel's case it is like being a member of the Nazi Party. The only loss to the US will be a downturn in the hooker trade in Manhatten.

Dave M

The world is full of educated idealists who spend so much time in narrow academic circles, they seemingly lose the ability to connect with harsh reality. Israel has always been a target by such individuals but Russia has likewise been targeted over its decision to use force against terrorists in Chechnya (after Moscow was bombed several times). What upsets these idealists is any use of force for motives of self defence. They fail to grasp that if the Palestinians adopted zero tolerance of terrorists and suicide bombers in their mids't, Israel wouldn't be carrying out air strikes. Likewise if foreigners hadn't been kidnapped in Chechnya or Moscow subjected to bombings, Putin would never have sent in the troops. Incidentally, the use by Islamic terrorists of children as human shields in Beslan would indicate Putin was right to act forcefully. Israel (like Russia or the U.S.) also has every right to use the military to protect Israeli citizens, as much as these intellectuals may wring their hands and make far fetched comparisons with Hitler.

Stephen Green

The problem with a Union of Democracies is that there are ever fewer democracies around.
Members of the European Union have been conned by their political establishments to surrender most of their democratic rights to the unelected bureaucy of the European Commission (The only organ within the Union that can propose legislation - "he who writes the agenda holds the power").
To the extent that those countries retain an ever diminishing share of their former sovereignty the quality of the democracy is distorted by the degree to which the party system restricts true power to the party elite.
This equally applies to most, if not all, the remaining so called democracies.
I think we have to accept that the days of democracy are passed and we had better settle for the UN as which ever system a country has it ends up being run by rogues and vagabonds.

Stephen Green

A new "Anglosphere"? What a good idea. I could never understand in 1945 why I was not issued with a new school atlas showing Italy,Germany and Japan in red.
Its been downhill all the way since then.
We could even name Zimbabwi. I know. What about Rhodesia? And we could go back to pronouncing Kenya with a long "e".

Harry

The United Nations does so much damage to democracy because all the free speaking nations turn up often with one hand tied behind their backs because their own media are happy to chase news copy by criticising their own representatives to the nth degree, while the bullies turn up knowing they’ve no such problem because they muzzle any media criticism back at home.

Thus it is that so often when we see UN stories on the nightly news, we see silly people in preposterously coloured ties talking to Western diplomats at the UN spouting sentiments along the lines of: “Look at you, you didn’t compromise, aren’t you terrible?”

So people who don’t want to compromise with regimes that have no shred of credibility are made to look as if they’re being difficult. And the man in the foolish tie wears a smug grin knowing he’d never get away with such tomfoolery in the country whose cause he’s advocating.

At least a Union of Democracies would do away with the charade of pretending all the countries representatives have moral equivalence.

It’s an impression tyrants are happy to maintain and that cowardly Western journalists bolster – perhaps not always intentionally – by constantly running down the democracies they live in.

Frank Pulley

Stephen Green: You say,

"I could never understand in 1945 why I was not issued with a new school atlas showing Italy,Germany and Japan in red."

Quite! But add France to that. They didn't deserve to get their country back, either. Not sure about Holland, would give them the benefit of the doubt - notwithstanding Amsterdam, which is now the fundamental orifice of Europe. However, given the current state of Londonistan - we can hardly point the finger...

Ravi

Robert Whiston, I agree that the USA could do more to get Israel and the Palestinians together. They should stop sending Condi Rice who utters words that mean little and undertakes no action. The USA could solve this quite quickly by sending a battleship task force to Gaza and in a pincer movement with Israel they should destroy or arrest all terrorists. Then hand the country to Abbas to see hoiw he's going to cope. That way the West can save all the money it wastes every day in supporting Palestinians who don't want peace because they like the money for doing nothing. Why doesn't the USA stop sending billions to Egypt.

ahad ha'moratzim

Joe "Then what is Babylon 5 for?" Our last best hope for victory. Which is what we need to be concerned with.

Verity

Harry writes: "At least a Union of Democracies would do away with the charade of pretending all the countries representatives have moral equivalence. "

No. It wouldn't. That's what the corrupt, foul UN a rag box for.

If you had read what I had written above before racing to post, you would have seen that I noted that every country in the world styles itself a "democracy" of one kind or another.

This is how the UN failed.

We need to be joined at the hip to other sensible, rational countries, and that is the Anglosphere, based on English Common Law and the English language. We could be allied with other real democracies, like Norway, but only the real Anglosphere would have voting rights.

This would give us the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia, India, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, a couple of Carbibbean countries and that is all that is needed.

The point, Harry, is, no self-styled "democracies" and no countries with belief systems that are alien to our Anglo Saxon/Celtic standards.

Every murderous thug in the UN claims to represent a "democracy". The word means nothing. We have to get back to certainties, and that is our own folk, including those who have peacefully settled and integrated in our islands. As it would include those who have settled in the US,Canada, Oz, etc and bought into the English language and the principles of Anglo-Saxon Common Law. All the countries I have mentioned (save a couple of Caribbean ones) are wealthy and successful.

Ann

"we had better settle for the UN" - no, we had better not. What a silly idea. I'd rather be governed by British knaves and fools than by Arab and Chinese murderers. Hell, I'd rather be governed by Strasbourg-based knaves than by Arab and Chinese murderers.

Andy Gill

Falk said in 2007 "I regard Professor [Ward] Churchill’s scholarly work as having made major contributions in ethnic studies ... This assessment is reinforced by Churchill’s worldwide reputation, ..."

Professor Churchill was fired from his University three weeks later for "serious research misconduct", including plagiarism and fabricating information.

Birds of a feather?

Ann

If we are to believe the details in his Wikipedia biography, Ward Churchill emerges as a pathological fantasist and liar, one moreover who blames the victims of 9/11 for being murdered. A fitting companion for Falk, indeed.

YA

..quality of democracy is the derivative of culture. Even in bacterial colonies, one can find elements of "democracy". The idea to finish Israel is democratically supported by 99% of Muslims, does it seem more attractive because of this? Democracy works in specific cases, it is not panacea. Talk about liberalism, meritocracy, common sense, knowledge, sensitivity, compassion. Humanism. Not what "majority" wants. With plebs deciding, we would still live on a plane earth.

Robert Huff

GET THE U.N. OUT OF THE U.S.AND GET THE U.S. OUT OF THE U.N.

ajmalkov

My favorite comment on this came from another blog today:

The UN is Falk'd!

Wish I could take credit for it.

Mike

‘Isn’t it time the American public was shaken from its torpor’, and understand there is one very specific grievance that continues to fester in the minds and hearts of millions of Arab and Islamic people on this planet. And until that grievance is resolved the world will remain a very dangerous place, particularly for America and the people of these Isles. I can visualise most folk on this thread sharpening their pencils already, but it has to be said. The critical issue remains the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Therefore, it’s all very well for people like Melanie to endlessly condemn the work of the United Nations, but until such time as a just resolution of that conflict is realised – one that provides a homeland for the Palestinian people and security for Israel – it will be that much more difficult for America, the world’s only economic and military superpower, to bring together a truly committed coalition to fight terrorism. History shows us that ‘foreign’ military action against Islamic states always backfires and today it is breeding thousands of terrorists where once there were only a few dozen and inflaming a significant proportion of the planet’s population also. This is the strategy of Al Qaeda and its splinter groups and mustn’t be allowed to succeed.

The next US Administration in the White House must regain the initiative throughout the Middle East and pressure Israel to take the concrete steps necessary to provide justice for the Palestinian people. The Israeli government is incapable of taking such steps otherwise the conflict would have ended a long time ago. Israel prefers to see all its adversaries twist in the wind than in searching in good faith for a genuine peace while the mighty United States wrings its hands – impotently endorsing a situation in which Palestinian and Islamic rage grows and grows bringing terrible violence and horror not only to Palestinians and Israeli’s alike but to these shores also.

