Obamastan

Harold

"Hezbollah, whose aim is the extermination of Israel"

- Hezbollah holds that Israel is illegitimate. However, Hezbollah also holds that what the Palestinians decide they want, Hezbollah will abide by and that what the Palestinians have decided they want is set out in the prisoners' document of 2006, in essence a version of the two-state solution.

Rob-NY

Hezbollah means Party of God. Perhaps if they were called the Tea Party of God Obama would be more critical.

Rob-NY

That was quite a slobbering performance by John Brennan. It would be hilarious until one realizes this is our Counter-Terrorism Adviser.

WASHBROOK

Melanie.
You are to be congratulated that you seem to be the only one on Coffee House writes about other subject matter than English politics.

gareth

Many of Obama's Czars are stranger than fiction - the latest one I've come across, by chance, the MSM aren't interested - is John Holdren , the Science Czar who is a serial thriller (global cooling in the 70s) - and co-authored a book in the 70s on .......eugenics! forced sterilisation and population control for undesirables.......
Well to be fair - he apparently had to 'recuse' himself of these errors at a senate hearing .
So thats alright then.

Ed Lancey

Anyone who, like Brennan, travelled to Egypt in 1975 to study Arabic, is undoubtedly a traitor.
Astonishing that he is in government.

Roy

It would be a hard choice to distinguish between the U.S. and Britain; which of them carries the largest mass of disloyal subjects working toward the ruin of their freedom and country?

Baron Pippin II

In part, the worldview of the pseudo-liberal phylum rest on the notion that man is good, and it’s only because of grievances of one sort or another that he turns to evil. This fallacy has got injected into our psyche so deeply that nothing short of an implosion of the culture harbouring it will return us to sanity. What this chap Brennan’s proposing is but an internationalised extension of the same philosophy that has been applied to the murderers, rapists and other obnoxious miscreants within our borders. In both instances, the ‘embracing of the enemy’ sounds noble, compassionate, and heart warming. History teaches otherwise. Uncomfortable as it may be to admit it, some of us are possessed of evil, and when those afflicted have the opportunity to institutionalise it, mankind suffers. There’s little comfort in knowing that any such evil constructs do not last; it’s the defeating of them that causes the suffering and pain to many often for generations.

elixelx

Harold, what's your point? Or is it that you just like seeing your name in lights as proof that you exist?
"Hezbollah holds that Israel is illegitimate": I hold that your apologies are! Let the people decide!
What people, you ask? Why, the people of the community that I KNOW are going to decide against you! MELANIE COMMUNITY! That's fair, isn't it?

Kennybhoy

"And America thinks Britain has a problem with ‘Londonistan’?"

I wonder who gave them that idea?

Harold

elixelx
May 21st, 2010 12:49pm

I in turn find your comments obscure.

I merely provided a factual correction. Hezbollah has undertaken to follow the wishes of the Palestinians, and has accepted that those wishes are expressed in the prisoners' document of 2006, which calls for a two-state settlement. One of the two states is Israel. So the assertion that Hezabollah aims at the extermination of Israel is not entirely accurate. Hezbollah supports, albeit reluctantly, Palestinian efforts at negotiation.

Derek BLADES

I make it a rule not to comment on postings that use capital letters to give emphasis. It looks like the author is shouting. Hence no comment on "elixelx" attack on Harold.

Harold makes some good points about Hezbollah - as indeed did John Brennan. He was picked for this post after a distinguished career in several hot spots around the globe - Latin America and the Far East - and not just in Saudi Arabia. United States' policy in the Middle East has been hopelessly one-sided for the last fifty years and the boil still festers. President Obama, George Mitchell, Hilary Clinton and John Bidden are clearly on the right track. Peace and a just two state settlement is now a real possibility.

If that frightens the settler lobby and Melanie's fan club so be it. The sensible majority in the Western and Arab worlds world will welcome that outcome.

Greg

There's a word for Brennan.

Adam B.

Harold, Hizbollah has openly declared its intention not only to destroy Israel, but to kill all Jews.

Drakken

Harold, Hezbollah and the palis are for the total destruction of Israel. What part of that don't you quite get? Well, you go ahead and side with the enemy of civilization and see where that gets you.

Bob from Virginia

If you think the Brennan appointment is weird try this, Obama's FCC appointee supports Chavez's crackdown on the free media in Venezuela, his antisemitism Czar was a member of J-Street, the anti-Israel front, Samantha Powers, a foreign affairs adviser wanted to actively harm Israel, I forgot what Van Jones and Anita Dunn were appointed to, but the first is an admitted communist and the second pro-communist.

C. Gee

Harold:

Might I suggest that you subscribe to MEMRI - an organization that translates Arabic news sources into English?

The "prisoner's document" providing for a two-state solution has been emphatically repudiated by Hamas leadership - a message received by Hezbollah, if not by you.

Do you also believe the propaganda releases that the PLO charter has been changed?

Frank P

Melanie

The You Tube clip of Brennan, is dynamite; why has it not reached Fox News at least? The hoo-hah about the resignation of Admiral Dennis Blair is small beer in comparison; I even suspect it may be connected in some way. No wonder Intel in the US is in such a parlous state. And we thought we had problems with Burgess, McClean, Blunt, et al.

(Btw, Blair does seem to be a tainted moniker, one way and another, doesn't it?)

The Brennan revelation underlines, in double score, the thesis of your new book; the world is indeed turned upside down and the Quislings are holding the highest offices on both sides of the Herring Pond.

Yet all the other Spectator editorial staff can talk about on their blogs is the 'riveting' alliance between two Boy Scouts who have carved up British politics between them. No wonder Diane Abbott fancies her chances as Prime Minister. It's Jabberwocky time.

The horrifying thing is that despite the fact that the global reach of the extreme Leftist coup is now utterly blatant and without any pretence whatsoever any more, the majority of the electorate on both sides of the puddle either does not understand what has happened, or has been so thoroughly brainwashed that it approves.

And the New Home Secretary, upon whom we all rely to keep us safe, last night on QT made a complete arse of herself, by capitulating to a hostile homosexual activist crowd and making policy on the hoof during intimidating bullying. Perhaps she had just been buttonholed by the LGPA contingent at the Police Federation Annual shindig. No doubt the Pagan Police had a few words in her shell-like., too. Willie Whitelaw must be spinning in his grave.

It would be interesting to ask David Dimbleby next time you speak to him how it was possible to assemble a 100% rigged audience this week for QT Richmond Park. I suppose the fact that it was held Royal Ballet School at Richmond Park, gave the ticket allocators a flying start - so to speak.

Bob, son of Bob

Roy asks "which of them carries the largest mass of disloyal subjects working toward the ruin of their freedom and country?"

The stupid in both countries have been fooled into voting for the wicked. Personally I would have thought the time for the stupid to waken up to the terrible things their rulers are doing was long ago, but it was not to be. Buckingham electing Bercow shows voters still have their eyes firmly shut. What can awaken the stupid? Only something close to home. National bankruptcy combined with a terrorist outrage perhaps? History is full of sudden dramatic events, like the sudden collapse of communism and, as Melani Phillips hopes, the collapse of the EU.

ToM

There are so many US pols who suck up to Israel (just google "(any pol name)AIPAC speech" for proof) that John Brennan's groveling paean to Islam almost comes across as a refreshing change in direction.

As for MP's displeasure at Brennan's "showing off his Arabic", that language is certainly more useful than Hebrew when it comes to "counter-terrorism" (whatever that may mean).

Derek BLADES

Adam B, 21 April, wrote "Harold, Hizbollah has openly declared its intention not only to destroy Israel, but to kill all Jews."

There is a fundamental flaw in Adam B’s reasoning. Hizbollah cannot declare anything, openly or otherwise. It is an organisation and as such is incapable of speech. What Adam B. meant to say is that someone with ties to the organisation "has openly declared ...etc. etc".

Possibly true - although it would be helpful if Adam B could be more precise about who exactly said what, and where and when he or she said it. But other persons with ties to the organisation are ready for a compromise with Israel as Harold has pointed out.

Certainly, negotiating with the leaders of Hizbollah and Hamas represents a danger to Israel. But not doing so is both dangerous and futile. The status quo is unacceptable to the Obama administration and most governments in Europe. That is what John Brennan is there for and he deserves all our support.

wonderer

If anyone is credulous enough to believe Harold's suggestion that Hizbullah would acquiesce in a two state solution, they should read the 13 June 2008 report of Nasrallah's speech on al Quds day:-
http://www.arabeuropean.org/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=1

Among other statesmanlike, conciliatory comments he said, "Jerusalem and Palestine, from the sea to the river, belong to the Palestinian people, the Arabs and the Muslims, and no one has the authority to concede a grain of earth, wall or stone from the holy land."

And, quoting Khomeini, he described Israel as a cancer.

E Hart

Melanie, Obamastan? Londonistan? Hubristan!
Your argument is a dud. The stasis is a dud. That's why Obama and Brennan are looking at it from a different standpoint. Do they like Hamas or Hezbollah? No. They are, however, looking for a way to break through this bloody sisyphean impasse to find a resolution.
You can use this column to blow your plaintive trumpet all you like but you should remember that not only is the US Israel's guarantor - it is the only party that is making any serious attempt to resolve this issue. If they can get to a two-state solution through Hezbollah - then the end will have justified the means. Anything short of this - if you are realistic - won't do. Do we really want to be where we are now - 30 years hence?
Your position is untenable. It is untenable on any basis. It hasn't worked and won't work. That's why Obama and Brennan are looking at other avenues. They realise (along with Goethe, Hegel and Santayana) that history - like everything else - is an evolutionary process. If you do nothing - you have the stasis and instransigence.
You're a fine one for sticking up your own coconuts but I notice that you can set the problem but you never to seem to have any solutions or proposals that stand scrutiny. Whether it is climate change, coalition government, the Israel-Palestinian impasse - you rail and flail like Samson - myopic in a two-colour world of your creation.

Harold

C Gee
Spokesmen for Hamas have repeatedly made clear that Hamas is willing to recognize Israel within pre-1967 borders.

Three-quarters of Palestinians in the occupied territories say they support the prisoners' document.

