A pre-pogrom atmosphere builds in the west

Daibhidh

In order to avoid addressing Thomas' offensive remarks, Shepherd opts instead to give solidity to wind. In other words, his somewhat juvenile plea typifies the liberal habit of verbal virtuosity.

zsa

Why aren't these attacks on the Rabbi being condemned by our useless politicians? They jump to be the first to scream they will not condone any intolerance toward muslims after a muslim blows something up or makes the attempt to blow something up in the hope of killing as many people as possible. Do you know why Melanie? Oh, yes you do, you wrote a whole book of why.

david elder

Mel, I agree that the chatterer reaction to the Gaza blockage should make them cringe if they ever come to their senses. I'd be interested in your take on one thing. The Gazans are now complaining that the blockade, though it allows food etc. to come in, blocks the entry of building materials for repairing houses destroyed in the conflict. However, even if so, this blocking wouldn't be necessary if Hamas didn't use any suitable material for rocketry. Those who talk of 'disproportionate' Israeli response should be asked: disproportionate to what? To what Hamas has managed to date - or to what they would do if they could? A sophisticated missile attack, a nuke, a dirty bomb ... These scenarios are well within the bounds of possibility with Hamas. They don't want Gaza blockades softened, or a two-state resolution, or a debate on where an Israeli/Palestinian border should run. They want Israel totally destroyed.

Andreas

How could the people of Europe and America support Palestine and their terrorist ways; I just don't get it, doesn't make sense. Liberals are what created a vacuum in Western Society that arabs and muslims are trying to fill. Also Helen Thomas is Lebanese. Obvious bias.

Rip Van Winkle

Zsa @ 11:13pm

Why?

Because the electorate put them
in.

Because Brits ceded - you're fin! That's why.

gary ashton

its a case of the lunatics have taken over the asylum. israel is on it's own, and every person who supports israel needs to do so now more than ever.
start thinking outside the box because the box is broken, write, demonstrate, question and educate those who are willing to listen or be prepared for the worse. this is what it's come to.
melanie, you are in a position to speak for us, and we are grateful that you do represent those on the side of reason and rationality.

Truthtriumphs

Nothing could better demonstrate the totalitarian mindset of the Left than its reaction to the comments of this odious woman.
The Left demands freedom of expression, but only for views that accord with its own.
So when Thomas's employers decided to relieve her of her duties, they were not exercising their own freedom of expression, which is their right, but rather demonising, marginalising and excluding her.
It's Orwellian.

Mark Allinson

Jonah Goldberg's book [i]Liberal Fascism[/i] argues convincingly that Hitler’s Nazi Party ([i]Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[/i]) was in fact a socialist organization – a party of the Left. And as we know, Stalin’s Leftist Soviet was just as anti-Semitic as Hitler’s Nazis. So the Left have a strong tradition of violent anti-Semitism.

Most Leftists would of course deny any suggestion of racism, since the charge would degrade the moral purity of their self-image. But under the cover of anti-Israel or anti-Zionism they are free to project their racial hatred with impunity.

We know this is the case since destructive activities from worse governments throughout the world elicit nothing like the vehemence of the attack upon the Israelis.

The moral superiority of the Left means that the ideal self-image is forever suspended above a dark and menacing shadow, containing all the negativity which is forever denied conscious expression. As C.G.Jung wrote: “Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual’s conscious life, the blacker and denser it is.” I expressed this in a short verse:

Noctifers

The liberating angels stand
With faces flushed by light;
A wise, a pure, a righteous band
Who clearly see what’s right.

But as they crowd the cheering fire
To celebrate the glow
Of standing tall and reaching higher,
Their low dark shadows grow.

Those shadows from the socially enlightened ones now threaten to plunge the world into a universal darkness.

ahem

Terrible times, indeed. I suspect Thomas is only one of many in the American media who hold such loathesome views. In the Age of Obama, their extremism can be expressed right out in the open. Thomas wouldn't have blown her cover--to a rabbi, of all people--if she hadn't felt relatively safe. Obama is a nightmare, and he is leading the west off a cliff.

Miranda Rose Smith

Truly diabolical. I have said it before: this is a pre-pogrom atmosphere. What terrible, terrible times.

These people hate Jews more than the pogromchiks did-or have less of a sense of fair play.
I was thinking, just this morning, of Jabotinsky's, of blessed memory's, remarks in The War and the Jew. He wrote that the (czarist) police never stopped a pogrom, and were often guilty of participating in one, but at least they thought the Jews should be allowed to defend themselves. That police force had "a queer, brigand's sense of fair play." The world today is full of people that think that any attempt at self defense by Jews is a war crime.

It goes without saying that the merest whiff of criticism of any other minority would have the ‘anti-racist’ left baying for blood.
Does Mr. Greenslime know how many people in the United States have lost their jobs because they made injudicious remarks about Blacks?

David ben Duji

Mark Allinson:
Of course the Nazis were leftists, they used enough pseudo-Marxist slogans to show that. Fascism was the result of a collision between socialism and nationalism. And like most collisions, the result was Not a Pretty Sight.
When the German SPD was being founded in the 1870s, many delegates wanted antisemitic slogans incorporated in the basic program or constitution. Until August Babel famously denounced antisemitism is the 'Socialism of the Imbecile'.
Be careful in quoting C.G.Jung, as he was a venomous antisemite.

Geoff Miller

Has anyone else spotted the similarity between Helen Thomas and JigSaw from the SAW movies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWaNoK3gN6M&feature=related

As Dennis Miller stated on Fox News - "she must be good at her job because, boy, she couldn't have slept her way to the top."

She is the true face of Liberalism.

alex

why has nobody said anything about the fact that helen thomas is of an arabic background, which is probably the real reason for her words. that anglo-saxon name, is in name only.

Terry in Oz

Melanie, I have been saying for years that we are witnessing a maccabre re-run of 1930s europe. Nothing has changed except it is the Jews of Israel who are now unwelcome to live among the Nations. In the 1930s (and before that time) it was the Jews of europe who were unwelcome to live among the the europeans.

Whilst we have the U(nited)N(azi) organisation in existence and orchestrating the campaign to finish *itler's work, nothing will change. I have ultimate faith, though, that G-d, not obama's America will ultimately redeem Israel. At what cost I cannot say. But be assured, the Jewish People won't go down meakley this time around. We are no longer anyone's Jews to do with as they please.

Am Yisroel Chai

Graeme

Was not Helen Thomas, the journalist, who starred in that spoof video, which Bill Clinton made, when he was President? Was not she the first journalist to ask a question at the Whitehouse press briefings? Could someone please let me know ? When will these silly left wing Liberals realise that Israel is not an Arab man's land. It is Jewish by right and not by sufferance.