If it was simply a case of good vs evil, the righteous Israeli’s fighting for survival against the evil Arabs, it would be a cause worth supporting and enduring the hate of millions of people, but it isn’t like that. No one on this planet believes it apart from Israel and most folk on this blog! Europe doesn’t believe it; The Third World doesn’t believe it; most Americans don’t believe it and neither does the United Nations.

There has to be change. Only America has the power to broker the deal, if it doesn’t the future is very bleak indeed – for ALL of us. Meanwhile, Melanie it would help if you were to cease your sniping from the sidelines and bring a more responsible tone to your writing.

Ann

"idea to finish Israel is democratically supported by 99% of Muslims" - pure fantasy. There is nothing 'democratic' about a baying Nazi mob.

Frank Pulley

ajmalkov

"I wish I could take creddit for it.."

You just did. Now falkov malkov! :-)

epaminondas

The man is significant only in his appointment, how it occurred, and what it means about the organization he represents.

It should be clear that based on the intent of his warning, the Unites States has no place in the UN and the reverse.
This has been a long time coming.
The UN is simply not what was intended in 1945.
Collect the parking fines and send them on their way.
It is at heart, a racist organization, and now, a fully anti democratic and anti american one, and achieves NOTHING
Time for something else.

phil

Mike you really are indefatigable -I see you have been quoting frisk again on another thread -you seem to quote all his prejudiced writings as if they are the gospel -he only sees one side and so do you I am afraid -just answer me one or two questions ---why are Muslims killing each other all over the world ? do you really think it all will stop if the Israelis and Palestinians make peace ? do you think the Iraqis are murdering other in support of the Palestinians ?can I ask you about Bali?its endless isn't it ,but I,m willing to listen but please not from the pen of fisk

Stephen Fox

Verity, 'the world will be run rationally and unexcitingly.'
I wish.
I wish.

Harry

Sorry, Verity, how would an “Anglosphere” give nasty regimes any impetus to clean up their act?

I share your contempt for these leaders, but surely you give people nothing to aspire to, they won’t bother to aspire to anything?

Of course many countries style themselves as democracies that aren’t, but the way to prevent this fraud is to say: “If you don’t meet strict conditions for free and fair elections, your membership is void.”

How is “English Common Law and the English language” a starting point? It would be met with the cry that English imperialism is back.

You can create pressure on corrupt leaders in their own countries if their more democratic opponents are able to say to the public: “Look, these people simply aren’t playing fair, they can’t even meet the yardsticks of democracy set out by the Union of Democracies.”

A Union of Democracies would not be a magic wand, but it would be better than what we have now.

Mike

Phil: Sorry 'ole pal but you're wrong again. Not Fisk or anyone else I recognise.
I may very well be in the small minority posting on this site, but like Fisk, I'm on the side of Europe, the Third World, the UN, and not least most of America. All you have to do Phil is to raise yourelf out of the mire of all the silly bickering about comparing Israeli behaviour with that of their adversaries and do what you know to be right. It's simply the right thing to do.

roGER

The cheek of the UN!

How DARE they appoint someone to investigate Israel who is not approved by Israel?!?

Verity

Harry, Harry, Harry ... you have missed my point, and I thought I was writing with such clarity. "How would an Anglosphere give nasty regimes an impetus to clean up their act?"

Beats the hell out of me. Nasty regimes are the problem of the populations of those countries who allow nasty regimes to take root. Not. Our. Business.

Harry writes: "How is “English Common Law and the English language” a starting point? It would be met with the cry that English imperialism is back."

I am suggesting that those of us lucky enough to have English as our native language and Anglo Saxon Common Law as the basis of our legal system set up a private organisation. Far from being imperialistic, it would be for the purpose of keeping others, who don't qualify, out. I have already, above, named most countries that qualify. I don't care about dictatorships and rank regimes. If the Venezuelans vote for Chavez, let them. If they don't like him, let them get rid of him.

I would refer you to an excellent book by a writer who has thought all this through, and that is James Bennett, who wrote "Albion's Seedlings".

The rest of the world is still entitled to set up its own clubs, and the vilest and greediest regimes could remain in the UN - although this organisation would no longer be funded by America and would no longer by headquartered there.

Ann

"Israel prefers to see all its adversaries twist in the wind than in searching in good faith for a genuine peace" - this is a demonstration of such fundamental and malevolent ignorance of the conflict and its history, indeed of the ME as a whole, that there is little one can say in hope of denting such delusional self-assurance. Israel offered concession after concession - think Barak/Taba, think Gaza, think any other number of concessions. The Arabs rejected every single overture not just to a settlement, but even to serious negotiations. Every single time, their response was to ratchet up the violence.

Oh, and there is no 'Palestinian people', so it can't have a 'homeland'.

phil

mike i said you losing it so i checked --here is a little proof ,your post (war etc 13)FISK!!!!!(who you say you dont quote)

"There is no connection between Islam and "terror". But there is a connection between our occupation of Muslim lands and "terror". It's not too complicated an equation. And we don't need a public inquiry to get it right' Unquote.
From the pen of Robert Fisk.!!!
NOW PLEASE LETS GET THINGS RIGHT MIKE

Harry

“Not. Our. Business”? Would that it were, Verity. Would that it were.

The trouble is when you get rogue states allowing al-Qaeda to use their backyards for target practice, it already is our business – whether we like it or not.

They’re not likely to respect our borders. As for Hugo Chavez, haven’t his associates been trying to get their hands on nuclear bomb materials lately?

That is our business, I’m afraid. If you don’t go and weed the garden, the triffids will soon be all over your house.

Mike

Phil: Dear oh dear! YES, I have quoted Fisk from time to time on this site and on others but not always in connection with Isarel/Palestine but also on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey/Armenia. I've also quoted former BBC & ITV reporter Alan Hart from time to time not least because he interviewed Golda Meir so many times, the Israeli Cabinet thought he was her 'boy-friend'. Try again Phil - you may score a goal but you will have to do better than Arsenal did against L'pool the other night. (Sorry folks - private exchange of humour).

jzed

In U.S polls Israel is favored 3 to 1 over the Palestinians so how do Amercians figure in your equation Mike? And it surely could not be the JEWS!!!!!!!!There are not that many of them.

phil

Mike i am a utd fan (sorry guys)-I THINK YOU WOULD BE BETTER QUOTING ME RATHER THAN FISK you at least would get a less biased view and with my way peace actually could break out -his just stoke the flames and sadly you are passing them on -I envy your energy but you won,t get many customers on this site -well onwards to BARCA

Verity

Harry, I do not see your point. Rogue states are already allowing al-qaeda to use their back yards. What the Anglosphere would do about that would not be all sit down in the General Assembly of the UN and have a 10 hour session of listening to Third Worlders condemning us.

We would act alone, as the Anglosphere. Talking to religious fanatics and thugs is pointless, and giving them a platform on an equal footing with legitimate countries is absurd.

I misnamed James Bennett's book in one of my posts above. Apologies. His book is 'The Anglosphere Challenge'. He's posted a chunk of it free at (www.anglospherechallenge.com).

I feel the time for the serious consideration of an Anglosphere, which would be one organisation exclusively for Anglophone countries operating on Anglo-Saxon law, as a formal organisation. We could still be friendly with other countries, and trade with them, and even assist them, perhaps, but we would act at all times to suit the interests of the Anglophone world.