I have forgotten the reference for this, so you are obviously free to disregard it, but I have read reports of conversations between journalists and ex-members of the Israeli intelligence services who have talked to Hamas leaders over the years (back to the 1990s). The Israeli agents have said that the Hamas leaders they talked to (mostly since killed in "extra-judicial" murders) were realists and willing to negotiate with Israel. It ought to be possible for you to find similar reports in the Israeli press, which is still one of the most vigorous in the world,despite recent infringements on press freedom.

There have been many more public overtures from Hamas, as from other Palestinian organizations.

I think it wise to try to distinguish between political rhetoric aimed at various constituencies, negotiating positions, and realistic compromises that represent your negotiating partners' bottom line - that is, if an agreement is what you are after.

Adam B.

Blades, the genocidal sentiments I describe come from Hizbollah's leader, Nasrallah, who said it was good the Jews gathered in Israel, as it would save them the trouble of going after the Jews worldwide. In addition, you need to read Hizbollah's charter. The terror organization does indeed have a voice, and it uses it. The problem is that many in the West are deaf.

Adam B.

The inescapable truth is that Hizbollah and Hamas both want to destroy Israel and her inhabitants, and are clear about their intentions. The Israel haters in the West can't get around this fact, try as they do.

Charles

Ms Phillips: You have often criticised the way in which the peace process is pursued, but never proffered a solution.

How would solve the problem, please?

Adam B.

Harold, it's not "murder" when you're at war. Hamas' leadership are not innocent civilians. Hamas views itself as being at war with Israel, and it seem somewhat ridiculous that you regard them as off limits when they deliberately target Israeli civilians.

How many Afghan terrorists have British forces killed in extra judicial killings? Do you regard them as such?

Harold

Adam B.
May 22nd, 2010 7:24pm

In both instances, have you any notion what the elegantly phrased "collateral damage" was (that would be men, women and children efficiently but messily dismembered)?

And, as it happens, yes, even the normally supine Israeli judicial system does classify such extra-judicial killing as illegal (hence the recent attempts to silence journalists).

Adam B.

E Hart,

Do you think the US should sit down and negotiate with Al-Qaeda, and compromise to meet some of Al-Qaeda's demands?

Baron

E Hart @ 12.37:

here’s my take on the problem. A majority of the Palestinians would like nothing better than to get rid of both Hamas and Fatah. Trust me, I know, I’ve checked.

How do you negotiate with someone who wants to kill you? Slow death, shooting, gas chamber? If Obama think he can turn Hamas around with whatever offer, he cannot be as bright as people say he is.

Both sides are to blame, but only one side wants the other dead, and that cuts it for me.

and another thing; an easy solution that will never be tried because in our pseudo-liberal society we cannot stand pain. (Pity, because there will come a time when we’ll suffer ourselves). Charles at 6.02 listen, too, please. Stop the aid to Gaza and the West Bank. Just like that. Before you get your teeth into Goethe and the others think it through, you’ll see the beauty of it yourself.

E Hart

@Baron & Adam B

In Northern Ireland, the Reverend Ian Paisley said 'no' for the best part of 30 years but in the end he realised that compromise was the only way. Compromise is the only way; it's either bend or break.
I agree with you on the standpoint of Hezbollocks and Jamais - they are nasty organisations - but ultimately they will deal.
Islam is no more a singular entity than Christianity. Also, Islam is about to go over the hill and the voices within Islam know it. Aside, from the influence of science and freedom - they know that ultimately the voices of reaction cannot carry the people - as the elections in Iran illustrate - the seeds of its own destruction have been sown. The time will come, believe me, when some deluded mullah will be addressing a crowd - a la Ceausescu - when the realisation will dawn that the tables have been turned. Freedom is irrespressible - you can forestall it - but not indefinitely. The concept of freedom is immutable - we need it - and it cannot be defeated.

The most important thing as regards Israel and the Palestinians is to construct a just peace and that would seem to be a two-state solution.

I don't want to hear any more nonsense about pursuing existing policies - they don't work!

Goethe: "If you do nothing - nothing happens." Unamuno: "You need reason and right to persuade." Nick Smith, from the Rover comic: 'It's goals that count."

@Adam B As for Al-Qaeda - talk to them. We've talked to everyone why not them. At the moment we are yapping with the Taliban and in the past the West (usually America) yapped with the Viet Minh/Viet Cong... There is no such thing as a conversation in diplomacy that is beyond the pale; the rhetoric, of course, says otherwise. Clausewitz ought to have said that 'face-saving' is war by other means.

David, Thailand

Throw cotton balls for consolation, but fact is the most powerful people in the free world have an overt psychotic hatred for Western values, principles, and freedoms.

Future generations will look back and shake their head in wonder, that 21st century Man could be so naive.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold
May 20th, 2010 10:48pm
"Hezbollah, whose aim is the extermination of Israel"

- Hezbollah holds that Israel is illegitimate. However, Hezbollah also holds that what the Palestinians decide they want, Hezbollah will abide by and that what the Palestinians have decided they want is set out in the prisoners' document of 2006, in essence a version of the two-state solution."

Thank God for that...I was worried about Hizbollah being radical, for a moment...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold
May 21st, 2010 2:45pm
elixelx
May 21st, 2010 12:49pm

"I in turn find your comments obscure.

I merely provided a factual correction. Hezbollah has undertaken to follow the wishes of the Palestinians, and has accepted that those wishes are expressed in the prisoners' document of 2006"

Claptrap, Harold. Not even the so-called Palestinians can be said to have a strong consensus about the "prisoner's document", let alone Hizbollah's position vis a vis Israel being predicated on that.

Complete rubbish...and dangerous rubbish at that.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades wrote: "President Obama, George Mitchell, Hilary Clinton and John Bidden are clearly on the right track. Peace and a just two state settlement is now a real possibility."

You seem to think the "two state solution" is not only a novel idea but one invented but the original wise-man Obama and his advisors.

Everyone knows that a two state solution will certainly never hold with a sufficient consensus of moslem players in the region. Not even Obama is so dumb as to believe otherwise.

It will be interesting to see, however, if the US will be sufficiently successful in defusing the power of the solution's principal rejectionists - Iran and its proxies - Hizbollah, Syria and Hamas - to make the "solution" on e that can survive -in any form.
In today's world of the efficacy of asymetric warfare, this is highly unlikely. The truth is, of course, that Obama knows this all too well , but believes this "peace" is the "best" way forward if the other US interests in the region are to be pursued with more success.

Cynicism reigns...Any other claim to moral high ground should, at best, be sniggered at.

Adam B.

Harold, well done, you've moved the goalposts. Now it's women and children, but your complaint ws that Hamas operatives are targeted.

I'll ask again - do you consider the argeting of Taleban and Al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan as "murder, extra-judicial killings"? Presumably no civilians are ever harmed in those?

Harold

Adam B.
May 23rd, 2010 12:14pm

You are quite right. My first point was the murder (sorry, the illegal deliberate killing) of Palestinian leaders and, as I did not spell out, how counterproductive this campaign of murder (illegal deliberate killing) has been to genuine negotiation. I suspect my point is naive: the murders are part of Israel's continuing policy of insisting and ensuring there is "no-one" to negotiate with (a policy that first led Israel to nurture Hamas, to weaken the secular leadership of Fatah).

My outburst about "collateral damage" was prompted by your smug assumption that this is "war" and "war" justifies these murders that invariably involve the slaughter of innocents. It is not war. The murders are counterproductive to a genuine search for peace and are illegal. The slaughter of innocents has no justification.

As I said in my initial response, this applies to the actions of the US and UK in Afghanistan.

Derek BLADES

E. Hart. My congratulation on a couple of very per finger on the problem with this blog when you told Ms Phillips "You're a fine one for sticking up your own coconuts but I notice that you can set the problem but you never to seem to have any solutions or proposals that stand scrutiny."

My reluctant conclusion is that Melanie does have a solution to the present impasse - although she has never been explicit about it. Her solution is the status quo. From reading other contributors to this blog, she is clearly not alone in thinking that another few years of business as usual will effectively see the end to any possibility of a Palestinian state. The West Bank will be absorbed into a greater Israel.

This cannot be allowed to happen and that is why we need the clear thinking of the Obama team.

Harold

Derek BLADES
May 23rd, 2010 2:56pm

I think you are right in saying that the state of Israel has almost achieved the outcome for which the "peace process" was designed: control of land and resources and the Palestinians securely confined in ghettoes or in exile. You say this cannot be allowed to happen. I don't see how it can be stopped. The Obama administration is intent on implementing the "peace process" and is no more interested in playing honest broker than any previous administration. US strategic interests have not changed.

Adam B.

Harold, I'm not assuming it's war, it is indeed war. Hamas says it's at war. Towards that end, it says that every Israeli man, woman and child is a legitimate target - (and indeed, any Jew, Israeli or not). It seems somewhat ridiculous to then claim that no Hamas operative is allowed to be targeted, that they must all be off limits as they plan and execute more acts of murder (yes, when civilians are deliberately targeted, and their deaths celebrated, as is the case with Hamas, it is murder).

I suppose you regard the assassination of Reinhardt Heydrich in WWII by British trained Czech agents as an act of murder? If not, why not?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "My outburst about "collateral damage" was prompted by your smug assumption that this is "war" and "war" justifies these murders that invariably involve the slaughter of innocents. It is not war. The murders are counterproductive to a genuine search for peace and are illegal. The slaughter of innocents has no justification."

Ah, that old "illegal" killing again. What a fine distinction you imply! I guess your righteous indignation is predicated on a very strong conviction concerning "legal" killing?

Your view, I would suggest, invariably reduces itself to one of justification of the position vis a vis the Jews and Zionists held by the Arab Legion, Arab League, and the Arab moslem leadership in Palestine - prior to the the passing of Resolution 181 and thereafter. It implies not only that that position was and is still justified but also that the Palestinian position has genuinely changed.

Why should Israel entertain your kind of pontificating about its present behavior if you think it has no right to exist(or you do, but merely support those who don't)? The Law aside - and notwithstanding the fact that your view of it is certainly not cut and dried- it would be naive in the extreme, if not daft, to expect Israel not to be convinced that preemptive war, targeted assassinations etc, are the best ways of managing a difficult situation which will not be solved by making it's unilateral offering of concessions.

What is that makes you believe a two state solution will hold? You really believe that there is sufficient Arab moslem genuine support for it? If so, there is nothing in the history of the conflict to support that view.