EDDIE

At her age is senility is a possibility?
Actually all Americans should go back to where they came from and leave it all to Sitting Bull.
Pathological anti semites have always been there in pretty large numbers, noting has changed only only now it is permissible to be open about it

Harold

If Ms. Thomas intended to be anti-semitic, she should be censured. What if she intended merely to accept the identification which Zionists have long made between the state of Israel and all Jews, an identification Israel and its supporters have worked hard to promote? Then her comment is ill-advised and open to misconstrual, but not in intent anti-semitic. If Ms. Thomas intended by "Palestine" the whole of the area now occupied by Israel from the coast to the River Jordan, from the Lebanon to Egypt, then clearly she should be censured. If she intended to refer to the Occupied Territories, then again it was ill-advised of her to esxpress herself in a way that was open to misconstrual, but what she intended is unexceptionable. It is an opinion endorsed by the international community for over forty years.

There are always idiots who send hate mail to anyone who comes to the attention of the media. There are anti-semites who take every opportunity to express their hateful opinions. However,to talk of "diabolical times", a "pre-pogrom", and "terrible terrible times" is surely hyperbole that is itself not free of ulterior political motives.

Neil Turner

Let's fight back , shall we ?

Here are some questions that we may care to ask of our Palestinian-supporting friends:

1. When was "Palesine" founded and by whom?

2. What were its borders?

3. What was its capital?

4. What were its major cities?

5. What constituted the basis of its economy?

6. What was its form of government?

7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?

8.. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?

9. What was the language of the country of Palestine ?

10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine ?

11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese Yuan on that date.

12. And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?

Answers on a postcard please

Prize: Weekend for 2 in Gaza

Joshua

I do not believe there is a "pre-pogrom atmosphere" so much as a "pre-Holocaust atmosphere".

Nicholas

The Nazi's were leftists indeed and the peculiar thug-like cliquism of their upper echelons was most recently imitiated by New Labour. A collection of individuals holding power cynically who were not too bothered when their various misdemeanours and corruption were revealed. The Nazi regime was built on propaganda and lies, as was the New Labour regime (and still is - q.v. Ben Bradshaw on QT).

Socialism and the left, in their bizarre trist with radical muslims, represent the greatest threat to the liberty, heritage and culture of the West.

steve

Helen Thomas' anti-Jewish ramblings have been widely condemned in the U.S. and she has left her job as a result of them. He was also dropped as a commencement speaker at a school and her co-author of a previous book said he wouldn't work with her again. How does this demonstrates a "pre-pogrom atmosphere"? This type of over the top rhetoric based on anecdotes trivializes the past suffering of Jewish people.

Miranda Rose Smith

Geoff Miller
June 11th, 2010 9:11am
Has anyone else spotted the similarity between Helen Thomas and JigSaw from the SAW movies?

Debbie Sclussel has.

Harold

I have since done what I should have done sooner and read more carefully what Ms. Thomas said, and what was reported above. That she said the jews should "go back" home to Poland, Germany, and the US is clearly absurd, offensive and anti-Israeli. I should not have sounded off so carelessly, and I apologise. But diabolical? pre-pogrom? Surely, an old woman inadvertently revealing her unpleasant prejudices against Israel.

Bob, son of Bob

The woman who made the remarks was born in America, but her parents came from Lebanon.
Would she have objected if someone had said to her 'go back to Lebanon'?

She thinks it is acceptable for people to return to a place of unpardonable and unprovoked wrongs, and the fact that she can say this tells us about her moral code.

It seems that some races, like the Jews, fit quietly and respectfully into the USA, whereas other races
- let's be careful with phrasing here - include some who are openly hostile to the host nation and who help its enemies and who do not condemn those amongst their number who set bombs off within the USA. And Barrack Hussein Obama will not even use the t-word to describe them.

Another point - we must be careful about limiting free speech, however hateful and odious the remarks are, like this woman's were. There is a good reason for allowing free speech on race, which is as follows: who do you think this free speech limitation will apply to most in the long run? Answer - people who object to the Islamification of their country.
A blogger was actually arrested after posting the word 'likey' on a blog in a context where it rhymed with a derogatory name for a gypsy. We can all see where this is heading. And notice that you can anything you like about the British aristocracy, for example you can freely say 'upper class twits' and 'inbreds'. Some groups are more equal than others

Bob,son of Bob

It is time the true enemy within was removed from the USA and Britain, and I am not referring to the Jews. I am referring to those individuals who are openly hostile to their host county.

GaryO

Given the incessant anti-Israeli attacks, expressed so brutally in the media, academia and politics, is it any wonder that people now feel comfortable talking about their Judeophobia so candidly? The atmosphere has become conducive to a bit of casual anti-Semitism. We're becoming desensitised to it.

Now in order to say something shockingly anti-Semitic, people will have to "better" Helen Thomas. And the bar keeps rising.

Michael Jones

The BBC is largely responsible for this. People of conscience should simply refuse to pay for it.

David Williams

I love this defense liberals are making of Helen Thomas as anti-establishment. As if that were her sin. That woman is the embodiment of the liberal establishment in the media and among left wing politicos. I am ashamed and appalled by the anti semitism that I am seeing among my fellow Americans. I will say that there are still many of us who will not stand for this. If someone wants to start a pogrom over here they are going to have to walk over a lot of people who are willing to defend our Jewish neighbors.

Graeme

Neil Turner, very well said. You can add to your list these extra points.
1. What did the Palestinian flag look like?
2. What did its National Anthem sound like?
3. What did its postage stamps look like?
4. Was it a Republic or a Monarchy?

Anti-Ranter

Neil and Graeme,

Individuals can collectively identify as a people, regardless of whether this identity is embodied in a particular territory or set of institutions. It is perfectly legitimate to aspire to have it so embodied.

I would have thought that supporters of the Jewish people would understand this.

Anti-Ranter

Pogrom? New holocaust? The level of hysteria and paranoia exhibited here knows no bounds.

Please get a grip lest you help create what you most fear.

patrick

Neil Turner

You try to deny the Palestinians even an identity indecently Hamas and Iran are trying to do same to your side.I have just recently shown the slightest bit of interest in this region I wish I hadn't.

Dixon

Yippee..."Judaeophobic"...I believe I was the first to use that phrase here...a few threads back. All are welcome to use it. But I've never seen it anywhere else. Did I invent it? So much better than the usual phrases "Jew hatred" or "anti-semitism" (which the lefties love to dissemble over the meaning of). "Judaeophobic" plays the "Islamophobe" wielding brigade at their own name-game. Thats what spurred me to coin it.

Graeme

Anti-Ranter. I do not agree with you. It is land that rivets a nation together and solidifies its identity.

Greg

Come come, Mr Dixon. Not so fast with the unwarranted neologisms - a mere google search suffices to reveal that judeophobia has a well-established pedigree.

Rob-NY

Not to worry, 90 is the new 70. There is a place for Helen Thomas at The Guardian, The Independant, the BBC, Press TV, Al-Jezerra and....Der Sturmer (oh the Sturmer went out-of-business years ago didn't they, because they were so "anti-establishment").

Jon_Boy

Anti Ranter is right.