Ann

"How DARE they appoint someone to investigate Israel who is not approved by Israel?!?" -- let's explain this REALLY slowly: (a) the UN does not have sovereign powers to investigate ANYONE. (b) the pathetic jerk they appointed has already declared himself to be biased against Israel before he even started, thus ruling himself out.

paul stein

Verity - just for clarity, Malaysia is a somewhat limited democracy with racism enshrined in its constitution. Only a Malay (ergo a Muslim) can be president and there are strict quotas in the professions to ensure Malays have an artificial majority in them. Malays also have lower pass marks in exams than do non-Malays. The Chinese, Indian and Aboriginal peoples are legally discriminated against. Not so much of a democracy then.

Harvey

And happy 60th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre to you...

Eldad Sheib, of Lehi...

"Had it not been for Deir Yasin, half a million Arabs would be living in the state of Israel [in 1948]. The state of Israel would not have existed. We must not disregard this, with full awareness of the responsibility involved. All wars are cruel. There is no way out of that. This country will either be Eretz Israel with an absolute Jewish majority and a small Arab minority, or Eretz Ishmael, and Jewish emigration will begin again if we do not expel the Arabs one way or another".

Verity

Paul Stein - 'Just for clarity', where do I begin?

Although the father of the country, Dr Mahathir was not an indigene, he served the country, and guided it intelligently and with great sophistication. When he resigned, he left a wonderful, stable, rich country. So you were wrong.

Paul Stein -'Just for clarity' could you point out that "Malay" is not the term you are scrounging around for? It is 'Bhumiputera'. I find it it helpful, in an argument, to be precise in terms. Don't you?

"Malays also have lower pass marks in exams than do non-Malays." I believe you are trying to say Bhumiputeras, but don't know how to spell it. They do not routinely magically have lower marks. Some have higher marks. There is no denying, though, that some are given an advantage in passing exams which many would consider not just.

Paul Stein, just for clarity, everyone's vote counts for the same in Malaysia. And no need to capitalis "Aboriginal" because it's a generic noun, and the normal term is Bhumiputera. Or Bhumi.

Just for clarity, you understand.

Thanks for the sociology lesson, although I think you need a little more instruction before you begin posting on international sites.

Mike

Phil: Since we both want the same what is your 'way to peace'?

phil

Mike it really very simple-let them renounce terrorism and come to the peace table .and I have told you this ages ago -if you have forgotten I mentioned some Arab heroes KING HUSSEIN AND PRESIDENT SADAT they were real people who cared for their citizens -I am sure you must know EGYPT,ISRAEL AND JORDAN are at peace now

KateA

Mike to Phil: "Since we both want the same what is your 'way to peace'?"

From a careful reading of both poster's contributions, this is a NOT so subtle, manipulation of language in order to facilitate further dissemination of the 'word according to Fisk'!

The essential problem with both (Mike and Fisk)_ is, of course, ROMANTIC Arabist infatuation - the Laurence of Arabia tendency. These are the people who insist on cultural and moral relativism, despite all historical, philosophical and psychological documented research evidence to the contrary; despite huge numerical disparity between Jews and Arabs. SO, in the face of centuries of Jewish persecution, these, the indefatigable cultural and moral relativists, INSIST the 'solution' to the 'problem' of fundamentalist Islamic imperialism is in Israel's gift. Wow!!

Another member, of course, of the club of blinkered arrogance is, Falk; in a 2007 article “Slouching toward a Palestinian Holocaust” he writes:

“It is especially painful for me, as an American Jew, to feel compelled to portray the ongoing and intensifying abuse of the Palestinian people by Israel through a reliance on such an inflammatory metaphor as ‘holocaust’ … [But] is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with this criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.”

Yes, 'irresponsible', self-aggrandising (the bathetic 'good' - please let me join - Jew syndrome), and a shameless treachery.

REALITY: “At the inception of the [Israeli] occupation [of Gaza and West Bank], conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbours … During the 1970’s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world.... Although GNP per capita grew some what more slowly, the rate was still high by inter national standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $ 165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan’s $1,050, Egypt’s $600, Turkey’s $1,630, and Tunisia’s $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria’s, more than four times Yemen’s, and 10 percent higher than Jordan’s (one of the better off Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent... Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 ... Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 … Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990’s, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 per cent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.”
(Prof. Efraim Karsh of King’s College, University of London)

For further analysis of Falk's agenda see:
[http://politicalmavens.com/index.php
/2008/04/10/more-on-the-bigotry-of-the-
uns-new-anti-israel-hitman-richard-falk/]

Mike

KateA: Many years ago I asked a very wealthy Saudi business partner travelling to London in his latest jet, what would the Saudis do when the oil runs out. He simply said, 'We'd go back to our tents in the desert, and probably be much happier and content'. I believe him. The desert, their land, belongs to them. They, and only they, have the right to do with it what they will. Be it to produce oil, produce food, turn it into a city, roam across it on a camel, or turn it into an extravagant showpiece like present-day Dubai. They also have the right to fight with each other, and live their lives in freedom with their own religion, laws and customs. You, Kate, do not have the right to decide for them how to live their lives, (not even in a refugee camp) and especially if it comes from a regime which has forcefully deprived them of so much and continues to do so. Surely you must understand that.

jzede

KateA thanks for your insightful post!

KateA

Mike - as the ever-courteous phil has proved, it is almost impossible to deal rationally with an obtuseness which appears incapable of absorbing anything remotely factual.

Your Romantic affinity with Arabs could be dismissed as precisely that, except, a very small minority of the world's citizens i.e. the Jews, must necessarily serve in the role of victim if you are to be allowed even a 'fool's pardon'. Re. the 'desert'! Which desert? There IS more than one in the world. Or maybe in your besotted vision, the Arabs have claim to ALL deserts - like areas of Darfur perhaps?

While you float through the air in a private jet 'romancing' with a member of the rich Saudi elite, you conveniently forget that Saudi is a feudal state, ruled by an hypocritical and grossly self-indulgent family. It is the centre of the most pernicious form of Islam and the majority of its indigenous population is poverty-stricken.

I think the reality of your 'bleeding heart' - for the 'rights' of poor Palestinians - is revealed, by this latest, in all its hypocritical delusion.

It might, but I doubt it, interest you to know that the Saudi dynasty claim to that part of the 'desert' is relatively 'modern' - 1744. All the 'bits' now known as Saudi Arabia did not come together and gain international recognition until 1932.

Conversely, the Jews have maintained a presence in the Kingdom of Israel, despite Arab pogroms, displacement and persecution, for over 2,000 years.

But I forget, Jews are bad, Arabs are good. In your 'programmed' historical analysis ONLY Arabs can be recognised as indigenous to the 'desert'. Yup - Mohammed, an illiterate Arab war lord, conquered and laid waste vast swathes of the land occupied by Israelites.

BUT, I forget again, YOU do not believe in "occupation". YOU do not believe Israel has the right to occupy any land taken in a fair fight! ONLY the descendants of conquering Arabs have such rights.

Doubtless you approve of Jordan? Ruled by the Ottoman Empire (Turks, not Arabs) until World War I. After that, the British Mandate Palestine was created. Approximately 90% of the British Mandate east of the Jordan river was 'given' by the British (in 1921) but under British supervision, to the Hashemite family.

SO, the Arab 'right' to that part of the desert goes all the way back to 1921! But, in keeping with your belief that it's 'okay' for them to murder each other at will, a 'Palestinian' Arab assassinated the first King of Jordan in 1951.

Oh dear! It would appear that there is NO part of your 'romantic' desert to which the Arabs have an inherent right of ownership based on centuries of residency.

Similarly, there was NO Palestinian Nation before Arafat coined the phrase to give validity to his own false claims of nationality. He was actually an Egyptian.

One wonders; how many times must you be told all these easily verifiable facts before they penetrate? I do not wish to be discourteous BUT, persistent obtuseness cloaked in sentimental self-indulgence serves only to irritate.