This conflict has seen the slaughter of innocents on all sides. Given this fact (and your conspicuous ignoring of it) and the above, I would suggest that it is, rather, your puerile, if not cynical moralising that is "counterproductive to a genuine search for peace"

Adam B.

E. Hart, the suggestion that the US should consider Al-Qaeda's complaints says it all. Presumably we should make concessions as well? Ifso, what do you think we could concede to a bunch of murdering scum? (sorry, is that too judgemental?)

Harold

Adam B.
May 23rd, 2010 7:06pm

"...they plan and execute more acts of murder (yes, when civilians are deliberately targeted, and their deaths celebrated, as is the case with Hamas, it is murder)."

You are just too nimble for me. I can't compete with this. You would bamboozle the Jesuits or Talmudic scholars of traditional caricature.

Thomas

Every Palestinian and citizen of the Lebanon is within range of Israeli weaponry, which Israel has been happy to use with atrocious irresponsibility. Israel has a record of not fulfilling its promises in agreements reached with Palestinians (most recently, in a telling reversal of the media image, Hamas observed the terms of the ceasefire and Israel reneged, again).

What reason have the Palestinians to believe anything Israel says? What reason have the Palestinians to feel safe regardless of anything Israel may promise?

E Hart

@Adam B

Judgemental? No. Naive. Yes. You assume that the US wouldn't talk to such groups. This is not a view borne out by experience.
The only difference between this sort of diplomacy and the norm - tends to be the time-delay in hearing about it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "What reason have the Palestinians to believe anything Israel says? What reason have the Palestinians to feel safe regardless of anything Israel may promise?"

Probably little, but certainly no less than the converse.

You seem to imply that there has always been a sufficiently effective section of the Palestinian leadership which has ever done anything to convince anyone at all that it wants anything but the destruction of Israel. If you feel this is not the case, I am desperate to hear evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps take us back a little ways, to the action of the Moslem Council of Palestine and it's position on the offer by the Madatory of a Legislative Council - and its rejection of it - on which Arab moslems would hold an overwhelming majority.

The implication that if not for Israeli intransigence there would be peace is laughable.

non prophet

come come, Thomas, your nose is growing.
oh ok, maybe we should all believe what hamas says then
what does it state in its charter concerning obliterating israel, please refresh my memory :-)

Thomas

It is often claimed that Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinians because there would be no credible guarantee of security - clearly not for the state itself, but certainly for individual citizens(piddling missiles are not so piddling for the individuals they kill and their families).

I pointed out that the Palestinians could apply similar reasoning faced with Israel's fearsome arsenal and Israel's eagerness to use it.

Each new attack by one side or the other gives encouragement to the extremists on either side, the Israelis to complete their annexation regardless of the cost to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians (absurdly enough in their parlous condition)to proclaim that compromise equates to surrender.

There is a choice. Continue killing and blaming the other side (but the death of one Israeli is one too many, and the death of a thousand Palestinians or Lebanese is a thousand too many), while Israel consolidates its hold on the land and resources and the Palestinians sink ever further into destitution, into social breakdown, and mafia-style rule. Or negotiate.

The suggestion of negotiation provokes theatrical hoots of derision from supporters of Israel at the very idea that Palestinians would negotiate in good faith to salvage something from the wreckage of the lives.

The best way to put that to the test, to call their bluff, is to negotiate.

Israel has the overwhelming preponderance of power. Israel has the support of the US. Previous negotiations (if you seek out the record of what happened, instead of the US/Israeli spin) produced abject concessions from the Palestinians, which time and again have advanced Israel's objective (as an earlier contributor has said) of separating Gaza from the West Bank, keeping the Palestinian leadership divided, incompetent and corrupt (no difficult task), and corralling the Palestinians of the West Bank into a series of separate, easily policed ghettoes.

As far as I can see, Israel is happy to continue with this "peace process" (the forty year old stalemate with its death and destruction) until it has finally completely achieved its objective.

If anyone should demonstrate their good faith here, it should be Israel, but it appears the preponderance of power and close approach of final success is too tempting - better keep shouting the slogans and lobbing the bombs. Who cares about the hypocrisy, so long as you win?

Adam B.

No E Hart, it was judgemental, and rightly so. Naive it was not, for the very reason which you avoid, namely, answering this question (without addressing it, any such negotiations are meaningless) - what concessions would you make?

Adam B.

Thomas, let's cut to the chase. If Israel withdrew to the meaningless ceasefire lines of 1948, do you honestly believe that there would be a sudden outbreak of peace? If so, why did the Arabs repeatdely try to destroy Israel pre-1967? What has changed in the interim?

And incidentally, there has been a lot of revisionist nonsense about the ceasefire (or hudna to the Palestinian Arabs) pre Cast Lead. Israel offered to renew it, Hamas declared it over.

Peace will come when the Arab and Islamic worlds give up on the idea of obliterating Israel and her Jewish inhabitants. Without that, there's nothing to talk about.

And why do you assume the Palestinians should have a second state (after Jordan)? What have they done to deserve it? Do you know of any other case where an aggressor is granted conditions which existed before the act of aggression?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "The best way to put that to the test, to call their bluff, is to negotiate.

Israel has the overwhelming preponderance of power. Israel has the support of the US. Previous negotiations (if you seek out the record of what happened, instead of the US/Israeli spin) produced abject concessions from the Palestinians, which time and again have advanced Israel's objective (as an earlier contributor has said) of separating Gaza from the West Bank, keeping the Palestinian leadership divided, incompetent and corrupt (no difficult task), and corralling the Palestinians of the West Bank into a series of separate, easily policed ghettoes.

As far as I can see, Israel is happy to continue with this "peace process" (the forty year old stalemate with its death and destruction) until it has finally completely achieved its objective.

If anyone should demonstrate their good faith here, it should be Israel, but it appears the preponderance of power and close approach of final success is too tempting - better keep shouting the slogans and lobbing the bombs. Who cares about the hypocrisy, so long as you win?"

Thomas, you genuinely feel that your diatribe against Israel's intentions is equally valid throughout the history of this conflict? Then I suggest you take relook at the history of the conflict - which did not start - however inconvenient for your case - in 1967 when israel preempted the Arabs war to exterminate it; when it had nothing whatsoever to do with the either the West bank, East Jeruslalem or Gaza.

Of course we all want peace. Of course there has to be a solution which requires serious compromise on both sides..but don't think the Arabs represent a force that has consistently taken every opportunity to create that solution - to realise opportunities that were in their lap time and again.

The shame of the history of Arab leadership cannot be rewritten just because you find it intellectually convenient. And to continue to propagate your historical lie - as the Palestinian leadership and its supporters continue to do - will only increase mistrust and make peace very much harder to achieve.

E Hart

@Adam B

You're derailing the discussion. You mentioned A-Q not me. I was talking about Hezbollah. However, there might come a time when the US might have deal with A-Q-dominated government somewhere.

Your belief in the steadfastness of the Western powers not to deal with terrorists is touching if misplaced. They'll do it if suits them or they have to. You know it and I know it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

E Hart wrote: "Your belief in the steadfastness of the Western powers not to deal with terrorists is touching if misplaced. They'll do it if suits them or they have to. You know it and I know it."

Hamas will eventually morph into the radicals of a bygone age and be coopted into mainstream politics and it will make no difference to this impasse. at all..for their rejectionism ("liberation struggle") will be usurped by another group..

Islam does not have a good history when it comes to accommodation with the non believers in it path or even midst. No two state solution will change that..and, frankly, even if the Jews are all pushed into the sea, the schisms within Islam will soon tear the region apart anyway..

It is a war without end and the cutsey railing against nasty Israel will fade to the blackness of a sick joke, once the rabid dogs who will fill the vacuum its destruction would leave start tearing each other apart...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

E Hart wrote: "Your belief in the steadfastness of the Western powers not to deal with terrorists is touching if misplaced. They'll do it if suits them or they have to. You know it and I know it."

Hamas will eventually morph into the radicals of a bygone age and be coopted into mainstream politics and it will make no difference to this impasse. at all..for their rejectionism ("liberation struggle") will be usurped by another group..

Islam does not have a good history when it comes to accommodation with the non believers in it path or even midst. No two state solution will change that..and, frankly, even if the Jews are all pushed into the sea, the schisms within Islam will soon tear the region apart anyway..

It is a war without end and the cutsey railing against nasty Israel will fade to the blackness of a sick joke, once the rabid dogs who will fill the vacuum its destruction would leave start tearing each other apart...

Thomas

We are told to look at the history before 1967. What we see is akin to the cuckoo's art of nesting, with the one obvious difference that the hosts in this instance were all too aware of the intent (and, to extend the analogy well beyond ornithological realism, the cuckoo had the help of a couple of eagles). Making loud noises about the cuckoo's rights and the hosts' aggression should not be allowed to obscure what happened. But, to repeat a point frequently made, history should not get in the way of peace-making (nor partial and misleading history like the accounts of the actions and intentions of the neighbouring Arab states, nor pseudo-history, such as nonsense about Jordan being the state the inhabitants west of the Jordan should accept); nor should the argument that Israel has to keep occupying, oppressing and killing otherwise its very existence is at risk - the Palestinians weaponry is as a pop-gun (however lethal to the individuals underneath) compared to Israel's baroque arsenal of advanced weaponry, and Iran's intention to develop a nuclear weapon as defensive deterrence against its nuclear enemies in no way obstructs negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. All this merely postpones serious talks because Israel knows that given time it gets what it wants.

(I notice the canard about the ceasefire in Gaza still quacks. Hamas observed the ceasefire - as confirmed by the Israeli security services. Israel failed to meet its obligations under the terms of the ceasefire. Israel continued miltary attacks. As the expiry date approached Hamas offered an extension. Israel refused - because Hamas proposed the negotiations include the West Bank - and made an armed incursion into Gaza. At this point Hamas were stupid enough to rise to the bait and call off further negotiation, and resumed its criminal firing of rockets. If anyone wants to call this Hamas breaking the ceasefire, they should feel free, aware that it strains credibility.)