Israel and its Jewish supporters better stop complaining and capitulate to all demands.

Also all these hytserics about anti semitism and pogroms will just lead to anti semitism and pogroms. It is our whining and complaining about antisemitism, and violent plots against us which causes antisemitism and violence against us.

If we hadn't upset the Germans duting the Ghetto uprisings everything would have been ok. They too simply just wanted their own country free of the foreign imperalist settler Jews taking their land.

Neil Turner

Anti-Ranter & Patrick

Let's not pretend that Palestine is a Country or National identity.

It isn't. It is a region, much like the Black Country in the British Midlands

The Jews have a natural and historical right to the Land of Israel

By the way, you didn't answer any of my questions, so no prize.

trumpeldor

Anti-Ranter
June 11th, 2010 1:57pm
Neil and Graeme,

"Individuals can collectively identify as a people, regardless of whether this identity is embodied in a particular territory or set of institutions. It is perfectly legitimate to aspire to have it so embodied.

I would have thought that supporters of the Jewish people would understand this"

To anti ranter ,
You still do not get it !
"Palestinian identity" is a fallacy whose ultimate target is the destruction of the Jewish State
I never saw an Arab demonstrating for a "free" "palestine "
Instead,they always criticize Israel
"palestinism" is not an political cause,it is just disguised terrorism !

John from Toronto

What's really spooky is the volume of supportive comments Greenslade received.

Linda Smith

Hey Dixon, Peter Hitchens encourages readers of his blog to use the term "judeophobic". Don't know if he got the name from reading your comments, though.

Anti-Ranter

Neil,

Just to clarify.

You say Palestine is a region. Could you direct me to a map showing me the precise borders of this so-called region?

You talk about the Land Of Israel. Could you tell me where you think its borders are or should be?

You say the Jews have a natural and historical right to this Land of Israel? From whence do they derive this right? On whose authority?

You speak of the Jews. Is this an ethnic or racial category? A religious community? A cultural or historical construct, perhaps?

Thanks for your help.

C. Gee

Anti-Ranter @
June 11th, 2010 11:47pm :

Look at the map of the Mandate for Palestine. It includes the area now known as the Kingdom of Jordan, the West Bank (occupied by Jordan until taken by Israel), what is now Israel, and Gaza.

When Israel announced its statehood, it accepted the boundaries of the UN partition plan. The war that followed the announcement resulted in the state of Israel controlling the territory delineated by the armistice lines. Subsequent wars and withdrawals pursuant to peace treaties, changed those boundaries. The West Bank now has no legally defined and internationally recognized sovereign. Jordan renounced sovereignty, and Israel has de facto control over it, though has delegated administration to the Palestinian Authority. Gaza too has no sovereign (since given up by Egypt). Hamas controls Gaza internally, although Israel controls its borders.

The borders of Israel should be wherever within the boundaries of the Mandate that the state is able and willing to defend. Judea and Samaria should be included within Israel's borders, in my opinion. Israel should assert sovereignty over those territories.

On any measure of "natural" rights to territory - continuity of presence, historical sovereignty in that territory, identity with the land and cities therein, the Jews have better claims than the Arabs. They derive these claims from their history - from biblical and non-biblical records and their own oral traditions. They derive these claims from law - the Mandate was to provide a homeland for the Jews. They derive these claims from winning wars. On all these bases - history, law and victory - the Jews' claim is stronger that the Arabs'. There is no "authority" but sovereignty - usually assumed by conquest. Britain's being given the Mandate authority was a result of the defeat of the Ottoman empire which had been sovereign over the territory of Palestine (see above). The Ottomans themselves assumed sovereignty over the territory (and much more) by conquest. Ditto the Arabs before the Ottomans.

The Jews are a nation. Judaism is their religion, which constitutes them as as a people bound by laws, and sets forth religious ritual. Every nation is a cultural and historical construct, even where there are tribal (blood) roots. Converts to Judaism are adopted into the nation and take its myths and history as their own. They too remember the Exodus, being given the Law, the conquering of the Promised land, the falls of the Temples, the diaspora, the expulsions, the slaughters, the return...

The Palestinian "nation" is a very recent historical construct and a most lawless, cruel and barbarian cultural one. Their constituting principle is the expulsion - if not genocide - of the Jews. Their ethos is derived from: Marxist revolutionism, Islamo-fascist supremacism, camera-ready street theatre, tribal governance by mafia-style protection and extortion, welfare dependency, "honor" codes requiring the killing of women, martyrdom by suicide bombing, and a contrived national narrative stealing the history of the Jews and claiming it for their own.

I suspect that these answers are not the "help" you had hoped for.

I apologize to Neil for butting in.

Simeon

Oh for goodness sake Anti Ranter- for a start you could try reading the Bible! Lets try that for step 1 and move on from there!

Neil Turner

Anti-Ranter

Q "Could you direct me to a map showing me the precise borders of this so-called region?"

A Add the "West Bank" to today's borders, and you won't be far off

Q "Could you tell me where you think its borders are or should be? "

A See above

Q "You say the Jews have a natural and historical right to this Land of Israel? From whence do they derive this right? On whose authority?"

A On the Authority of Almighty God. He promised the Land (between the River Euphrates and the Mediteranean) as an everlasting possession to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to their descendants

Q "You speak of the Jews. Is this an ethnic or racial category?

A Yes

Q "A religious community?"

A Yes

Q "A cultural or historical construct, perhaps?"

A Yes

__________________

Any more questions ?

Simeon

Before 1948 anyone living in that land be they Jew or Arab was considered palestinian. Though Palestine was a name used by the Romans to dominate and humiliate and subjugate Israel. There never was an ethnic "palestinian people" as such, there were Arabs living in that area, but like i've said on another thread there were always Jews there too even after the dispersion. The Jerusalem post was once called the palestinian post, though it was always a predominantly Jewish paper. The "Palestinian people" are a relatively new phenomenon, they only started showing interest in the land after the Jewish people started bettering it, as it was previously a wasteland and had been for centuries.

Harold

Neil Turner
June 12th, 2010 9:25am

"On the Authority of Almighty God. He promised the Land (between the River Euphrates and the Mediteranean) as an everlasting possession to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to their descendants"

- Um. According to what the Jews of ancient times have written.

Graeme

Palestine is a geographical expression not a nation, country or a people. Palestine is general area of present day Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Western Jordan, Southern Lebanon and South Western Syria. Strictly speaking, Only archaeologists and historians should use this term and no-one else unless quoting sources the the aforementioned groups.

Neil Turner

C.Gee 8.42

No apology necessary !

Neil Turner

Anti-Ranter

It's now noon. Any chance you are going to give me an answer to my questions ?

No ? I thought not.

Imshin

My fourth generation Israeli husband can't go back to Poland or Germany or America because his ancestors were never there. They were in Bukhara (present day Uzbekistan) and Turkey, both Muslim countries. In fact, his Bukharan ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam at one point.