Leslie

He simply said, 'We'd go back to our tents in the desert, and probably be much happier and content'.

Easy for him to say,Mike,when he can laugh all the way to the bank.I think you are easily taken in.If in fact you really did have this conversation :)

phil

Kate A -thank you again for a wonderful post I don't know how you find the energy or indeed the facts -I did pay tribute to your writing on "witchfinder balls"yesterday and I don't want to patronise you so I will just say how grateful I am that someone else is bothering to refute the "fisking" I have been getting from Mike -lol

phil

Mike I see you don't wish to respond to my simple plan for peace ,rather tell Kate A that the Arabs can live in the desert in poverty and the camps in a degrading way if that is their wish -the problem is as you well know that they do not want this ,rather they want to live in Tel Aviv without the encumbrance of the Jewish population -surely it is better that the third option is used that is to make peace and let their children grow in a better world -I do not have access to Kate,s statistics but if they are right and I have no reason to believe otherwise ,do you not think they are a very strong argument for cooperation -please do not come back to me with more fisk ,sometimes I wonder whether you are him and just having fun at our expense .I bow my head to Kate ,she obviously knows how to deal with you better than me as you cannot find answers to her logic and facts ,and nor can fisk

Mike

KateA: While I admire your scholarship, you do not appear to have any understanding of Arabia, or worse you don't want to know. There isn't any connection between how I view the feudal state of Saudi-Arabia, or what goes through my mind when I see a Saudi Prince, the assassin of King Feisal, lose his head one Friday in front of a mosque in Riyadh. I just happened to be there conducting business and the last thing you do when a guest in someone elses country, or hitching a ride by air back to London, is insult them, their way of life, their values or anything else. Of course, there is more than one desert in the world other than that inhabited by Arabs. Further, what do you mean by your reference to 'Bad Jews' Your words - NEVER mine. It may please you to know that is the most insulting thing ever put to me either on this site or anywhere else and does you no credit. It's plain to me that you've never been anywhere near Middle East, except possibly Israel, and for sure have never been involved in any commercial activity there, or I should imagine anywhere else on this planet. Frankly I don't think you would last 2 minutes with the attitude you have.

Nick Kaplan

Mike; you unsurprisingly seem to hold a relativist view about the situation in the Arab world, whereby it is perfectly acceptable that they murder each other (“They also have the right to fight with each other”) and subject themselves to prolonged poverty as nomadic desert dwellers, as long as they, as a group, desire this. I believe this ludicrous and rather crass relativism lies at the heart of your inability to see failures of many/ most Arab states and to condemn them for those failures. The problem is that the right you grant to Arabs; to do as they will with their own land, is one that you grant to them as a group. However rights apply to individuals not groups. Arabs do not have the right to fight with each other, as you suggest, just because they as a group may be culturally prone to violence. Violence to others is a fundamental violation of the individual right to life and liberty. Your failure to recognise such objective values as fundamental rights is what leads to your relativism and your romanticised support the Arab world. It is in your attributing of group rights and your according failure to see that value of individual rights that blinds you from a simple and obvious truth, that the vast majority of the Arab world are in the wrong and should be condemned for their feudal and theocratic culture, which leaves no room for principles as important as the rule of law and individual liberty. Israel on the other hand is the shining example of state with such principles put into practise, and for this reason above all, it should be supported before its Arab neighbours.

KateA

Dear Phil - Many thanks for kind comments. My father who, as a young soldier, witnessed the liberation of the camps, instilled in me, I think from infancy(!), the determination 'NEVER AGAIN'.

In my NI Sunday school, we studied the OT and traced the trials, tribulations and travels of the Jews on the maps of the Kingdom of Israel at the back of our bibles.

It was 'a story' but like so many of the stories told to young children, it formed an indelible part of my adult consciousness. Until adulthood, I was ignorant of the canard - 'The Jews murdered Christ'. We as children, heard always of 'Jesus Christ the Jew'; of 'God's Chosen People'.

I fully accept that an abiding 'interest' has morphed into a relentless fixation with factual accuracy about Israel and Jewish history.

History is not my discipline but, contrary to the 'pick and mix' syllabus contrived by successive governments, my personal and professional experience insists that all disciplines MUST be CONNECTED.

Bottom line, is the 'stories' which open the child's imagination. Listening to stories leads to the exciting prospect of reading for oneself. Reading brings questioning and comprehension. At secondary level, where the grammar schools excelled, there must be training in definition of terms, shades of meaning, AND (hopefully) by A-level a move forward to analysis and interpretation.

Third stage, at best a lifetime endeavour - is the ability to impartially investigate available and conflicting sources; to compare and contrast; to reach conclusions. Perhaps idealistically, I have laboured to inculcate these precepts in my students.

In keeping with those beliefs, I have read a great deal on the religion of Islam, including the history of its founder, the tribes and the dictated texts - Koran and Hadiths.

I conclude that the deluded western vision of a 'global village', which requires unconditional acceptance of cultural and moral relativism is precisely that - deluded and uninformed.

There has been no philosophical or theological renaissance in Islam. It is as far away from the 'reasoning' of Enlightenment thinking as Christians, Jews and others were in the Middle Ages. Islamics/Muslims crave and comprehend ONLY 'submission'.

Theological and political arrogance is the very cornerstone of Mohammed's construct and it is facilitated by permission to deceive ALL others i.e. 'taqiyya' or doublespeak. In direct contrast to the teachings of Christ and Judaism, the principle of lying to achieve one's ends is, in Islam, a virtue rather than a vice. Doublespeak is the tool which seduces the 'useful fools'; it has elevated the serpent Tariq Ramadan to the status of advisor to, not only to government, but also the demented Rowan of Canterbury.

The thesis that Yes, we ARE all human beings, yes, there is good and bad in all of us, is true. However, to blithely ignore the most basic reality, our 'faciticity', i.e. primary environment, teaching, history and religious indoctrination, is to enter the realms of the intellectual vacuity. Best Regards. Kate

Mike

Nick: As always my point of view is not derived from the good fortune of a long & wide intellectual reach, and it certainly isn't supported by a 5000 years old blood-line. Neither I hope does the delivery and expression of my opinion, unlike others on this site, take place as though it was before some jury in a court of law. If there is to be a court then I prefer it to be in the court of world public opinion which in the case of the Arabs versus Israel, I suggest is distinctly on my side.

It must be very difficult for someone of a 'very special' ethnic grouping, who chooses to live in a country created exclusively for them, to develop any sensitivity to community relationships other than with their own. This is what I find so painful about KateA. If it is my relativism, then it certainly is her absolutism which is creating the anger and hate she so obviously feels towards Arabia and all those who either try or do understand it.

Your view, and presumably also of Kate, 'that Arabs are in the wrong and should be condemned for their feudal and theocratic culture, which leaves no room for principles as important as the rule of law and individual liberty' is shockingly wrong. You cannot impose your 'rule of law and individual liberty' on Arabia, or anywhere else on this planet. Who are you, no doubt looking through completely 'Westernised' eyes, to sit in judgement of a people, or an individual, and tell them their ways are barbaric, their religion is wrong or whatever else you find so 'dehumanising' or whatever other condemnation who make. You do not have that right. If you think you have it - who gave it to you?

I shall be very pleased and happy to support the state of Israel once its regime makes common cause with the forces of reason not only within Israel but with those in the diaspora also. I doubt very much if one will find all that many forces of reason on this site. I only wish I could. Now I think I'll go and hit some tennis balls if only to try and get Kate out of system!

KateA

Mike - this is not 'scholarship' merely dissemination of easily available FACTS. Moreover, if you find articulation of your own clearly discernible intent "the most insulting thing ever put to me[you] either on this site or anywhere else" ... you've clearly had an 'easy ride' in the world of big business.