Harold

One thing history has shown is that the Arab states have not been particularly concerned with the rights and interests of the Palestinians. They would have preferred not to have to acknowledge them, and once forced to, would have preferred to have it all sorted somehow anyhow. Their concern has always been their own survival and their own interests (as a detailed reading of the diplomatic history will show). Why would peace between the Palestinians cause the Arab states to seek the destruction of Israel now, to the obvious detriment of their own interests and at the risk of their very survival? This argument for the impossibility of Israel negotiating in good faith just does not stand up.

David SI

Thomas, I give way to your knowledge of cuckoos, eagles and canards and their respective nesting habits. However, you refer to Israel’s baroque arsenal of advanced weaponry; Actually, baroque is an artistic style prevalent from the late 16th century to the early 18th century. It may well be that you consider IDF weaponry to be artistic, and who am I to contradict you? :-) (I swear I’ll never look at a Merkava tank in the same way again!).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: it really doesn't surprise me that you allude to cuckoos so obsessively...

Think on this, simply: even if Israel moves back to the armistice lines on ;49, it will change nothing. War will continue because there are far too many spoilers on the side of the Arabs, the Moslems, the Palestinians, the Persians,..call them what you will. Point is, there are far too many - like you - who believe in a cause that ideally calls for the extermination of Israel. Moreover, there are far too many - perhaps unlike you - who are prepared to kill others and themselves in the name of that cause. Cuckoo, I know...

Israel would never survive if it relied on some putative goodwill of those who oppose them. They would surely be cuckoo if they did..

Adam B.

E Hart, the point is that if you think Israel needs to talk to a genocidal antisemitic terror organization (about what exactly?), it logically follows that the US should talk to another genocidal antisemitic (and anti everything Western) terror organization - Al Qaeda. Such "talks" mean concessions. So my question to you, yet again, is this: what would you be willing to concede to al Qaeda? If your answer is nothing, then your argument is simply hypocritical.

Derailing the discussion - I like that. It says "Hey, we're only talking about what Israel should do. Of course, this would never apply to us!"

Adam B.

Harold

What on earth are you talking about?

Please try English.

And what has changed in the interim (since 1967)? In other words, why would the Arab world accept Israel now when it didn't before your so-called "occupation" of Judea and Samaria?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "with the one obvious difference that the hosts in this instance were all too aware of the intent (and, to extend the analogy well beyond ornithological realism, the cuckoo had the help of a couple of eagles)."

No, Thomas, you have it wrong. Read a little, chum, about the war that followed the Arab rejection of Res 181. You want to believe that the jews wer merely lauding it over the poor Arabs?

A cuckoo, a cuckoo..my kingdom for a ...

Thomas

David SI
May 25th, 2010 2:42pm

I know you mean you wouldn't be daft enough to dream of relying on my knowledge of anything ornithological, and you would be right.

I can help you with "Baroque", however, which means, among other things, grotesque and ornate, and as you say is applied to architecture, and to music, and also by extension to anything over-elaborate, with bells and whistles, with knobs on, over-engineered to a specification way beyond practical necessity...

Thomas

National myths are not fiction exactly, but nor are they truth entirely. Anyone who wants to attempt to understand the history of the last hundred years in Palestine/Israel should not reach for the shelf marked "Zionist history". Or, if they must, they should reach also for the shelf marked "Palestinian history", and points in between. To get some understanding of events, it is not enough just to repeat the slogans of Zionism at ever higher volume of indignation and righteousness (and likewise for the slogans of the Palestinians).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "National myths are not fiction exactly, but nor are they truth entirely. Anyone who wants to attempt to understand the history of the last hundred years in Palestine/Israel should not reach for the shelf marked "Zionist history". Or, if they must, they should reach also for the shelf marked "Palestinian history", and points in between. "

Cuckoo history, perhaps? Can you recommend anything?

Harold

It's curious to be so keen to identify with the cuckoo given what "Thomas" intended it to represent...or maybe - it is just possible...is this contributor trying to be humourous? Humour is sometimes considered effective in deflecting awkward arguments and avoiding having to think. Awkward arguments safely deflected: back to shouting slogans.

Harold

Adam B.
May 25th, 2010 7:10pm

I will not dare engage again with one so skilled in casuistry, but I will correct one of the errors in my last comment that you were unable to work out for yourself: I should have said, "Why would peace between the Palestinians AND ISRAEL cause the Arab states to seek the destruction of Israel now..." I am sorry my carelessness caused you such confusion.

E Hart

@Adam B.

We are talking about finding a solution and as a precondition of that all sides will have to deal. The statis has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing; it advances nothing.

As for A-Q - I'm not proposing anything. I'm merely suggesting that were they to become a political organisation with a constituency - however mad - they would have to treated in a different way.

The Israeli-Palestine conflict requires compromise and that applies equally to Hezbollah, Hamas and Fatah as it does to Israel.

I can't really believe that the attitudes of Hezbollah, Hamas or Fatah to Israel wouldn't be mollified by a change in the political and social predicament of the Palestinians (i.e. a two-state solution).

You can blather on all you like about the statis but how long is it appropriate or wise to continue to do the same thing? How much death, injury, insecurity and misery must people endure before someone concludes that there must be a better way of resolving the issue?

This problem isn't intractable anymore than Ulster was. Its continuance or otherwise is largely dependent on the willingness of the parties to deal.

You can continue with your idea of armed paralysis and tit-for-tat or tit-for-more-than-tat but most people - especially those in the middle of it - would it like it to end.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: ""Why would peace between the Palestinians AND ISRAEL cause the Arab states to seek the destruction of Israel now..."

From casuistry to truisms and questions which only beg more questions. Enough to drive one cuckoo, Thomas..

Of course, if there were Peace between Palestinians and Israel, there would be, by definition, no war between them. I guess we agree on that..So much for truisms.

The key questions begged is what sort of Peace would genuinely be sought and what peace achieved would hold in the Arab and Moslem world..whatever Palestinians may or may not eventually agree.

Adam B alludes to a simple historical truth which belies your position that israel does not want peace and, if only they did, all would be just lovely. You predicate your position on what you deem to be Israel's "occupation" of the West bank and Gaza. The truth is, of course, that too many Arabs/Moslems have defined "occupation" in terms of the very existence of the state of Israel. For you, perhaps, a minor oversight, but it is key...

If the Arabs waged war against Jews who were not permitted to bear arms - after the UN voted overwhelmigly for Resolution 181 - and continued to wage war after Israel declared Independence, depsite UN recognition; and thereafter - in '67 - when Israel did not "occupy" the West bank, East Jeruslaem or Gaza, I think this alone should lead you to infer that there is a strongly held Arab/moslem position against the existence of Israel per se - sufficient (to put it mildly) to make suspicion re the genuineness of any Arab/moslem so-called peace intentions extreme - not to mention to consign your spurious attachment to the "Peace process" to the dustbin of political turpitude.

Vultures and Cuckoos: birds of a feather...

Harold

"Harold
May 26th, 2010 10:16am
It's curious to be so keen to identify with the cuckoo given what "Thomas" intended it to represent...or maybe - it is just possible...is this contributor trying to be humourous?"

...okay, that was lame...

I think I had better leave the field to the casuist and the satirist. They are much more effective in closing down than I am in trying to open up constructive debate. A parable in miniature of Israel's way with negotiations.

Adam B.

Harold, it's really not a difficult question, and it goes to the root of the problem.

Why would the Arab world accept Israel now when it didn't before your so-called "occupation" of Judea and Samaria?

Adam B.

E Hart, you keep avoiding the issue. I see that Al Qaeda only have to set up a "political wing" for you to deal with them (give concessions to them). Al-Qaeda have publicize their lists of grievances against the US and the West - so why are you against addressing these grievances (as you so strongly believe Israel should make concessions to those who would kill every Jew on earth). It's always interesting how people dismiss this - you are basically saying that Hamas and Hizbollah don't really mean it when they advocate genocide - although you produce no evidence to support this. Furthermore, Israel has been in discussions with Fatah. Abbas of Fatah recentlt said that he would never, under any circumstances, and even with a two (make that three with Jordan) state solution, accept Israel as a Jewish state.

Do you think that would lead to peace?

Analogies with Northern Ireland are historically and intellectually illiterate. The IRA never said it wanted to exterminate ecery British subject, they never wanted to wipe Britain off the map and no Irish terrorist strapped on an explosive belt, walked into a restaurant/cafe/club/school/ shop/bus and detonated himself and murdered those around him in the belief he was committing a holy act and would go straight to paradise and 72 virgins. You are dealing with a completely different mentality - one which does not accept pluralism - or any kind of morality you would recognize.

Thomas

Adam B.

Since you seem unable to conceive of the possiblity of a negotiated peace now because of certain strongly held beliefs about the past, I suggest you read some history. The past is opaque and literally infinitely complicated. The only way to begin to understand it is to study many different historians, not just those who confirm the beliefs you bring to your reading. This applies as much to the specific question about relations between Arab states and Israel before 1967 as to every other aspect of the conflict. If you genuinely want to promote the possibility of peace, you should begin with some genuine effort to understand, not simply repeat ad nauseam your severely restricted repetoire of factoids and gambits for closing down debate.

wonderer

Adam B. May 26th, 2010 7:10pm.
I wasn't aware of the recent statement by Abbas but it's very much of a piece with what he and others on the Palestinian side have said .
In an interview with the official Palestinian TV station on March 17 2009, Muhammad Dahlan, Fatah's former head of security in Gaza, stated, "[Hamas] say that Fatah has asked them to recognize Israel's right to exist and this is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." He explained that it was the PLO, and not Fatah, which recognized Israel's right to exist when the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993.

According to a more detailed report on the Palestinian Media Watch website, Dahlan said that the PLO s recognition of Israel was not binding on Fatah and Hamas as resistance factions but was necessary to ensure a continuing flow of aid from the international community: http://tinyurl.com/cwp32j . The same report attributes similar comments to Abbas in 2006.

Adam B.

Thomas

Contrary to your assertion that these beliefs are "from the past", it is clear that the beliefs to which I draw your attention (Hamas' and Hizbollah's advocacy for genocide and their rejection of peace talks, and Fatah's statement that it will never accept any Jewish state, regardless of borders), are current. These are their stated positions now, not yesterday. It is not I who cannot conceive of peace, it is them. They reject it (Hamas openly mocks the very notion of peace talks in its charter - have you read it?) because they hold very dear the idea of destroying Israel and her inhabitants. It needs to be repeated, because people like you seem incapable of grappling with this. Furthermore, perhaps you can answer the questions I have posed to E Hart and Harold, which remain unaddressed.