About half of today's Israelis can't go back to Poland or Germany either, because their ancestors were thrown out of places like Iraq and Syria and Iran and Egypt and Lebanon (like Helen Thomas's parents).

Linda Smith

C. Gee, well butted!

The one who rules is the one who won the last war.
All the talk about "rights", "international law" and suchlike is a sideshow - a load of baloney. War is not a game of tiddly winks.

Linda Smith

Patrick as you say you have "just recently shown the slightest bit of interest in this region", here is some enlightenment for you on the "identity" and motives of the "Palestinians", from Robert Spencer's response to Mustafa Aykol, 9 June 2010:

"For the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is indeed a jihad — if it weren’t, Mr. Akyol would have had his two-state solution in 1948, when the Arabs rejected a Palestinian state and went to war with Israel instead, motivated by the jihadist intransigence that demands all the land of Israel as an Islamic waqf. That line of thinking is also why the Camp David Accords, the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, and all other attempts to “solve” the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have failed, and why all future such initiatives will fail unless they involve the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and its incorporation into an Islamic Sharia state..”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

Larry Shapiro

Considering the historical and biblical record bolstered by the recent study of Jewish genes that were found to have common ancestors in what is now called Israel, the Jews are already home.

Richard (not the pedagogue)

C. Gee
June 12th, 2010 8:42am

This was very interesting. On a few points I'd appreciate clarification.

Israel accepted the UN resolution on partition and won the rest by conquest. Is this not either inconsistent or realpolitik (and so, I acknowledge, not inconsistent): to recognize the UN when it grants land and ignore it when it rules that land cannot be acquired legitimately by conquest?

You say that the West Bank and Gaza have no legally defined and internationally recognized "sovereign". Is this a term of art that allows Israel to ignore the rulings of the UN and the ICJ (or can it ignore them simply because its sponsor is the US, and all this "sovereign" stuff is window-dressing)?

These questions also apply to your breezy statement that Israel should declare itself "sovereign" of the West Bank and Gaza.

There are also some questions about "natural" rights.

The first is, Does your realpolitik not make rights irrelevant?

The second is about "continuity of presence". This set of questions is an admission of ignorance and a request for information. As I understand it, there have been Jews in Jerusalem continuously through the centuries. Is the argument that this fact outweighs the rights of the other 95% +/- of the population at the start of the 20th century? Why? Is it religious affiliation or ethnic origin that counts? If religion, why? Can Buddhists descend on India, or Catholics on Rome? If ethnic origin, how do we know that what we now call Palestinians do not have among them some who are closer to the Jews of Jerusalem than Jews of the Diaspora who are descendants of converts? The people of the Holy Land are such a mix that some at the turn of the 20th century might be the descendants of Jews who converted to Islam. Is our knowledge of ethnicity sufficient to justify ethnic cleansing such as Benny Morris, for example, has described and advocated? To repeat, this is a request for information - I do not know any studies of this.

"Historical sovereignty": is the argument that the sovereignty of the ancient Israelites, whatever it was, gives those of the Jewish religion around the world the right to displace those whose ancestors have lived on the land for generations? Why?

You say that the Mandate (acquired by Britain, as you say, by imperial conquest) gives Israel a legal claim because the Mandate Power promised a Jewish home in Palestine. But the promise was not a promise of sovereignty and no particular part of Palestine was designated as uniquely Jewish.

There is no authority but sovereignty, you say. Two points: A sovereign power can devolve its authority. A claim of sovereignty based on conquest has not, for the best part of a century, been recognized as legitimate. We are back to your realpolitick, which is consistent(but renders the moral indignation voiced on this site puzzling, if not suspect).

The Scots are a nation. Their religion is Christianity, Catholic and Protestant. Their system of law is unique. They are a nation. The nation has constituted a state; is a state no longer; may in future re-consitute itself as a state. - There is no necessary connection between a nation and a state.

Your paragraph on the Palestinians raises a couple of points. Is a "recent" nation inherently worse than an ancient one? Why? Is nothing to be learned from previous examples of racial stereotyping?

Dogsbody

Linda Smith: Robert Spencer would have been correct, too, if he had mentioned that the Arabs who were living in The Land of Israel west of the Jordan River could have had a state as early as 1937, under the Peel partition plan, which they rejected.

Linda Smith

Richard (not the pedagogue): Yes, the Jews accepted the UN resolution on partition, but the Arabs refused. Therefore the resolution had no "legal" authority as both parties were obliged to agree in order for the Partition Plan to take effect.. As the Partition Plan also confirmed that the British were withdrawing in August 1948, the Jews had no choice but to declare their own sovereign State and fight for survival against a foe who declared a genocidal war against them. British official documents, available to view online, record the Arabs' murderous intent well ahead of the declaration of the Israeli State in May 1948.

Israel's borders, therefore, are not limited by UN Resolution or any other UN resolution.

The Arabs refused the Partition Plan and determined to "drive the Jews into the Sea". The Green Line marks only the ceasefire line in 1948. Israel's borders have never been defined as they are still at war with the Arabs.

You wrote: "Your paragraph on the Palestinians raises a couple of points. Is a "recent" nation inherently worse than an ancient one? Why? Is nothing to be learned from previous examples of racial stereotyping?"

Your prattle about "nations" and "racial stereotyping" is a load of hogwash. The conflict is predicated on religious ideology - an Islamic holy jihad against the Jewish infidel.

C. Gee

Richard (not the pedagogue):

Israel took control over territory in defensive wars. Advisory opinions from the ICJ and ideologically motivated General Assembly resolutions instigated by the Arab/Muslim voting block do not make international law - and not even binding "rulings". Israel is not in breach of Security Council resolutions which have the force (force being the operative word) of law. "Zionism is racism" is not a law. It is a calumny.

Jordan took the West Bank and Egypt took control of Gaza during the 1948 war of Arab aggression against Israel.

My point concerning rights was that whatever the basis for claims of national rights to a territory - the Jews have better claims than the Arabs. The Arabs have tried to convert property rights, forfeited by abandonment or expulsion in war, into national rights to a territory. There is no basis for this in law - but notwithstanding that, Israel is prepared to grant them territory for a 22nd - or whatever number - Arab state, provided they stop the war against Israel.

What Israel will not do is permit the Arab refugees back to claim their properties. Nor will the various Arab nations allow the refugee Jews back to claim their properties. Sudetenland Germans have no claims on their former property. Israel has paid and has offered to pay compensation. The Arab nations have not. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. Generally speaking, the Arab nations (whose borders are all recently created) behaved cruelly to the Arab refugees (more cruelly even than to their own people.)

The Arabs who stayed in Israel held their property rights and were granted full citizenship. They have a better time of it as Israelis than they did as Ottoman subjects.

I do not know how to answer your "second" question concerning ethnicity and claims to a national territory. I suspect you want to arrive at some sort of "Zionism is Racism" argument. Arabism is racism. Islamism is racism. Palestinianism is racism (look at the PLO and Hamas charters). Zionism is most decidedly not racism.