It is only possible for one to deduce your position on Israel - and by extension Jews, since approximately HALF of the Jewish population of the world resides there - from YOUR words on the page. I have no idea what you imagine you have written BUT the 'sub-text' is consistent and the bias of the thesis persistent, e.g. on this thread only:

"The next US Administration in the White House must ... pressure Israel to take the concrete steps necessary to provide JUSTICE for the Palestinian people. The Israeli government is incapable of taking such steps otherwise the conflict would have ended a long time ago."

Ah yes. Let me see Israel is under daily attack from Hamas: 'Good' Palestinians v. 'bad' Jews! It is therefore Israel's responsibility to MAKE PEACE.

And the old chestnut 'Palestinian people' WHICH would those be? Which group of Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians?

Clearly too, YOU presume to understand the Hamas or 'Palestinian people' Charter better than Hamas and the rest who voted for that Manifesto.

That Charter states that they intend to eliminate the Jews Mike. Do google it if you doubt my word. For you to pretend this is not the case, is to indulge in the worst form of what Edward Said coined as 'Orientalism' - the white man's superiority in interpreting the words of the Oriental/Eastern: i.e. 'I hear what they [Hamas] are saying but ... they don't really mean it ... what they really mean is what I [Mike] would like to think they mean'. Ummmh!

Further, on another thread: The war against the Jews (13) Mike writes:

"How can I dispel this notion in my head that the hard-line Zionists of Israel have 'unfinished business' with the Palestinians?"

AND "Meanwhile, how can a person who is under occupation be described as a 'terrorist' for resisting that occupation."

Let's see now: the liberal/left conflation of the epithets 'Zionist' and 'Jew' meaning only BAD Zionist v. (by definition of opposition), GOOD Persecuted Palestinian.

Gaza targets Israeli civilians on a daily basis. It has been doing so since Israel withdrew from Gaza. Gaza is not "resisting" anything. It is aggressively attacking its neighbour. For information on the economic condition of (now starving Gaza under fascist Hamas) I refer you to my previous post quoting Prof. Efraim Karsh. But don't let stupid old facts get in the way Mike - of course it is all the fault of those damned Jews. If they didn't exist etc... we could all sit in the desert with 'nice' romantic Arabs. 'Sympathy for the Devil' or what?

paul stein

Verity thanks for your response. I think you'll find that Malays refer to themselves as Malays, certainly the people that I know do - distinguishing themselves from Chinese Malaysians, Indian Malaysians etc. Also, since the term you use to refer to Malays means "son of the land" and the Malays are descended from Arabs who arrived there some centuries ago, its not exactly accurate is it?

Shame you have to react to someone disagreeing with you in the way that you do. By the way, my "research" took place through living in the far east for a long period. Just for clarity.

Mahathir is on record as being an anti-semite and oversaw discriminatory legislation that ensured thousands of Chinese Malaysians in particular had to leave the country in order to progress in the professions.

Everyone's vote does count equally in Malaysia but you still have to be a Malay to be the country's leader.

Mike

KateA: You have your facts, I have mine, you agree with Karsh, I prefer Morris, you have your religion, I'm not encumbered by any religion's baggage, you believe Israel is right even when its is wrong, I believe that the Zionist project as conceived and executed in the 19th and early 20th century was unjustified and could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat ie. the total domination by one ethnic group over all others in the region. Some form of violence was, therefore, entirely justified. That Jews and Zionist Jews may later have had pressing needs for wanting a Jewish state doesn't change this. The Zionist project was illegitimate and still is. It has been the cause of all the terror and warfare that it aroused. However, Israel today exists, its a fact, and is as secure as any state could ever reasonably expect. But its settlement policy isn't defensive but a form of ethnic warfare and therefore, outrageously wrong. The Palestinians are fully justified in claiming some sort of violent response, often very necessary. I do hope you bring this before your students for their consideration. There is neither the time nor the space to fill out my argument, but please feel free to reproduce this quote whenever you feel it is appropriate in future threads. Meanwhile, I must answer my door-bell; it may be a visitor from Rome claiming his rights to takeover the land on which my household rests because he was told in school that his ancestors lived here centuries ago! And he may have a history book in his hands to 'prove' it.

Commondog

Mike

The last concrete step I can remember taken by Israel in an attempt to satisfy Palestinian demands for a 'homeland', was the forcible removal of thousands of Jewish settlers from Gaza.

For their efforts, the Israelis were - and are -rewarded by the constant barrage of rockets from this newly 'cleansed' land.

By the way: those settlers that were moved out? What is it that bars them from regarding Gaza as their homeland? Is it a DNA thing?

phil

Kate A -I was right you have Mike completely snookered -he is continually talking Arab doublespeak -say it loudly and often and all will believe it-he asked me a simple question in a recent post .to which he got a simple answer -so far he hasn't managed to reply viz,,Mike
April 11th, 2008 8:55am
Phil: Since we both want the same what is your 'way to peace'?
Phil
April 11th, 2008 10:31am
Mike it really very simple-let them renounce terrorism and come to the peace table .and I have told you this ages ago -if you have forgotten I mentioned some Arab heroes KING HUSSEIN AND PRESIDENT SADAT they were real people who cared for their citizens -I am sure you must know EGYPT,ISRAEL AND JORDAN are at peace now

so what is the point to this endless discussion with Mike ,he seems to take his tactics from litigation lawyers who when unable to answer then ask for further and better particulars ,and on it goes endlessly -his bible is ancient fisk ,truth ,although I believe he seeks it ,is totally lost -I DON'T THINK ONE PERSON ON THIS BLOG HAS EVER AGREED WITH HIM AND THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT RELIGIONS AND SOME WITH NONE -we have just wasted our time and so has he -regards Phil

Ann

"The Zionist project was illegitimate" - in other words, the Jewish nation is not entitled to a free homeland in its own country. Thank you for clarifying that you come from an antisemitic perspective.

Ann

Kate, I wish I had your energy. Your posts are almost verbatim those I would have posted if I had the energy (and time). Your facts are accurate and relevant. The problem is, when you have to contend with antisemitic ignorance, they don't WANT to hear the facts ("you have your facts, I have mine", they say); the facts completely undermine their distorted grasp of history (and geography), their hallucinations about the Arabs being 'indigenous' to Israel and the victims, and the Jews being 'foreign invaders' who are oppressing the 'native population'. In their parallel universe, the Jews' homeland going back 3000+ years is a modern invention 'created specially for them', whilst the modern artificial creations of Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are the ancient homelands of the ancient 'Jordanian', 'Syrian', 'Saudi' and 'Iraqi' nations. To say nothing of the 'Palestinians' with their ancient homeland 'Palestine', brutally occupied by the newcomers, the Jews (probably recently arrived from Planet Zog).

You are right also to highlight the hypocrisy that allows the Arabs to conquer and retain countries in aggressive wars against their neighbours, all over the Middle East and North Africa, but forbids the Jews to defend themselves.

And what about the nonsense about you being unable to have wider empathies? What drivel. I don't know your personal history, nor does the poster. But I know people who share our views who have lived all over the world, including in Europe, in Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East, in North and South America ... don't let the personal slander you are now being subjected to dent your resolve! Your analyses are very welcome.

KateA

Mike writes: "KateA: You have your facts, I have mine, ... I prefer Morris, you have your religion, ..., you believe Israel is right even when its is wrong ..."

Too many assumptions here: YOU have 'opinions' bolstered by sources I would refute, with easily verifiable factual information. Yes, I, like most of my generation, had a religious upbringing. That said, I constantly question religious belief and have read a great deal about the world's religions. This is not about my religion or lack of it. It is about politics, propaganda and justice. For the record, I am opposed to religious fundamentalism when, or wherever it raises its ugly intelligence defying head.