Wonder why.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "Thomas
May 26th, 2010 9:20pm
Adam B.

Since you seem unable to conceive of the possiblity of a negotiated peace now because of certain strongly held beliefs about the past, I suggest you read some history. The past is opaque and literally infinitely complicated. The only way to begin to understand it is to study many different historians, not just those who confirm the beliefs you bring to your reading. This applies as much to the specific question about relations between Arab states and Israel before 1967 as to every other aspect of the conflict. If you genuinely want to promote the possibility of peace, you should begin with some genuine effort to understand, not simply repeat ad nauseam your severely restricted repetoire of factoids and gambits for closing down debate."

Do us all a favour, Thomas, and share some of the views of the historians of the period you do admire rather than assume the likes of Adam B (or anyone else who thinks you're a hoodwinker) read only propaganda (no condescension intended, I'm sure).

We know you have been abord the Arab Peace train and you are a fan of the route - historically it has taken - so just give us your version of it's route to date.

All ears...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

E hart wrote: "You can blather on all you like about the statis but how long is it appropriate or wise to continue to do the same thing? How much death, injury, insecurity and misery must people endure before someone concludes that there must be a better way of resolving the issue?"

I'm sure Obama will take you advice and negotiate with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Ahmedinejad...

Cuckoos, cuckoos...

Stuart Fairney

You know damn well Al Quds is merely the Arabic name for Jerusalem. Please stop perpetrating the 'wipe out' myth it devalues your otherwise sound points

Thomas

Adam B.
May 26th, 2010 11:40pm

"Why would the Arab world accept Israel now when it didn't before your so-called "occupation" of Judea and Samaria?"

"And why do you assume the Palestinians should have a second state (after Jordan)?"

"If Israel withdrew to the meaningless ceasefire lines of 1948, do you honestly believe that there would be a sudden outbreak of peace? If so, why did the Arabs repeatdely try to destroy Israel pre-1967?"

Thomas

It is not condescension to point out that statements presented as the facts or the Truth are one-sided and selective to the point of presenting a misleading picture of the past.

In schematic terms: if I can read Efraim Karsh, it should be possible for others to read Nur Masalha, if Dershowitz, then Finkelstein, if Martin Gilbert, then Avi Shlaim. We can all read Benny Morris both in the old days when he provided the evidence but did not draw the conclusions, and now when he has his conclusions, but no evidence. There are any number of partisan and not so partisan historians whose work is worth studying (more that you will disagree with, since you appear to be wilfully blind to their work): Colin Shindler, Arno Mayer, Tom Segev, Shlomo Ben-Ami, Ilan Pappe, Rashid Khalidi, Uri Milstein, Zeev Maoz, Kattan on the Mandate...David Cesarini's latest book is first-rate and gives a picture of the shabbiness all round in the last days of the Mandate...there are any number of good British scholars of British diplomacy, any number of good British and American scholars of the Palestine/Israel conflict (it is not difficult to find the most balanced of them)...the list could go on. There is no need to ask to be pointed in the direction of accounts other than the Zionist version. They are there in profusion and difficult to miss.

There is no excuse for repeating endlessly and without qualification the self-serving version of history produced by Israel. Similarly, there is no excuse for endlessly repeating that, because many in Hamas shout death to Israel and fire their (relative)pop-guns, Israel's very existence would be threatened if it made concessions for peace with the Palestinians. This is manifest nonsense.

E Hart

@John Roosevelt
@Adam B

There is more to diplomacy than threatening or putting the muzzle of a M16 up someone's nose. Thank God the pair of you don't work for the Foreign Office. It is never a good idea to advertise instransigence and intractability as virtues ahead of any negotiation. Your adversary should at least have to guess what your response to a given set of circumstances might be.
Your approach is thump first, thump second and thump third and to conclude - with an extravagant gesture of certainty in you own rectitude - that it was the only way it could have been. I've yet to find any sense positing a one-size-fits-all response to a problem. You're right in a sense - if you always do the same thing, it is - de facto - the only way. Just don't expect negotiations predicated on such a fatuous idea to go anywhere. That really is cuckoo, ostrich and great tit rolled into one.

Adam B.

E Hart,

One can wish for peace as hard as one wants, but you have to deal with reality, not some airy fairy fantasy. You provide no evidence for your contention that peace is just a negotiation away. You ignore the evidence of the intransigence of these terror groups, and their stated aims (and rejection of peace talks). Surely foreign diplomacy has to be based on evidence to some degree, not just idealism, which can, at the wrong time, send out the wrong signals and bring war closer rather than further away?

You have yet to respond to my point about Al-Qaeda. Why are you so tongue tied? Would you make any concessions?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

E Hart
May 28th, 2010 1:00pm
@John Roosevelt
@Adam B

There is more to diplomacy than threatening or putting the muzzle of a M16 up someone's nose. Thank God the pair of you don't work for the Foreign Office. It is never a good idea to advertise instransigence and intractability as virtues ahead of any negotiation. Your adversary should at least have to guess what your response to a given set of circumstances might be.
Your approach is thump first, thump second and thump third and to conclude - with an extravagant gesture of certainty in you own rectitude - that it was the only way it could have been. I've yet to find any sense positing a one-size-fits-all response to a problem. You're right in a sense - if you always do the same thing, it is - de facto - the only way. Just don't expect negotiations predicated on such a fatuous idea to go anywhere. That really is cuckoo, ostrich and great tit rolled into one."

What noxious cant...: intransigence ahead o negotiations"? And the Palestinian leadership???Mmmm:)))). That cock and bull aside, I am only suggesting that Thomas's wingeing is spurious - pretending that if only israel was less intransigent, all would be just ..well... just, oh so "Foreign office", I guess.

Of course both you and Thomas sing from the same song book in the name of flexibility and the capacity to see into the better regions of one's enemy's soul. In fact, you abhor Israel, coming from what is fundamentally an profoundly intransigent, ideological position. You, like so many in the Foreign Office over the years, not least when they supported the Arab Legion in the murder of Jews not legally allowed to arm themselves - from November '47 onwards, wish it never existed and want a Peace predicated on the unquestioning acceptance of that principle - strangely, just like Hamas, fatah, Hizbollah, Syria, Iran...blah, blah..then you just love to turn around and accuse Israel or those of this opinion of brutishness. It ain't brutishness, my son. Just plain old mistrust and the kind of behavior of perfidious Albion the likes of you are famous for.

One may think Israel has no right to exist and is a mere stooge of the American imperialists who, like the British, have no notion of the goodness which lies at the heart of the Moslem world - so diabolically misconstrued and twisted and abused by all. Not even Robert Fisk, however, manages to come with prescriptions for a workable peace - anywahere...just the same old prjudiced ranting, bitter and tired...full of facetious slurs about the criminal West and the tortured souls stuff re the downtrodden. Very inspiring till one articulated the begged question: so what's the solution or policy prescription?? Deathly silence..Kinda like the Foreign Office, when things in the nice diplomatic world go south for it...(?)

By all means negotiate with israel..I am all for it!!...but dont expect those negotiations to go very far if you are unwilling to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, for starters. A minor detail in the Foreign Office's and your book, perhaps..but, to take a leaf out of your very sophisticated book, realistic as a first step, I think.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "There is no need to ask to be pointed in the direction of accounts other than the Zionist version. They are there in profusion and difficult to miss.

There is no excuse for repeating endlessly and without qualification the self-serving version of history produced by Israel. Similarly, there is no excuse for endlessly repeating that, because many in Hamas shout death to Israel and fire their (relative)pop-guns, Israel's very existence would be threatened if it made concessions for peace with the Palestinians. This is manifest nonsense."

What a load of old spurious hooey, Thomas...Again, I ask you: what is it, precisely, you think has been wrongly suggested about the history of Arab rejectionism which should - for some obscure reason - give us all the faith you seem to have in current Arab and Moslem good intentions? You trivialise the profound lack of trust Israel and Jews have in the intentions of the Palestinian leadership, not to mention that of Syria, Iran etc - to the point of silliness. It's as if the wars it has fought, in which the blood of its people was spent, were a mere figment of its imagination or, if not, at least all its fault - and particularly in '47, for fighting for a state at all.

Then again, this precisely is what you mean, is it not - that Israel is, by the very virtue of its existence, an immoral entity - Jewish nationalism having no right to express itself, whereas Arab and Moslem nationalism does...that Jewish nationalism is preclusive but Arab and Moslem nationalism (not to mention any other) somehow is different in that regard?

You believe, do you not, that Israel 's existence is a stain on what could otherwise be Heaven on earth - for all in the region - or merely a chance for Islam in the region to prevail in whatever maximal form it can? You must get a sore head when reading the serious revisionist historians of Israel - having to reconcile the proclivities of those young guns fighting in the name of Islam with Jewish thought anchored in the Enlightenment.

If all Zionists believe in the right of Israel to exist - and Zionism - in your book - is by definition a dirty word because of this - then why would anyone who supports Israel's right to exist think you have any other intention but to work towards its destruction or, at least, support those who do - at the very least as crass enabler of their rejectionist fanaticism. Indeed, If Zionism, in your book, is a dirty word, why on earth should anyone believe that you and the Arabs and Moslems of the region don’t share your view?

..and if they do, like you, why on earth would you expect Israel - which does of course think it should continue to exist - should share your particular brand of “peace” - one which ultimately precludes Israel's right to exist? This is not about security in the sense that Israel feels Hamas will defeat it in war, it is a matter of a principle which the lion's share of Arab and Moslem decision-makers, for the most part, hold dear. No wonder that neither Hamas nor Fatah will come out clearly and unanimously and declare that they do (we wont mention Iran etc).... And this is the basis on which Israel should trust in your negotiations?

Indeed cuckoo, cuckoo...

Don't play the card of insisting those posters you condemn here necessarily are against negotiations or peace. This is a tired old chessnut regurgitated directly from the silly propaganda machine of the frothy anti Zionists. Rather, let us hear what it is you believe the Arabs and Molsems can do to establish trust so that your Imperialist running dog - the apartheid, Nazi regime of Jewish nationalists that is Israel - can find a way of reigning in its conquistadors, who want nothing but to raise the Israeli flag in those centers of milk and honey across the Jordan.