But let me say: if there is an ethnic claim to nationhood, it may be asserted, but nationhood in the modern sense is an identification that is larger than ethnicity and religious affiliation. There are Jews of all races and Israelis of all races and religions.

The Palestinians now ludicrously pretend that they are ethnically the descendants of the Canaanites in order to establish an ethno- national link with the land (and one that predates Jewish claims and invalidates Jewish claims as resulting from aggressive war). As I have said, property rights - farming tenancies, for the most part, but with some "freehold" ownership, especially in cities - established during Ottoman times, do not bind people into a nation merely because the properties fall within an administrative region of a single sovereign (related religiously but not necessarily ethnically).

Many of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the Mandate considered themselves Syrian or Egyptian because Damascus and Cairo were their respective administrative centers.

Tribal affiliation does not give rise to national rights. The Palestinians (like all Arabs and Afghans, Pakistanis etc.) are ruled by various powerful families whose "territory" is merely the territory over which they hold sway.

Nomadic tribes may point to "ancestral" lands over which they traveled, but these are not national territorial claims. The traditional "rights" of nomads - freely to graze their animals, to rob a passing camel train - are in any case being compromised - as they have always been - by the rights of settled (not "settler"), modern populations.

Islam's claims that Islam must hold all land in perpetuity is not an internationally recognized legal claim for self-determining nationhood (as opposed to empire) and may only be justified and realized by the sword.

Of course a sovereign may "devolve" sovereignty voluntarily (Britain to Transjordan). It may also be forced to do so (Turkey to to Britain.) Yes, the British did not want to yield sovereignty to Jews - but they handed the Mandate to the UN, which did offer sovereignty over a tiny fraction of the original mandate to the Jews. Israel is not "uniquely" (?) a Jewish state, if by that you mean homogeneously Jewish. It is a pluralistic - and to all intents and purposes and comparing it with other democracies - a secular nation, despite minor concessions to religious Jews and Arabs.

The Palestinians do, however, demand a homogeneously Arab state - or one that is free of Jews. Under Hamas, Gaza will be a theocracy.

Realpolitick should not be confused with reality. Israel is a real nation. It will defend that reality. It will survive as a state for as long as it does so.

You say there is no necessary connection between a nation and a state. A nation may only be a state if has territory. The Jews were a nation and Israel was their state. They were a nation in diaspora, now a state again largely on their former territory.

"Palestine" will only be a state when it has territory. What kind of state will be? One that racially stereotypes in exactly the same way it has "learned from previous example". Were Palestine to be born tomorrow, it might well be the worst state on the planet - but that has nothing to do with recency, just decency.

Canuck

I agree with zsa below, the politicians and the media should be condemning these death threats on the Rabbi.

Bob, son of Bob

The wicked people of the left in the USA and Britain do not represent the views of the people they govern on most issues, including Israel. Perhaps our rulers did so to a greater extent when they were drawn from the land owning class, but not now. Now those of the left who rule us largely represent those who hate.

If it is any consolation to the Isaelis, those amongst our rulers who are true-left, as oppose to those who follow fashion, these people, who hate Israel, also hate the USA and Britain and they have their own countries in their sights too. They hate their country's history, its armed forces and the country itself. But the masses have an average age of about ten and it is easy for agents of the left such as the BBC to fool them. We need a new TV station which is not dominated by people of hate. An internet channel, perhaps?
One hour of transmission of the truth to a wide audience can easily cancel out years of lies and hate transmitted by the likes of the BBC.
Where are the rich people who could do this? Counting their money?

Margaret Muller-Johansson

The granny needs to be better then than that, Jewish people lived many places in the world in Odessa, Bucharest, Asmara, Babylon, even Cochin in India, but if they want to go back to Israel the land of their ancestors it should be fine, and if they want to stay where they are it should also be fine, some lefties have always problem with this, I don't think they know about history, leftist are horrible and crazy it doesn't matter if they are old or young, just the same.

Neil Turner

C.Gee 1am

Nice article - well argued :)

Linda Smith

C.Gee you ask what kind of state will "Palestine" be. If you check out the PA's Basic Law, you will see that "Palestine" will be an Islamic state governed by Sharia Law.

I always find it extraordinary that people such as "Richard (not the pedagogue)", seek to deligitimize Israel, a democratic secular state, and champion the creation of more Islamic States. I wonder if he'd like to live in an Islamic state as a dhimmi under Sharia law.

Augustus

MMJ - Yes, leftists are horrible and crazy, and this old witch, with a face that would freeze a rat, shares the same anti-Jewish bigoted mindset
as the Obama administration. Note that Obama's insipid response to the Thomas affair made no effort at all to reaffirm America's commitment to its only reliable ally in the
Middle East. But America's flirtation with Obamoronics might well be heading fast towards the trash can of history. Perhaps then America's true ideals will grow again.

AY

There is hardly a pre-pogrom mood in Europe.

In the UK, the last time Israeli banner was seen at political demonsrtation, it was held by EDL people, a grassroot anti-Islamic English movement.

In Netherlands, Wilders' PVV came third in elections just couple of days ago. Wilders is the most pro-Israeli politician in Europe.

There is on-going military-technical cooperation between Israel and NATO. British soldiers in Afghanistan are supported by Israeli-made drones. Germans build submarines for Israeli Navy. Israeli anti-missile systems are de-facto on the watch protecting Europe from East. Israel and EU have mutual interest in preventing arms smuggling in Mediterranean.

And now this terror flotilla incident, an example of tactics the Islamo-Nazi axis uses against Israel today and if successful, will unleash agaisnt Europe tomorrow.
Do you think, people are blind?

Briefly, just watch less TV.
All these brainwashing fluids.
There is no pre-pogrom atmosphere, - except for dark minds of European jihadis and lumpen-intelligentsia. They would like if it was. But it isn't.

Neil Turner

AY

"hardly pre-pogrom"

I disagree. A couple of examples, I'm sure there are plenty more....

"Rise in antisemitic attacks 'the worst recorded in Britain in decades'" Guardian Feb 2009 (hardly the most Jew-friendly paper)

Michael Gove promising security for Jewish schools: "But Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are different. They do not need the security Jewish schools need" April 2010

Just two examples. It will get worse

The World has one rule for Jews / Israel, and another for the rest of us

AY

Neil Turner:

Your citations are relevant, but in different context.

Violence you've mentioned is perpetrated by.. everybody-knows-by-whom. Here Jews are used as material for testing. If violence against Jews goes unopposed/unpunished, the next targets will be Christians, and then secularists, and then everybody.

But among Europeans, I mean indigenous Europeans who are still majority here, there is no sign of antisemitic psychosis. Vice versa, there is silent support for Israel, motivated by a disgust to common enemy. People remember very well what happened at 7/7.

Derek BLADES

C.Gee, 13 June, makes the extraordinary claim that the Arabs "forfeited" their property rights "by abandonment or expulsion in war..."