The brain, like every other muscle needs exercise. It is NOT exercised if one accepts - as you appear to do - the 'current' orthodoxy (religious or otherwise) without rigorous investigation.

Not so long ago, (1960s/70s) 'thinking' people, left, right and liberal, opposed fascist or confessional societies, based on patently insane ideologies. No longer. Today, the insane ideology of cultural relativism rules.

ANY, even very brief, study of the ideology of radical Islam SHOULD give 'liberals' nightmares. It advocates subjugation of women, forced marriage, mutilation of children, the murder of homosexuals and any Muslim who decides to change their religion. Its agenda is the imposition of a theocratic state world-wide; abolition of free speech, all the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of Nazism, and the elimination of the Jews.

It perpetrates a barbaric and repressive society which, in your own words Mike, you deny others the right to criticise. You write:

"Who are you, no doubt looking through completely 'Westernised' eyes, to sit in judgement of a people, or an individual, and tell them their ways are barbaric, their religion is wrong.... You do not have that right. If you think you have it - who gave it to you?"

Chilling! This is still Sharia-free territory. It is precisely because we on this site have had the privilege of a "western" liberal education that we are FREE and HAVE EVERY RIGHT to criticise, debate, and offer information on ANYTHING we find morally abhorrent. Your infatuation with a feudal, theocratic Arabia sparks of the infatuation so many 1930s British aristocrats, clergy and businessmen harboured for Fascism.

Such argument displays a quite shocking ignorance of centuries of - war, death, struggle, the evolution of political and philosophical thought, and the gradual victory of REASON and education over fear, ignorance, and superstition. Only in a 21st century western democracy could such complacency as yours exist.

Ah! You "prefer Morris"? That would be, Benny? "Radical Israeli historian who forced his country to confront its role in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians"?

EXCEPT, the blurb got it a little wrong. I quote Benny Morris (2002):

"I spent the mid-1980s investigating what led to the creation of the refugee problem, publishing The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 in 1988. My conclusion, which angered many Israelis and undermined Zionist historiography, was that most of the refugees were a product of Zionist military action and, in smaller measure, of Israeli expulsion orders and Arab local leaders' urgings or orders to move out.

Critics of Israel subsequently LATCHED ON to those findings that HIGHLIGHTED ISRAELI responsibility while IGNORING the fact that the problem was a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the war that the PALESTINIANS - and, in their wake, the surrounding Arab states - had launched. And few noted that, in my concluding remarks, I had explained that the creation of the problem was "almost inevitable", given the Zionist aim of creating a Jewish state in a land largely populated by Arabs and given Arab resistance to the Zionist enterprise.

.... main reason, around which my pessimism gathered and crystallised, was the figure of Yasser Arafat, who ...by virtue of the OSLO accords, GOVERNS the cities of the West Bank (Hebron, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and Qalqilya) and their environs, and the bulk of the Gaza Strip. Arafat is the symbol of the movement, accurately reflecting his people's miseries and collective aspirations. Unfortunately, he has proven himself a worthy successor to Haj Muhammad Amin al Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, who led the Palestinians during the 1930s into their (abortive) rebellion against the British mandate government and during the 1940s into their (again abortive) attempt to prevent the emergence of the Jewish state in 1948, resulting in their catastrophic defeat and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Husseini had been implacable and incompetent (a dangerous mix) - but also a trickster and liar ....

Above all, Husseini had embodied rejectionism - a rejection of any compromise with the Zionist movement. He had rejected two international proposals to partition the country into Jewish and Arab polities, by the British Peel commission in 1937 and by the UN general assembly in November 1947. In between, he spent the war years (1941-45) in Berlin, working for the Nazi foreign ministry and recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Wehrmacht.

After Husseini came Arafat, another implacable nationalist and inveterate liar, trusted by no Arab, Israeli or American leader (though there appear to be many Europeans who are taken in). In 1978-79, he FAILED to join the Israeli-Egyptian CAMP DAVID framework, which might have led to Palestinian statehood a decade ago.

In 2000, turning his back on the Oslo process, Arafat REJECTED yet another historic compromise, that offered by Barak at Camp David in July, and subsequently improved upon in President Bill Clinton's proposals (endorsed by Barak) in December. Instead, the Palestinians, in September, resorted to arms and launched the current mini-war or intifada, which has so far resulted in some 790 Arab and 270 Israeli deaths, and a deepening of hatred on both sides to the point that the idea of a territorial-political compromise seems to be a pipe dream." ENDS.

Morris?? No help there Mike. Further, I note your careful avoidance of any answer to the question I posed earlier. I repeat:

In the event that Israel (the state) occupies less than 10% of the original British Mandate which encompassed the original Kingdom of Israel - and Arabs occupy 90+% of that territory, WHY

a) Do you object to Jewish "occupation" but ignore the historical reality that the Kingdom was invaded and occupied by Arabs? That, Jews, the original indigenous inhabitants, maintained a presence for 2,000 years. Not even chicken or egg?

b) Why do you completely ignore the dichotomy exposed by support for the 'rights' of one 'occupation' of territory over 'rights' for original inhabitants?

c) Where does that dichotomy figure in your insistence that Arab 'occupation' is morally superior to Jewish re-occupation?

d) Why do you, whilst citing the misnomer 'Palestinian displacement', consistently ignore statistics on Jewish 'displacement', including that which occurred in 1948 - 850,000 Jews driven from both established and newly legislated Arab territory - Saudi, Jordan et al?

Lots of questions but no substantial answers - instead, you offer acquiescence with the propaganda of fascistic and reactionary movements as a moral argument! The inability to discriminate between democrat and theocrat is terrifying.

Mike

Phil: What you've said in joining forces with KateA is a cop out. The reason why I enjoy Melanie's blogs on the ME (my great interest) is because I like to keep my mind engaged a little and to try and better understand the Zionist mind-set. I don't anticipate anyone agreeing with me who is in thrall to Melanie's views. Although that is not to say I don't support her views on other subjects.

I didn't respond to your version of peace because its nonsensical. Egypt and Jordan cut their deals with Israel primarily because both King Hussain and President Anwar Sadat took the pragmatic view there was no way either country could lick Israel's IDF and Air Force supplied by the United States. That is why the myth that Israel was under any serious threat by either or both countries at the time of the 6-Day war is such an insult to Israel's military forces, led by Dayan, who were superb at that time as indeed they showed. But that's another story which I don't have time to get into right now.

As for Israel, don't you think its about time it began to have a serious cosy chat with President Assad? Unfortunately, the Arab world, as usual, is in disarray, the Palestinians are politically split although there would appear to be a healing process afoot. Similarly the present Israeli Administration is hardly a cohesive influence on anything. It can't even control its own maverick settlers! So who is going to come forward from either side, conclude the deal (it's already in-place) and then run the risk of being assassinated the next day? The only Palestinian leader who had the power and the prestige amongst his own peope was the late Yassir Arafat. He passed on, Sadat was assassinated and so was Rabin. And it's for those reasons, amongst others, I find your response nonsensical. Now how about having a try at putting some original thoughts together and replying to my latest to KateA if she doesn't get to me first? I've never really understood your clarion call to your friends on this site that 'I've lost it'. This is a throwaway remark, and doesn't become you Phil. I think you can do better than that, don't you?

Ann

"And happy 60th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre" - which has been wildly exaggerated. But of course, the romantic (and mostly ignorant) Arabists on this site will always believe Arab propaganda, come what may; and they will never post about the many, many massacres committed by the Arabs on the Jews.

Harvey

Ann says...