Thomas

We have had some measured, balanced, thoughtful contributions, reflective of a realistic understanding of how the world works, expressed with restraint and lucidity by contributors clearly willing to think things through, to challenge their prejudices, unearth the evidence, and go where the evidence leads, chief among them the priceless Mr. Roosevelt...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

THomas wrote: "Thomas
May 28th, 2010 6:59pm
We have had some measured, balanced, thoughtful contributions, reflective of a realistic understanding of how the world works, expressed with restraint and lucidity by contributors clearly willing to think things through, to challenge their prejudices, unearth the evidence, and go where the evidence leads, chief among them the priceless Mr. Roosevelt.."

Stop the hooey, Thomas and just get a little specific.

Start with telling us all a little re the history Palestinian position towards peace and accommodation with the state of Israel and and let us have some insight into your prescriptions for a settlement you feel could and should hold in any reasonable negotiation.

We know you are a copious reader of non Zionist nuggets..Please do share the wisdom you have enjoyed form these thinkers and let's have a glimpse into your thoughts on how they should be applied to negotiations and the conclusion of a peace which stands a good chance of not being exploded by some suicidal harbinger of of a 1000 years of beatitude in the Middle East...

Thomas

There is no need to ask to be pointed in the direction of accounts other than the Zionist version. They are there in profusion and difficult to miss.

Take the first step, that is, do some of the groundwork, take a little trouble, entertain the possibility that your very limited knowledge may lead you to mistaken conclusions, learn a little intellectual humility, just enough to engage in reasoned debate instead of ranting and mouthing slogans, and then there might be something to talk about...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "Take the first step, that is, do some of the groundwork, take a little trouble, entertain the possibility that your very limited knowledge may lead you to mistaken conclusions, learn a little intellectual humility, just enough to engage in reasoned debate instead of ranting and mouthing slogans, and then there might be something to talk about..."

What "debate". Thomas? You have said nothing at all of substance. You just rant on an on about how nasty we all are..

Harold

Nasty, yes - but ignorant as well. Before debate can get started, you need to venture beyond PalestineFacts-style pantomime history and red-faced sloganizing.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold
May 29th, 2010 6:18pm
"Nasty, yes - but ignorant as well. Before debate can get started, you need to venture beyond PalestineFacts-style pantomime history and red-faced sloganizing."

Ahha...but not one criticism of a specific point made...Just the tired old a priori negation of all that those who take issue with your attempts at discourse - simply on the basis that they are "Zionist", underpinned that they may be "red faced", as if that might somehow be a basis, also, for a priori invalidation of any of their opinions - frightfully un British, no doubt - rather than than the result of profound understanding of the depths of duplicity and obscurantism of people like you.

Sounds eerily familiar (we will only negotiate when you give us all we want - as a precondition for those negotiations to begin) and underscores my pessimism re the future of so-called "negotiations".

Thomas, have a little courage of your convictions. Try and get specific on the history you believe to be true and try and enlighten us so that we we can move forward towards a real peace.

Address this question: do you believe that if Israel concedes to a Palestinian state on the basis of Resolution 242, there will be peace? If so, do you believe that anti Zionism will only find expression peacefully or simply die away?

You see, I believe that the anti Zionist will never accept the right of Israel to exist and there will be far too many around, even after a peace treaty is signed, who will continue to fight Israel.

If the above is true it doesn't matter what israel tries to do to achieve peace...

Harold

I think we can take it that you are not willing to show the humility required to learn something of the history you insist on pronouncing upon. This is unfortunate since you base your intransigence about negotations now on your erroneous historical prejudices. You have been given a selection of references which would help you begin the process of acquiring some intellectual honesty.

On the question you ask Thomas, if Israel agreed a peace based on a reasonable form of the two-state solution (i.e. not Lieberman ghettoes for the Palestinians), there would be peace. The notion that millions should be held in squalor simply because terrorists might continue there attacks after such a settlement is absurd. Such attacks would indeed be atrocities, but would not put Israel's continuing existence in doubt. (The IRA and ETA have not caused the UK or Spain to collapse.) All the states around Israel are willing to recognize it. The Palestinian people, in opinion poll after opinion poll, indicate a willingness to compromise on terms laid out in 242 (how they don't just sink into inarticulate rage and hatred given their treatment by the US and Israel, I do not know). Your hunch about anti-Zionists has no practical relevance to the prospect of peace, except as a means to block it.

Julius O'Malley

As I read this thread I ask myself why on earth would someone as informed and temperate as John Roosevely (or Adam B) bother engaging with "Thomas" at such length. Thomas' first post May 24 which began with:

"Every Palestinian and citizen of the Lebanon is within range of Israeli weaponry, which Israel has been happy to use with atrocious irresponsibility."

(May 24) post gave enough away to merit dismissing his contribution as worthless, but this May 25 post gave the game away:

"What we see is akin to the cuckoo's art of nesting, with the one obvious difference that the hosts in this instance were all too aware of the intent (and, to extend the analogy well beyond ornithological realism, the cuckoo had the help of a couple of eagles). Making loud noises about the cuckoo's rights and the hosts' aggression ..."

Plainly, with the cuckoo/hosts analogy way back then Thomas revealed that he regards Israel as illegitimate ab initio. There were no "eagles" helping Israel in 1947-48: the Mandatory government was Arabist; the Yishuv faced a strictly enforced arms embargo (with Czechoslovakia being the embargo breaker), the USA didn't begin to sell weaponry to Israel until the early 1960's (defensive only) and late 1960's (offensive) - the latter because Egypt and Syria had become client states of the Soviet Union. Israel's principal arms supplier early 1950's to 1967 was France, in aircraft exclusively so. The Arab states, the 7 or so that tried to strangle Israel at birth, in 1948 faced no such embargo, (then) Transjordan's military was armed and trained by the British and commanded by a British general John "Pasha" Glubb, Lebanon and Syria by France.

"Hosts"? Perhaps Thomas is unaware that Jews formed the largest ethnic block in a hostile Ottoman-ruled Jerusalem by 1855 when nobody, Western, Ottoman or Arab, referred to its hinterland as "Palestine" or "Filastin" ( it was then Syria and/or the Holy Land - check the maps, early encyclopaedias and travel guides), an absolute majority by 1888 and the Jewish presence in the Ottoman vilayets that came to comprise Mandatory Palestine was periodically "culled" over the preceding millemium. I suspect Thomas is aware of this historical background, at least in broad outline, but prefers to run with the Palestinian narrative for his own amusement (see below).

Cuckoos and "hosts": Jesus wept! So game over as far as Thomas being a worthy interlocutor for he shares the premise of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah etc and any talk of Thomas desiring peace is hollow posturing to mask his disdain for the Jewish state.

If that were not enough his second post of the 24th was just icing on the cake:

"As far as I can see, Israel is happy to continue with this "peace process" (the forty year old stalemate with its death and destruction) until it has finally completely achieved its objective."

Now what objective would that be? Whatever one can infer by the use of the words "finally and completely" that Thomas sees Israel as harbouring some secret grand geo-political scheme akin to a "Lebensraum" policy. This is a statement that places Thomas way beyond the fringes of reasonable discourse and in bed with Nasrallah, the Ayatollahs et al.

On the 25th Thomas posed a question that belies his profound ignorance of the region:

"Why would peace between the Palestinians AND ISRAEL cause the Arab states to seek the destruction of Israel now..."

Well, because the Syrians (Assad senior explicitly and to Arafat's face) reject the notion of a Palestinian people and Syria for hundreds of years has regarded what is now Israeli territory as the south-western corner of Syria. Jordan's Hashemite dynasty likewise reject the notion of a Palestinian people, loathe the prospect of a Palestinian state and cherish the ambition of a Jordan reaching the Mediterranean - the last is never going to happen of course.

Somewhere back up the thread, a Thomasite stated Israel's policy is to "thump a second time and thump again". Moshe Dayan twice advised Golda Meir to launch a nuclear strike on Damascus: once during the 73 war and once after it had ended. Ariel Sharon said of Dayan:"He would wake up with a hundred ideas. Of them ninety-five were dangerous; three more were bad; the remaining two, however, were brilliant." If Meir had accepted Dayan's advice during the war, Syria would have behaved very differently over the next 37 years. Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt would have made peace with Israel in 1973-74 on Israel's terms and the then fledgling PLO would have been less truculent. My point being that Israel has had for decades ample opportunites to "thump" its enemies decisively, but it doesn't do so. Its restraint wins it no brownie points and is today grotesquely demonized world-wide as a pariah state no worse than it would be if it had nuked Damascus in 1973. Lebanon wouldn't have suffered a 10 year civil war and lost sovereignty over much of its territory with Fatahland in the 70's and 80's and then Hezbollahland in the 90's and continuing. In terms of human casualties and suffering over the past 37 years a nuclear strike on Damascus may have been the lesser of two evils. And Thomas would have the peace he purports to want. Well, a peace, not the peace.

One has to smile at this post on the 28th:

"Take the first step, that is, do some of the groundwork, take a little trouble, entertain the possibility that your very limited knowledge may lead you to mistaken conclusions, learn a little intellectual humility, just enough to engage in reasoned debate instead of ranting and mouthing slogans, and then there might be something to talk about..."

The university (humanities, naturally, not something intellectually rigorous like say engineering or science) lecturer in his 30's or 40's talking down to his awed teenaged undergraduates with all the smug superiority that only such lecturers are foolish and vain enough to indulge in.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: "I think we can take it that you are not willing to show the humility required to learn something of the history you insist on pronouncing upon.

This is unfortunate since you base your intransigence about negotations now on your erroneous historical prejudices. You have been given a selection of references which would help you begin the process of acquiring some intellectual honesty."

What is it, exactly, about the history of the region have I got wrong, Harold/Thomas and what is it about what I have said that is not humble? Is it the history of Arab aggression since Resolution 181? Is that a figment of my arrogant imagination?