It is indeed true that many Arabs left their homes and farms in 1948 to avoid being trapped in a war zone. But to suggest that by doing so they forfeited their property rights is clearly absurd. They naturally expected to go back home when conditions returned to normal. That they were prevented from doing so is, of course, the essential reason for the present troubles in the Middle East. What is the matter with this man that he cannot grasp the essential cause of the Arab-Israeli dispute? Insanity – or something more sinister?

Neil Turner

AY

Fair point. However, the UK Government and Educational Institutions are doing all they can to marginalise (criminalise) Christians, and appease militant Islamists

At Government level we are Arabist. There are few votes in protecting the Jews.

Universities are looking to boycott Israel. Business courts the petro-dollar, and at local level the average "man in the street" is looking the other way

I suggest therefore that the Establishment-inspired trend is against Israel and the Jews

Israel has few friends, but I would be proud to call myself one of them

john

Yes, Neil Turner, we can name one Palestinian leader before Arafat. He was Haj Amin El Husseini. The Nazi's very own creature. Who lives on in the Palestinian political conciousness: he has never been repudiated or rejected.

Augustus

In case my earlier post today doesn't get through, let me say that BLADES is wrong about 'the essential cause of the Arab-Israeli dispute'. The dispute started because surrounding Arab nations declared war on Israel, and ordered the Arab inhabitants to leave. If those Arab states had looked after the
resulting refugees in the same way that Israel looked after Jewish refugees seeking to join
the newly independent Jewish state and those pioneers who had returned to the land of their forefathers and had turned it back from the wilderness which they found it
(Arabs only really came there in any numbers from various regions after the Jews had begun to make something of the land, and these people were not
in any sense 'original inhabitants), no Arab refugee problem would ever have existed.
In fact The Israelis initially didn't want the Arabs to flee their villages. People like BLADES are twisters of the truth
because they either refuse to acknowledge, or cannot see, that
the Palestinians have been political pawns in Israel's short history, and in fact have been misused as such by their own people in order to keep the
conflict in the ME alive. It is their own people who have always been the agressors. It is their own people who want to destroy the rightful land of the Jews and who, all along, have denied even Israel's right to exist.

john

The "invention of the Palestinian People" by Shlomo Sands. nyone seen this book in the bookshops yet?

Richard

C. Gee
June 13th, 2010 1:00am

Your answers are not entirely satisfactory.

To call the wars of 1948 "defensive" is only half true, at best. It still does not make the acquisition of territory by conquest legitimate.

You appear to confirm that Israel feels free to claim some forece (moral or legal) for some UN resolutions e.g. on partition or on Iraq, but to ignore others. You appear to hint that only force can compel observance - which is probably true and lucky for Israel as the US is the only power in a position to coerce.

Israel says it abides by international law. Any system of law has an arbiter who lays down the correct interpretation of its laws. For international law, the arbiter is the ICJ. Israel can,like the US, ignore its rulings, but cannot also claim to act lawfully when its actions go against these rulings.

I am still not clear whether you are saying that there are or are not rights when it comes to who can claim to be a nation and who can set up a state.

Would you agree that, " The Arabs have tried to convert property rights, forfeited by abandonment or expulsion in war, into national rights to a territory" is in several respects at best disingenuous?

I am not sure why the behaviour of other states in the past should be brought as evidence to justify Israel's now in respect of refugees.

Could you refresh my memory on Israel's offers of compensation?

"The Arabs who stayed in Israel held their property rights and were granted full citizenship". Again, disingenuous, or perhaps ignorant. Can I refer you to Abu Hussein "Access Denied", Lustick "Arabs in the Jewish State", Robinson "Palestinians under Military Rule 1948-66" etc. etc. etc.

You attempt to clarify "continuity of presence" will not do. It appears simply to be an insinuation.

" nationhood in the modern sense is an identification that is larger than ethnicity and religious affiliation." - Quite. This was part of the argument in the dim and distant past against the exclusive claims of the Zionists; and in the present for the contention that the Palestinians have the same right as anyone else to self-determination, which cannot be denied them simply by sneering (as some here do) that they are not a nation and never had a state, flag, anthem (!)...

"There are Jews of all races and Israelis of all races and religions." - True, but are all citizens of Israel equal before the law?

The Palestinians' Canaanite myth is indeed ridiculous; but then many would say the same about a claim that ancient history bestows the right to displace a population in modern times.

You have avoided my question on "historical sovereignty".

Your digression into ethnography I think illustrates why you should leave it to the experts and concentrate on the subject of our discussion.

The Mandate Power did indeed recommend partition to its successor. You now appear to be agreeing with the contention that the UN had it in its gift to grant the Jews sovereignty.

You appear to promote Israel as an exemplar of liberal democracy. Is this what you intended?

"Realpolitick should not be confused with reality. Israel is a real nation. It will defend that reality." I have not asserted that Israel is not a real nation, nor that it has no right to defend itself. I have asked whether you would characterize its actions as inconsistent or as realpolitik.

You sign off by acknowledging that a recent nation is no worse than an ancient. You persist, however, in crude racial stereotyping. If Israel wants a civilized neighbour it should cease its deliberate policy of decades to degrade and destroy the fabric of society in the Occupied Territories. Any people would descend into chaos under such oppression.

Richard

C. Gee,

The penny has only just dropped. Your ethnographical excursus had a purpose.

"Nomadic tribes may point to "ancestral" lands over which they traveled, but these are not national territorial claims. The traditional "rights" of nomads - freely to graze their animals, to rob a passing camel train - are in any case being compromised - as they have always been - by the rights of settled (not "settler"), modern populations."

This is to justify Israel's outrageous persecution of the Bedouin, is it not?

If so, shame on you.

Derek BLADES

Augustus, June 14th, wrote "... let me say that BLADES is wrong about 'the essential cause of the Arab-Israeli dispute'."

I note that Augustus does not dispute my assertion that people who temporarily leave their homes to escape from a war zone do not thereby forfeit their title deeds. That was the point of my comment and I am pleased to see that Augustus and I agree on that.

Augustus sometimes gives the impression that he does not like me, so it is good when we can find an area of friendly accord. Best regards to you old chap.

phil

C. Gee
June 13th, 2010 1:00am You have as usual provided awesome education for Richard and possibly his twin ,neither wishes to learn and at least one of them argued intermingle with Jonathan on another thread churning out rubbish by the yard. .I believe they each have a problem of pomposity regardless of their opinions ,desperately trying to impress with the use of phrases designed to show how clever they are -They need to be reminded that this is the internet and plain speaking is in order and of course sound facts ,that is what impresses .Both need to me reminded too that Jews were settled in the Holy Land for thousands of years and perhaps they can recall that Jesus possibly the most famous Jew lived there ,Can either of them remember an Arab or Palestinian who was there ? I see blades is back with his jokes and his conclusions why there is so much trouble in the ME-what a star he is :)

Thomas

If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:

1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?