"And happy 60th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre" - which has been wildly exaggerated.

Oh okay - someone has finally stuck their head over the parapet on this one! 'Wildly exaggerated' was it? Do kindly give the world the benefit of your narrative on what exactly happened at Deir Yassin. Pereferbly without too many capitalised words.

Mike

Regrets Kate, but you've lost me. I know you must have taken quite a lot of time out to compose your response, but I'm afraid it's far too academic for me. If you could try again in a more staightforward simple conversational style as if you were actually speaking to me, rather like Melanire does, then perhaps I could understand it. I'm not at all sure you could teach effectively this way - I know I would be the first to doze off. Can you interpret this for me Phil?

KateA

Hey Mike: the last refuge of the uninformed is to accuse the other of incoherency!

Strange, I actually get very GOOD academic results. Mainly because my students, on the whole, have paid attention, understand the English language and are generally INTERESTED in being informed.

If English is your second language, I apologise for the overwhelm. I have though quoted the man you claim to agree with: Benny Morris. I suspect you have NOT read his work otherwise nothing in my last post would be incomprehensible to you.

Game, set and match perhaps.

Adam B.

Harvey,according to eyewitness accounts, 14 Arabs were massacred at Deir Yassin (not the 250 figure often bandied about.) Deir Yassin was a battle, and most casualties resulted from the fighting. The event was wildly exaggerated by the Arab leadership to act as propaganda. Religious Jews from a yeshiva intervened and stopped any more killing. Whilst this is tragic, it is usually quoted by people who have no knowledge (nor a desire to know) about the regular masscres, committed on a much larger scale, by Arabs against Jews not only at that time, but going back decades before. Heard of the Hebron massacre? Perhaps you should investigate Jewish villages where the inhabitants were massacred by marauding Arabs, or learn about the pogroms in the Arab world, taking place even prior to the existence of Israel.

Mike

KateA: Quite rightly you have exploited to the full my clumsy attempt to try and point up that there are an increasing number of historians, mostly Jewish, who disagree with each other about the FACTS of the Palestine/Israel issue. That is what I meant by 'Your facts, my facts' etc. Karsh, Morris, Pappe, Finkelstein, Palumbo, to name a few, are all critical of each other so who should one rely on for the TRUTH. Therefore, there is no way I want to get into the incessant bickering that goes on about so-called FACTS and keeping a score as to who has won the match! And so as not to leave Phil out of this, I would merely like to say that my dear friend Robert Fisk isn't a classic historian but simply a journalist who writes passionately, and often emotively, and ROMANTICALLY about what he sees and hears. That's his job. It's then upto historians to draw there own conclusions after a rigorous check of what he and others have reported on, and whether they like it or not, to place it all objectively in the context of the period of the time in the cool light of their day.

I fully admit that my views derive largely from anecdotal experiences as my job took me to most parts of Middle East and elsewhere over a long period. Most of these experiences have remained dormant only because I was far too busy solving business problems for my Company to express any concern for what I'd heard and seen. It's only recently that I've had the time to recall a little and to 'get curious' about the truth of this extremely complex region.

The genesis of my knowledge of the Jewish story, apart from what I heard as a very samll child, sitting at the feet of my Mother on a Sunday, was leaving a cinema as WW2 drew to a close, having seen on the silver screen horrific images of a peoples suffering and death in Nazi Concentration Camps, and 'hearing' the silence as people with stricken faces emerged from that cinema. Thereafter all my sympathies were with the Jewish people, even during the Irgun, Stern and Haganah period, and then the popular and emotive film 'Exodus' only served to confirm what I guess most folk were feeling at that time. Even the triumphant walk of Dayan into Jerusalem in 1967 caused me to rush along to a Jewish colleagues office in London to congratulate him on the success of the IDF.

And then much, much later I got to Beirut. And that is where, for the very first time, I began to hear evidence from the Palestinian survivors of their flight from their homes and villages in what was formerly Palestine. That was enough for me not to shift my long-held affection for the Jewish people, but to put on hold my negative views of Arabs and Islam generally.

Then, of course, as time moved on and the history of the time began to emerge, I was able to corroborate what I heard with a consensus of facts from different historians. Now it is entirely upto you Kate, whether or not to choose to ignore, agree, criticise or downright object to any views I may hold, or even as Ann does accuse me, and many others she despises, of the old canard of 'anti-semitism' As the man said 'Frankly my dear - I don't give a damn'. But seriously Kate I do perceive that not all that far beneath the surface of your academia is a hatred of all Arabs, of their religion whether Islam or Christian, and that really you would like to see them removed out of your sight and hearing for ever. Not unlike another 'ism which prevailed so long ago.

Your support of the state of Israel whose birth was predicated upon Zionism's ethnic superiority over all others is immoral and outrageously wrong and will be for all time, or until the forces of reason replace it. To my mind Judaism, its faith, morality and philosophy has been hijacked by a project which the longer it continues will bring more disaster upon the Jewish people. They don't deserve this - they've suffered enough.

phil

Mike some years ago a well known comedian LES DAWSON asked a customer at Batley variety club for some constructive criticism -of his act -the man replied "AY LAD ITS CRAP" and I am afraid that's what I think of your replies to both Kate and me -the reason is I think you are getting it from fisk (your friend)-I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE ANTI -SEMITIC I hate that term anyhow .I just think you are deluded by your friend and nothing will change until you realise that ,so there is not much point in our continued double act as the other comedian Pulley has said -when jokers like that get involved in a serious subject like this its time to say goodbye-if not me Kate certainly deserves better -any other subject is fine with me ,see you somewhere else

KateA

Phil and Ann: Thank you both but it doesn't really take much time - I generally have a good idea of where to find the info.

Some thoughts (to Phil) on patronising arrogance from one who fails to produce ANY convincing evidence for his personal opinions.

Avoidance and derision is the name of the game. A few of Mike's comments addressed to others will suffice:

1) "Melanie it would help if you were to cease your sniping ... and bring a more responsible tone to your writing."

2) Phil: Sorry 'ole pal but you're wrong again... All you have to do Phil is to raise yourself out of the mire of all the silly bickering ..."

3) "KateA ....It's plain to me that you've never been anywhere near Middle East... or I should imagine anywhere else on this planet.

4) "This is what I find so painful about KateA. ... it certainly is her absolutism which is creating the anger and hate she so obviously feels towards Arabia ..."

Translation: the facts I produce come from nothing more than a personal defect of character! Yup!

5) "Phil: What you've said in joining forces with Katie is a cop out."

6) "Phil ...I didn't respond to your version of peace because its nonsensical. .. I find your response nonsensical... how about having a try at putting some original thoughts together ... doesn't become you Phil. I think you can do better than that, don't you?"

WOW!!! Presumably 'original' as opposed to the repetitive personal opinion of the complainant?

7) "Regrets Kate... If you could try again in a more straightforward simple conversational style ... I'm not at all sure you could teach effectively this way ...Can you interpret this for me Phil?"

Enough said. It is only possible, of course, to be 'insulted' by those whose opinions one can respect. I actually do not 'hate' any individual but I certainly do detest fascism - no matter how Romantic the presentation.

Phil - an unfortunate fact but innate courtesy is too often targeted, harassed and abused.
regards Kate

Leslie

"upon Zionism's ethnic superiority over all others"
Well,Mike,now you have revealed where you are really coming from.
But would you really want to be in their shoes,Mike?
I think any feelings of superiority that Jews might have had because of their chosenness, would have long ago worn thin if they thought it meant "favouritism"
No wonder there are some that have turned against the whole idea of being a chosen people.It has come with a big price.