There is no doubt that the Arab world has never wanted israel to exist. This is as true now as it has been since the Balfour Declaration. One doesn't have to lack humility to take this aas truth. One may prefer islamic nationalism to jewish nationalism. Who am I to judge?..but dont expect those who feel Israel should exist as a jewish state to believe that Islamic nationalists are longing to join together with the jew to create some kind of democratic nirvana in the Middle east based on some form democracy which all could recognise as valuable. That would simply be looney as would the belief that Hams, fatah, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran would ever countenance an accomodation with Israel under any circumstances.This is purely an assertion re a practical reality, not a prescription for anyhthing.

My doubts about the prospects fr peace, based on what is clearly a degree of mutual mistrust then end of which noone can see right now, is not a matter of contention. It is is simply true.

In these circumstances, nothing will move forward unless the mistrust is addressed.

You can repeat endlessly that the Arab states and the Palestinian people will accept a peace based on Res 242. There is absolutely nothing o indicate that that is the case. Nor has it been since Israel was created. On what grounds you scream that if only Israel would recognise this "fact" is but a shadow on the proverbial cave wall.

It is pointless to try and lend a non dispute re the history of anti Zionism some spice by conflating what you only imply is a different historical version to mine (you and Thomas have still not dared to get specific about what facts I have got wrong) with ranting about how nasty israel treats the Palestinians (in what is a state of war). This is plain silly.

I am all for Peace. I would love the Middle East to be one country where all live as brothers. Where women and homosexuals have equal rights; where there is genuine freedom of religion and expression etc..all lovely Western values we all, I am sure, hold dear..But it sure aint relevant to most of the Middle East..and it aint going to be relevant to a peace made with the Palestinians.

The only relevant way to progress peace is to build mutual trust. Hailing the works of those who believe Zionism is wrong, doesn't help us at all. Again, I am not saying that israel would not survive if 242 was implemented. I am saying that israel simply has no reason to trust that that would be the end of war against it, if it was implemented. If the Arabs yearn for this peace based on 242, come out and start trust-building measures - clearly. recognising Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state might just be a good start.

"On the question you ask Thomas, if Israel agreed a peace based on a reasonable form of the two-state solution (i.e. not Lieberman ghettoes for the Palestinians), there would be peace. The notion that millions should be held in squalor simply because terrorists might continue there attacks after such a settlement is absurd."

Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction. Hamas has been - as people like you love to repeat - democratically elected by the Palestinian people. We have a problem, Houston....

..and the millions you speak of were kept in squalor before '67....as you well know..or is that getting a little too complex for your historical narrative?

Thomas

Julius O'Malley
May 30th, 2010 4:57pm

When I saw the inordinate length of your contribution, I thought, at last, here is someone taking the time and trouble to write a reasoned defence of the state of Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. I was wrong.

I will respond to a few of your points in the hope of clarification.

You infer that I think "Israel illegitimate ab initio". Although I find it odd that defenders of Israel so rely on the imperial stitch-ups imposed by the League of Nations and UN, I agree with those who say that in trying to nurture international law we have to start somewhere, even if that somewhere is of dubious legitimacy and undeniable injustice - in this instance with the UN (as successor organization) accepting the Mandate Power's proposal of partition. While I can understand (as could the Zionists at the time) why the Palestinians found it impossible to accept this injustice, I think they were wrong. As so often in the last hundred years, their leadership proved unfit for their role (and no match for the highly impressive Zionist leadership, or the British, or the Americans). So, if we are talking about legitimacy, then we have to accept that Israel has a legitimate claim to the territory alloted it in the partition. (Note in passing that all parties with a stake in negotiations have accepted that the "facts on the ground" have, as intended, put the territory conquered in 1948 beyond question within Israel.) Also, in passing, I agree with the point put by many defenders of Israel that no state's origins will bear much scrutiny, so there is a fair amount of hypocrisy in challenging Israel.

You try to resurrect the notion that the Yishuv/Israel was at a military disadvantage. It certainly relied on some timely arms deals. However, the Zionist/Israeli forces had military superiority over the Palestinians and over the neighbouring Arab states, the only one of whom was halfway competent was, as you say, Jordan. Abdullah, like Ben Gurion, got a bit carried away in the heat of battle, but essentially the agreement between Jordan and Israel before hostilities held.

You make a most surprising meal of trying to guess what I could mean in talking of Israel's objective in its policy towards the Palestinians. There should be no difficulty here. Representatives of the Israeli state have been clear and explicit about this for decades. Unlike the more extreme orthodox Jews whose territorial claims extend far into Lebanon and beyond Jordan, into Egypt and Cyprus, the state of Israel is intent only on two things: on acquiring the land and resources of the West Bank (and possibly parts of the Golan heights to complete the control of the water supply afforded by its occupation of the West Bank); and, if they can't be persuaded to clear off (as Moshe Dayan and others had hoped), to corral the Palestinians in secure and ghettoes.

You make great play with the "temperate" contributions you contrast with my efforts, which are beyond the pale. I have to say that I will take no lessons in temperance from someone who regrets that nuclear weapons were not used once more on a defenceless civilian population.

One last comment: I am not sure why you believe that the rights of the Palestinians should be affected in any way by the opinions of neighbouring Arab states, who have always acted strictly in their own perceived interests (with remarkable incompetence). They, like Israel, would like to have pretended that these millions of people are an irrelevance with no right to a say in what constitutes a decent life for them.

Logic, history and politics are all "humanities" which you affect to have a contempt for. Some competence in each of these is required to address the problem of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, as is some grasp of ethics. You have shown your grasp of each of these subjects to be shaky. I doubt a degree in engineering or astrophysics is going to help you to an understanding of the plight of the Palestinians.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: is it not a relief when finally you come out?

Phew..at last we can understand what you really mean. Let me sum it up:

- Israel has no moral right to exist. It is merely a product of the connivings and manipulations of institutions which became the inheritors of colonialsm.

- by implication, the Palestinians DO have the right to have a state in the Middle East, though what those boarders should be you don't make clear.

- most Arab states couldn't give a toss about the Plaestinians, but this is irrelevant to any peace settlement or the likelihood and necessity of your peace settlement holding in any meaningful way; and certainly should have no bearing on Israel's sense of its own security.

- since israel has no moral right to exist, all Arab and Palestinian actions against it since 1947 can be excused..indeed, ought to be.

- given the last point, Israel's msistrust of the Palesinians and the rest of Arab and Islamic players in the region is and ought to be irrelevant.

- on purely moral grounds i.e. that it has no sound right to exist, Israel should accept the demands of the Palestinians (whatever they may be) and feel confident that this will lead to lasting peace

..and you pride yourself as one with the naus, let alone humility, to understand and practise the art of diplomacy? You're a mess, Thomas!!

With each post you write, you are raising the cuckoo bar, my friend.

-

Harold

Julius O'Malley
May 30th, 2010 4:57pm
Israel's actions in the Lebanon and Gaza are illegal by the international law Israel purports to adhere to. Israel's actions had atrocious effects. You say "Thomas" can be dismissed for saying as much. This needs some explanation.

"'Hosts'? Perhaps Thomas is unaware that Jews formed the largest ethnic block in a hostile Ottoman-ruled Jerusalem by 1855" - I have re-read what "Thomas" said and it is cler he was not referring simply to Jerusalem, which makes your point less than clear.

"nobody, Western, Ottoman or Arab, referred to its hinterland as "Palestine" or "Filastin" ( it was then Syria and/or the Holy Land" - Similarly, it is not clear why the people who lived in the land had no rights simply because it was not called Palestine. (And, as an aside, it is not clear to me what gave the incoming imperial power the right to disregard the people who lived in the land in gifting it to others.)

"'Why would peace between the Palestinians AND ISRAEL cause the Arab states to seek the destruction of Israel now...'

Well, because the Syrians (Assad senior explicitly and to Arafat's face) reject the notion of a Palestinian people and Syria for hundreds of years has regarded what is now Israeli territory as the south-western corner of Syria. Jordan's Hashemite dynasty likewise reject the notion of a Palestinian people, loathe the prospect of a Palestinian state" - Again, it is not clear. Are you saying that if Israel achieves peace with the Palestinians, Syria or Jordan will disrupt the peace? By - what? invading Israel? invading Palestine? perhaps taking on the US? And in the real world?

Again, are you serious in saying that all would have been well if only Israel had dropped nuclear weapons on the Syrians? - And you would call this "temperate"?

Thomas

That your comments get longer and less coherent I will do you the courtesy of taking as a sign of sincerity, not bluster. I will attempt to answer.

JOHN ROOSEVELT
May 30th, 2010 5:57pm
I have not got into the detail of how the historical record is more complicated than your confident assertions. The reason is simple: the historical record is complicated, and no one-liner is going to do it justice it, which is why I suggested you study the whole spectrum of historical scholarship for yourself. I say this not out of condescension, but because it is the best way I have found of exposing my own ignorance and letting in a glimmer of understanding. But, to satisfy your demand for specifics, you talk of Arab aggression, but the record equally shows Israeli aggression. The record also shows repeated Arab attempts at accommodation,which Israel spurned, as well as vice versa (to a lesser extent).

You have a long paragraph on Jewish and Arab nationalism, and Arabs not wanting to join a liberal democratic society. This is beside the point. All that is needed is an accommodation.

You make two good points: that the problem is mistrust, and that it is all very well me "screming" (a good "tu quoque") about the Arabs accepting 242. As you say, there is mistrust on both sides. Quite how Israel's behaviour is intended to reduce mistrust is beyond me. The fact that everyone except Israel and the US has repeatedly called for a settlement based on 242 that gives Israel full recognition and Palestinians a state is I think some evidence of intent. That it looks very unlikely that the Palestinians will get even this makes it implausible that they are after more. Israel has given no indication that it is willing to compromise until it has what it wants.

You say a good way to build trust is for the Palestinians to say that Israel has a "right to exist as a Jewish state". As with all diplomatic formulas, this is not straightforward. No state has a "right" to exist set in stone. States come into existence in all sorts of dubious ways, and are destroyed in all sorts of (mostly barbaric) ways. What Israel can legitimately demand is full recognition and the right for its citizens to live in peace and security. The insistence that the Palestinians say that Israel has a "right" to exist looks to Palestinians like an insistence that they say their expulsion was legitimate. Similarly, the insistence that they say as a prerequisite for negotiations that Israel has the "right to exist as a Jewish state" looks very like a requirement to forfeit the rights of refugees before negotiations have even begun, and to accept that Palestinians living within Israel can be only second-class citizens.