2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?

3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?

4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers – when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?

5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?

6. Since this has not happened, but – on the contrary – Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?

7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?

8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?

9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?

10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?

11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?

12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel’s own territorial waters, and that ships entering them “infringe on Israeli sovereignty”, contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had “separated” itself from it?

13. Why has the Attorney General’s office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had “tried to enter Israel illegally”, and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns “illegal entry into Israel”?

14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has “separated itself from the Gaza Strip” and that the “occupation there has come to an end” – and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip?

Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:

15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)

16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)

17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)

18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)

19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?

20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?

21. Were there others who also advised doing so?

22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?

23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?

24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law – did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?

25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?

26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?

27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?

28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?

29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult?

Question concerning the planning of the action:

30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)

31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?

32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?

33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?

34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?

35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation – the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?

36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?

37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?

38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?

39. Why was it executed in darkness?

40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship “Mavi Marmara”?

41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship “Exodus 1947”, which ended in a political disaster for the British?

Questions concerning the action itself:

42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?

43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?

44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?

45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?

46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?

47. Was the shooting – all or part of it – justified?

48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?

49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?

50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?

51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?

52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?

53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?

54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?

55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?

56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?

57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?

58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to “piss in his pants”, that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?

59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?

60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship “Karin A”?

Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:

61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?

62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?

63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be “lynched”, when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?

64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?

65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a “terrorist organization”, though no evidence for this claim was offered?

66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?

67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?

68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?

69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a “shahid”, translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted “to kill and be killed” (“shahid” means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?

70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out “Go back to Auschwitz”?

71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?

72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?

73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons – when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?

74. Do all these items – coupled with the endless repetition of the word “terrorists” and the blocking of any contrary information – not constitute brainwashing?

Questions concerning the inquiry:

75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?

76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?

77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify – when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?

78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?

79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?

80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad?

And, finally, the question of questions:

81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?

Uri Avnery

Adam B.

Blades, it is a misrepresentation to claim that Arab residents left simply to escape a war zone. Whilst this may be true in part, it was also the case that the Arab leadership, both in the guise of the antisemitic Nazi sympathizer the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the heads of state of each regional Arab power, exhorted the Arab population to leave - in order to "drive the Jews into the sea."

Put a slightly different complexion on it. Furthermore, you fail to address the greater number of Jewish refugees, who were simply expelled from Arab nations.

Adam B.

Thomas, you must like the sound of your own voice (or the sound of your keyboard).

phil

IS THIS THOMAS ´S idea of a deal or is it a hamas deal -it certainly does not seem the kind normal people do -if you do thomas .do not open a business -no charge ,this advice comes with my compliments .

"9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?"

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote:"Uri Avneri"

Such a releif that Thoams celebrates israeli society sufficiently to read one of its main newspapers (Haaretz) ...and a leftist one at that - famed for its criticism of the Government and the support of the Peace Movement.

I have no doubt that Thomas supports sister media outlets in Gaza and Teheran - those bastions of free speech and freedom of expression.

It's also heartening that, like Avneri, Thomas just might be a supporter of the two state solution - again, no doubt like his brothers-in -arms in Gaza etc..

Well. we're getting somewhere, Thomas. Perhaps you are leaving the dank sanctum of the turgid Logician, at last - into the light of the world of hope for peace.

As my old prof' at Oxford used to say: " Bivalence, countervalence, as long as you love your Hamas!"

Thomas

As everyone here is so certain of what happened, perhaps they could answere Uri Avnery's leftist Hamas-loving pertinent questions.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "Thomas
June 15th, 2010 9:03am
As everyone here is so certain of what happened, perhaps they could answere Uri Avnery's leftist Hamas-loving pertinent questions."

They are not answerable by you or me, Thomas and, I suspect they are actually rhetorical questions, anyway.

More interesting, I think, is Mr Avneri's thoughts on the wider issue of Peace - the two state solution and how best to achieve that.

He is a profoundly wise man, in my view, with enormous courage to boot. I just wish I shared his optimism...

Derek BLADES

Adam B. 14 June, told me that "...it is a misrepresentation to claim that Arab residents left [their homes and farms] simply to escape a war zone." He asserts that some left at the instigation of the Grand Mufti and of heads of Arab Governments.

Just so that I understand your reasoning, do you think that all Arabs that left the war zone can be considered to have forfeited the title deeds to their property? Or only those that left at the urging of the Grand Mufti and the Arab governments? If the latter, why?

Thomas

John Roosevelt

"They are not answerable by you or me, Thomas and, I suspect they are actually rhetorical questions, anyway.

More interesting, I think, is Mr Avneri's thoughts on the wider issue of Peace - the two state solution and how best to achieve that.

He is a profoundly wise man, in my view, with enormous courage to boot. I just wish I shared his optimism..."

I do not think the questions rhetorical. They are such as a proper inquiry should answer. I think that you are right that we cannot answer them. I am surprised that so many here are so absolute in their belief that they can answer them, and so unwilling to tell us how.

A two-state solution is unfortunately becoming ever less feasible, I would argue because of Israel's continued settlement of the West Bank and slicing up of the remainder into cantons isolated from each other and policed by their willing stooges in Fatah, whose reward is to enjoy a form of mafia capitalism. This may bring Israel a measure of security for a while, but condemns a population of equal size to misery.

The only other solution that is not too brutal to contemplate is a one-state solution, which the hatred on both sides renders almost inconceivable.

Like you, I wish I could share Uri Avnery's optimism. There are such as him on both sides, but how they persuade the extremists I do not have a clue.

Thomas

phil
June 14th, 2010 11:19pm

Hamas is holding one combatant (in conditions that breach international law and human decency). Israel is holding hundreds of Palestinians illegally, some of whom it accuses of terrorism, but many of whom it has not brought to trial, and some of whom it has brought to trial in courts that have no jurisdiction (whom they hold in conditions - who knows what the conditions are - several of the prisons are unacknowledged).

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to wipe the slate clean (likewise in Lebanon).

Or do you suggest that Hamas capture an equal number of Israelis and subject them to illegal detention, in order to give the deal an appearance of a more commensurate swap?

Linda Smith

Thomas, the reason why "a two-state solution is unfortunately becoming ever less feasible" is that Hamas would immediately violently take over a "Palestinian" state on the West Bank.

I expect that all the Arab governments like the status quo as it is, holding Hamas and Hezbollah - Iran's proxy - in check. You may have seen the article in The Times stating that Saudi Arabia is allowing Israel a shortcut airspacer corridor to Iran.

You really need to widen your lens.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas:If Mr Avneri does not intend those questions to be rhetorical, then that would be a good thing. One might assume Israel's own investigation will be a whitewash, but one could also make the same assumption about a UN team, I guess. Not sure I would trust anyone in these circumstances...but such is the awful way of the world - lamentably imperfect, particularly when we are talking re war zones...