Nick Kaplan

Mike; Your retort to my early post acts only to confirm my opinion about your dangerous relativist views. Your espousal of race based identity politics is something that nationalist regimes prey on all the time to the detriment of the very people they claim to serve. Unfortunately identity politics such as this has lead many people to accept murderous dictators of the same race as opposed to peaceful foreign rulers who espouse rational methods of limited government and civilisation. Post-colonial Africa has been plagued by this problem leading to nationalist leaders such as Mugabe being keep tight control of their despotic power, simply because they aren’t white. A similar problem plagues the middle-east whereby people identify themselves as part of a group instead of as individuals and thus they lack concern for individual rights and are willing to subjugate them for some non-existent greater good. But identity politics and your moral/ cultural relativism promotes regimes which violate fundamental principles concerning the legitimacy of government itself. It is a simple truth that government has little legitimacy to coerce or to suppress its people, for whatever end, good or bad, but since the threat of violence is the main tool of government it must, by definition, remain limited to retain legitimacy. Governments or potential rulers who violate rights are illegitimate whether or not they claim to represent a particular group/race/ class/ national interest, legitimacy stems only from a governments self restraint and recognition of the rights of its people as individuals. Israel is the only free country in a region dominated by Arab monarchies, theocracies and dictatorships. It is only the citizens of Israel—Arabs and Jews alike—who enjoy the right to express their views, to criticize their government, to form political parties, to publish private newspapers, to hold free elections. When Arab authorities deny the most basic freedoms to their own people, it is obscene for them to start claiming that they are ‘freedom fighters’ against the evil and oppressive Israel. All Arab citizens who are genuinely concerned with human rights should, as their very first action, seek to oust their own despotic rulers and adopt the type of free society that characterizes Israel, and then they may legitimately enter discussion with Israel regarding a peace settlement. Given that you are a relativist, with apparently 0 concern for individual rights, it should not surprise me that you feel it necessary to ask “who gave it [the right to criticize foreign cultures] to you?” But in answer to your question, nobody gave me the right, rights are not things granted by others which we enjoy for a short time before they decide to withdraw the privilege, rights are things that we posses in virtue of our existence and our effort, our right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for example. The fact that you refuse to recognise this is the same reason why you don’t condemn the multiple Arabic regimes who refuse to recognise the importance of these principles. What’s more your refusal is both deeply condescending and horribly disingenuous, I can’t imagine you would long put up with a tyrannical, theocratic government who could arrest you at will, torture you, suppress your right to free speech or free association etc. Yet it is OK if Arab regimes do this to their people. The implication of your relativism seems to be that; “it’s not good enough for me, but it’s in their culture, these poor little people, so why don’t you nasty right-wing absolutists just leave them to enjoy the despotic regimes under which they (barely) exist?” So who am I to “sit in judgement” of these people; I’m a rational being with concern for individual rights. As opposed to you, a foolish, condescending relativist whom Lenin would have called a “useful idiot,” as your attempts to sympathise with despotic rulers serves only as propaganda for the kind of regime you would rightly refuse to live under yourself.

Harvey

Adam B - so holocaust deniers have their mini-me's too I note.

Mike

KateA. I'm flattered that you place so much importance on my views that you log them. Perhaps you may care to add this, my final post on this thread: 'I rest my case - the jury is out'.

Adam B.

Harvey, could you please expand on what you mean?

Mike

Nick: As a courtesy I thought I should make one final, final post on this thread.

Unfortunately, it has been my choice of words on imposing our Western values on other nations or individuals which has provoked a misunderstanding between us for which I'm responsible. Perhaps there will be another time to discuss self-determination as a right, etc etc but I haven't the time right now. Meanwhile, try this. Who gave England the right to determine the destinies of the peoples of the Middle East with the Balfour Declaration?

phil

Mike------"And so as not to leave Phil out of this, I would merely like to say that my dear friend Robert Fisk isn't a classic historian but simply a journalist who writes passionately, and often emotively, and ROMANTICALLY about what he sees and hears. That's his job. It's then upto historians to draw there own conclusions after a rigorous check of what he and others have reported on, and whether they like it or not, to place it all objectively in the context of the period of the time in the cool light of their day "--------my only wish Mike is that he writes truthfully-he bears a heavy responsibility for what he has written and broadcast -what is the opposite of pouring oil on troubled waters? the reports from Lebanon were appalling during that unfortunate war _each one making the path to peace less attainable _so expect no respect for your friend from me

Harvey

Adam B asks.''

Harvey, could you please expand on what you mean?

Okay - I accept ethnic cleansing is not genocide but it is a crime against humanity. There are some - and I take it from your comment on Deir Yassin that you are one of them who are naqba deniers - who seek to assert that the naqba of 1948 was a fiction. Read the quote from Shei I originally posted - he got the point. Not only what was done at Deir Yassin but why it was done - and he ought to have known! Of cause to accept what was done in the naqba and why it was done raises serious questions as to the moral legitimacy of Israel and the zionist project. That is why debate on the subject is smothered or ducked. The questions won't go away, though. The cat is thoroughly out of the bag...

Ann

Only in what passes for your mind, Harvey. A single incident can 'raise questions about the legitimacy of the Zionist project' only in someone who is opposed from the start to the Jews having a national homeland in their own country, and we know who those are. And what you are.

Ann

Fisk, in his lies, pours petrol on flames - I think that's the metaphor you were looking for.

Leslie

Harvey,have you heard the name Hussein Khalidi connected with Deir Yassin?
In the 1998 BBC TV series "Israel and the Arabs: the 50 year Conflict" it was documented that Arab Higher Committee officials Hazem Nusseibeh and Hussein Khalidi made false accusations against the Irgun and Stern gang,charging they had committed rape,in order to scare the Arab population into fleeing?Arab witnesses have testified that there were no rapes in Deir Yassin.
Things are not always how they seem.

Harvey

Leslie - did the massacre happen - with or without rapes?

Ann - I treat your hysterical drivel with the contempt it deserves. The only difficulty in focussing on Deir Yassin is that it does create scope for dissemblers to present it as 'a single incident' when it ws plainly nothing of the sort - just a particularly gross example of a more generalised phenomenon.

Adam B.

Harvey, that's ridiculous! Following your "logic", only a country that has never made a single mistake has a right to exist. Well, that's the UK out then! (as well as the entire Arab world). The fact you only focus on one misdeed by one side, whilst ignoring a plethora of misdeeds on the other, shows you to be motivated by other desires than that for the truth. The rebirth of Israel was and is a miracle, the ancient homeland where Jews can live without the inane ranting of people like you.

phil

Harvey ,we both like to express our feelings, and here is a good place to do that but you really confuse me ,on the previous falk thread you attack peter watkins deservedly so, and on this thread you write disparaging remarks about Israel and inspire the wrath of many -can you let us all know what exactly is your message -its surely not the position of agent provocateur that you are seeking ?or is there another Harvey ;)

Leslie

Harvey,you seem to have two opposing views,or are there two Harvey's here?

Harvey

There must be two Harveys and this one can't be bothered arguing with you lot any more...

Commondog

Is it me or have I just witnessed one pro-Israeli contributor being so misinterpreted by others of the similar persuasion, that he eventually shuffled off?
Come back Harvey and put it right.

Bob Gray

No Commondog, it isn't just you. Now, must slip away before she notices this, misinterprets it, and spits more hysterical venom.
(Psst. Phil, stop antagonising her by being rational.)

phil

BOB GRAY -:)lol we need some humour here too

Ann

I am proud to have my post described by an ignorant antisemite as 'hysterical drivel'. Clearly, the poster is ignorant (or chooses to turn a blind eye) to the many well-documented massacres committed by Arabs on Jews: how about the Mt Scopus caravan? As I said, I am proud to be so described by the likes of that person, who needs to look in a large mirror.