Hamas, even Hamas, has repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate on 242.

The fact that Palestinians lived in squalor before 1967 has no bearing at all on whether they should continue to live in squalor now.

JOHN ROOSEVELT
May 30th, 2010 8:50pm

You sum up your misunderstandings.

"Israel has no "moral" right to exist." You will have to spell that out for me. It is enough tht Israel exists like any other state and that its citizens have rights under international law like the citizens of any other state. Israel is not "merely" the product of colonialism, and in any case, like everything else, is not simply to be reduced to its origins.

The Palestinians do deserve self-determination.

The Arab states would certainly like the conflict resolved, and, as their peoples would want something like justice for the Palestinians, they would prefer it to be resolved with some appearance of equity.

"All Arab actions against Israel ought to be excused" - nonsense. It follows from nothing I have said.

Likewise, about Israel's reasonable mistrust.

Israel should seek a settlement with the Palestinians for ethical reasons - its treatment of them is unethical - but also for its own sake. The conflict is causing a deformation of Israeli society (and no I am not here saying that Israel is uniquely deformed (!), I am saying it is subject to stresses that are doing it no good.)

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"That your comments get longer and less coherent I will do you the courtesy of taking as a sign of sincerity, not bluster. I will attempt to answer."

JR: An honor. Thank you.

"JOHN ROOSEVELT
May 30th, 2010 5:57pm
I have not got into the detail of how the historical record is more complicated than your confident assertions. The reason is simple: the historical record is complicated, and no one-liner is going to do it justice it, which is why I suggested you study the whole spectrum of historical scholarship for yourself.

I say this not out of condescension, but because it is the best way I have found of exposing my own ignorance and letting in a glimmer of understanding."

JR: re the process of "exposing (your) ignorance": it seems you may have some way still to go..

" But, to satisfy your demand for specifics, you talk of Arab aggression, but the record equally shows Israeli aggression. The record also shows repeated Arab attempts at accommodation,which Israel spurned, as well as vice versa (to a lesser extent)."

JR: Would be nice for you to get into some detail, here. I think this is hogwash.

"You have a long paragraph on Jewish and Arab nationalism, and Arabs not wanting to join a liberal democratic society. This is beside the point. All that is needed is an accommodation."

JR: It is not beside the point. You condemn Israel for being unethical and yet you will not address the ethics of those who would destroy it, nor the implications this may have on Israel's willingness to trust those with whom they have to negotiate in order to achieve any meaningful peace. Cuckoo...

"You make two good points: that the problem is mistrust, and that it is all very well me "screming" (a good "tu quoque"

about the Arabs accepting 242. As you say, there is mistrust on both sides. Quite how Israel's behaviour is intended to reduce mistrust is beyond me."

JR: I never claimed it was. Your waords, not mine.

" The fact that everyone except Israel and the US has repeatedly called for a settlement based on 242 that gives Israel full recognition and Palestinians a state is I think some evidence of intent."

JR: Not sure who your "everyone" is, but perhaps it's the same "everyone" or similar, to the one which recognised Israel in 1948 ? Part of this "everyone" today, of course, fund and foment movements whose raison d'etre remains the elimination of Zionism. Minor detail, perhaps, but maybe somewhat relevant when you have been the defeated party in war, time and time again, and now seem to be yearning for peace.

"That it looks very unlikely that the Palestinians will get even this makes it implausible that they are after more. Israel has given no indication that it is willing to compromise until it has what it wants."

JR:Yep..Tough world out there. The Palestinians are just sweetness and light and always have been...Now, you're getting silly again...

"You say a good way to build trust is for the Palestinians to say that Israel has a "right to exist as a Jewish state". As with all diplomatic formulas, this is not straightforward."

JR: Now you're all sophisticated again..I can't keep up..

" No state has a "right" to exist set in stone."

JR: Mmm.. "set in stone", ha?. Wonder what rights you reckon are "set" in anything at all..and, if so, what that "anything" might be?

"States come into existence in all sorts of dubious ways, and are destroyed in all sorts of (mostly barbaric) ways."

JR:Ah...you wouldn't be referring to...?

" What Israel can legitimately demand is full recognition and the right for its citizens to live in peace and security."

JR: Here we go..your sophistication again...:)) No state, then? You define its rights and obligations and its boarders..and when to wage war against it..and how to guarantee that security in your ocean of hatred of israel? :))

"The insistence that the Palestinians say that Israel has a "right" to exist looks to Palestinians like an insistence that they say their expulsion was legitimate."

JR: Absolutely. I rest my case...

"Similarly, the insistence that they say as a prerequisite for negotiations that Israel has the "right to exist as a Jewish state" looks very like a requirement to forfeit the rights of refugees before negotiations have even begun, and to accept that Palestinians living within Israel can be only second-class citizens."

JR: Again, I rest my case..but I would add that there may well be a hell of alot more than appears to Palestinians which we could allude to and reinforce my case with i.e that it is pure cuckoodom to think that your sorry confusion and conflation of prescriptions, demands, facts, realities, fantasies...all add up to a sophisticated approach to negotiating a peace that stands a chance of holding...

"Hamas, even Hamas, has repeatedly indicated a willingness to negotiate on 242."

JR:Noone trusts Hamas, it seems, except the poor people who voted for them..and even that is a very moot point.

"The fact that Palestinians lived in squalor before 1967 has no bearing at all on whether they should continue to live in squalor now."

JR:It might, if one was suggesting that they should..which I am not. I have merely stated that your notion of history is appallingly blind to salient facts that are relevant to why Israel may not appear to be quite as you would like it to...It also underscores some of the reasons as to why Israel's view of the Peace process is as it is. It would surely be unsophisticated not to think so.

"JOHN ROOSEVELT
May 30th, 2010 8:50pm

You sum up your misunderstandings.

"Israel has no "moral" right to exist." You will have to spell that out for me. It is enough tht Israel exists like any other state and that its citizens have rights under international law like the citizens of any other state."

JR:No it isn't. If so, Israel would have been recognised by all Arab and Moslem states in the region - in 1948.Also, the rabs would never have waged war against it in '67, '73 etc..

"like the Israel is not "merely" the product of colonialism, and in any case, like everything else, is not simply to be reduced to its origins."

JR:Run that by me again..slowly..

"The Palestinians do deserve self-determination."

JR: Whether or not they do is irrelevant. Suffice to know that it is a principle even accepted by Netanyahu.

"The Arab states would certainly like the conflict resolved,"

JR: There you go again..from the sublime to the ridiculous.: no they wouldn't and for you felicitously to assert otherwise is crass and dishonest.

" and, as their peoples would want something like justice for the Palestinians, they would prefer it to be resolved with some appearance of equity."

JR: Of course, of course..but this statement begs a small question re "equity" which, again, supports my case.

""All Arab actions against Israel ought to be excused" - nonsense. It follows from nothing I have said."

JR:Thank goodness for that...What actions don't you excuse, then? Perhaps take us back a ways, for starters - since you have a faultless grasp of the history of the conflict.

"Likewise, about Israel's reasonable mistrust."

JR: So, Israel has no grounds for reasonable mistrust in your book?

"Israel should seek a settlement with the Palestinians for ethical reasons"

JR:..and likewise the Palestinians and other Arab and Moslem players in the region..

"- its treatment of them is unethical - but also for its own sake. The conflict is causing a deformation of Israeli society (and no I am not here saying that Israel is uniquely deformed (!), I am saying it is subject to stresses that are doing it no good.)"

JR: At last a sympathetic note. How reassuring for the Israelis, I'm sure. A real trust-builder! Perhaps you should keep promulgating this last assertion and it can be a "firm" basis for encouraging Israel to stop its "unethical, imperialistic" ways and do what's right..:) Oh dear, a cuckoo by any other name...

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
May 31st, 2010 2:45pm
So it was bluster after all. Shame.

Julius O'Malley

John Roosevelt

Your last post was semi-worthwhile, but for the sake of your own dignity please cease your engagement with Thomas: it only degrades you and serves no useful purpose. It is abundantly clear that Thomas is yet another Western sufferer of "Israel Derangement Syndrome" (Copyright: Melanie Phillips) and "Palestinianism" (Copyright: Julius O'Malley), two sides of the same coin, with too much time on his hands. Life is too short to bother with silly and covertly malicious propagandists like Thomas (who believes logic belongs to and is rooted in the humanities,perhaps unaware that mathematics is pure logic and was the historical font of logic only appropriated into philosophy 400 years ago by the superb Baruch Spinoza - a nice Jewish boy to whom the Enlightenment and Western philosophy owe an incalculably enormous debt ) and his "wingman" Harold (notice how the latter learns words like humility and temperate from others then recycles them back immediately, as with someone who has just learned that infer is not a synonym for imply and then uses it willy nilly like a child with a new toy):they are beyond reason, truth and decency. Just fully absorb and act upon the way Thomas has repeatedly refused to answer your simple, direct and pertinent questions, instead (because answering them honestly would fatally undermine his edifice of propaganda) he just ducks and dives about continuing to dance his danse macabre: because that's his gig. Thats the way he rolls. Blogs like this are just a vehicle for the self-indulgence and onanistic gratification of such people, who will in due course probably find another cause de jour to amuse themselves: Globalisation, Climate Change, etc. Or maybe, given the zeitgeist of Palestinianism that pervades our era, will spend the rest of their lives as maniacal "one-issue" obsessives - one gets that, just as one gets derelicts in public parks spewing incoherent abuse at passers by. One should pay to Thomas and Harold the same amount of attention and regard one does to such park dwellers. I originally read and responded to this blog only because I was marking time waiting for a woman to get home and there was nothing worthwhile on the telly. I respectfully urge you to devote your sincere and capable energies to informing and persuading those out there who haven't yet fully invested their egos in IDS and Palestinianism of the distorted historical narrative on Israel in the MSM. It can be a slow and delicate process and success is sporadic. BTW I wonder if the incomparable George Orwell could ever have imagined how prophetic his "5 minutes of hate" against the bogeyman "Goldstein" in 1984 would be and how it would be against the future Jewish state rather than directly at the Jewish people. Regards

Thomas

Julius O'Malley
June 1st, 2010 2:41am
What a silly post. It demonstrates an inability to engage in rational discussion. No further comment required.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Julius O'Malley: :)))