In any event, what is so compelling about Avneri's position is that he strives to think of the "doable" and thus lets the ideologues of the Left and Right to one side, where they can rant till the cows come home. He has a track record of genuinely contributing to changing the way Israelis think, at least, which is a start. I fear he has had less success on the Palestinian side - not to mention that of Iran, Hezbollah etc.

I'm afraid I have no awareness of thinkers similar to Avneri on the Arab moslem side, especially any as effective in changing the culture of extremism as Avneri.

I have zero faith in the prospect for a uni state. The Arabs never wanted it even before Israel's supposed ethnic cleansing and manipulation of the UN in 1947 or, if they claimed to, it was too late to for the Jews to believe them. Too much blood under the bridge. It is very hard to believe hat in the political, religious culture that pervades the Middle East moslem world, that the jews would fare well in such a state. To make them believe they would would take some doing...

Avneri believes, as I do, that israel cannot be expected, realsitically to dissolve as a state. This just will not happen, just as it will not happen to Germany, France etc.. However, his vision of two states based on 181, both sharing Jerusalem , with a common market etc, at least gives real peace a chance and, with time and effort on both sides, is certainly thinkable and doable. In time, if the two cultures eventually absorb peace as a norm, who knows what can then evolve between these peoples?

I think Ilan Pappe's vision of the world is worrying to say the least. I cannot help having visons of Stalin's gulags, or Mao's Long march, or Pol Pots killing fields, when I read him...though no doubt this is not what he wants.

I also believe strongly that most of the vilification of Israel one hears and reads does no good whatsoever. It changes the Israeli governing class not a jot; and it reinforces the fanatical and the racist in the moslem world.

Can you imagine if we had a few million Uri Avneris out there to educate and build trust..?Now there's a good thought for the day...

Liz

This blog has turned into yet another debate about Israel's right to exist. Considering the fact that Israel is the only country in the world whose every move to protect its people is held under the Jew-hating Left's moral microscope and dissected by a hoard of pseudo intellectuals and media scum, rather proves Melanie's point.

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 15th, 2010 2:37pm

I pretty well agree with what you say.

Two minor points:

I don't think it fair to characterise advocates of a one-state solution as Stalinist, or Maoist, or Khmer Rouge. The problem is simply that a one-state solution appears so completely impractical, in part for the reason you mention, that Jewish Israelis would have absolutely no reson to believe they could trust in such a solution to protect them or their way of life. Greater trust might conceivably grow over time between two states whose economic interests coincide.

Rajah Shehadeh is one example of a rational, reasonable Palestinian. His works are worth reading, although I think he has despaired of a solution.

Augustus

Derek BLADES - Title deeds of lands and dwellings supposedly acquired by Arab peasants during the period of the British Mandate, prior to the commencement of hostilities in 1948, is not a very precise term
under the circumstances. From the point of view of the Arabs,
all these lands in Israel belonged to the Arabs, since all of the land of Palestine itself 'belonged' to the Arabs,
in as much as they considered themselves the rightful owners.
But this is, of course, only fallacious reasoning and not very meaningful. The Arabs of Palestine had never exercised sovereignty and did not own most of the land by private purchase. It was government land that had belonged to the Ottoman empire, and before that to various Turkish and other empires. If there had been any actual owners in pre-Mandate history it would probably have been the Jews of 2,000 and more years ago. There is a map, often presented in pro-
Palestinian arguments, prepared by a sub-committee of the UN, which tries to enhance the impression that Palestine had belonged to the Arabs and had been 'stolen' by the Jews, purporting to show Jewish and non-Jewish land ownership in different areas. All of the land that was not purchased and registered to Jews, or the Jewish agency, including government lands (such as the Beersheba district which was 99%
government land), is shown as being 99% non-Jewish. But the catch is, and never mentioned, that all this land was also 99% non-Arab.

From the Arabs' point of view
the Mandate provisions for
'close settlement' of Jews on the land, and the entire Mandate itself, were illegal creations of Western imperialists. But the League of Nations British Mandate was international law. It seems that
for some reason the Arab concern for international legitimacy evaporates completely
when such laws favoured the Zionists. And what is more, the land of Palestine was for the most part vitually worthless terrein prior to the Mandate in 1917. Land values only increased
because of the Mandate, and this was due entirely to Jewish settlement and Zionist investment.

Harold

Augustus
June 15th, 2010 3:09pm

This seems tortuous sophistry to persuade us that the Zionists had every right to Palestine because Great Britain said so (well, not quite) and the people who actually lived there had no right because they had been subjagated by the Ottomans and then by the British.

I believe the figure for land under cultivation owned by Jews on the eve of partition is something like 5-6%. I believe the Jewish population was something like one third of the total. I may be wrong.

What happened to the self-determination Woodrow Wilson was so loudly hypocritical about? Would the natural solution in hindsight not have been for Great Britain to consult the population in 1918, or 1923, or even 1947?

Thomas

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 15th, 2010 2:37pm

"However, his vision of two states based on 181, both sharing Jerusalem , with a common market etc, at least gives real peace a chance and, with time and effort on both sides, is certainly thinkable and doable. In time, if the two cultures eventually absorb peace as a norm, who knows what can then evolve between these peoples?"

Can I reiterate that I think this an excellent description of what looks like the only feasible solution. It will require painful compromise from Israel.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: I dont think those who want a uni state solution are necessarily Stalinist etc..it's just their general insouciance re the likely implications of such a "solution" makes me shudder and think of such genocide in the name of some credo that purports to be predicated on the greater good.

I also think the UN - to be taken more seriously as an arbiter of state behaviour, ought to be more proactive in addressing the implications of the extreme ideologies informing so much of policy on both sides, as opposed to succumbing to blatant politicing as a result of the influence of blocs of its members. How it can expect genuinely automatically to be revered as the judge, in the last resort, on all controversial issues (like the israeli action against the flotilla) beats me.

Few seem to want to come out and speak about the role holy war plays in this conflict and the extent to which it makes nonsense of so much of Western leftist liberal thinking on the subject. You know my thoughts on the extent to which I find criticising israel for its behavior, whist the same or worse thrives amongst the arab moslem community merely inflames analysis. If you're going to highlight one side's transgressions - in the name of seeking solutions - highlight both.

I also think it would be helpful for there to be analysis by the UN of the history of anti semitism in the region and the part it plays in the education system. That would be cathartic and a slap in the face to the propagandists, whilst possibly opening the eyes of Israelis to the possibility that there is an example of honest Arab moslem self reflection which they, in turn, would do well to emulate.

Augustus

Harold - I don't know about the 'natural solution', but the very idea that God has enemies, and needs human help in order to identify and dispose of them,
is to my mind a little difficult to assimilate. There is, of course, a struggle in human hearts between good and evil, between God's commandments
and the tempter. But this is a
struggle ordained by God, and with its outcome pre-ordained by God, serving as it does as a test for mankind, and not a struggle in which any particular
religion has a human part to play in bringing about a victory
of good over evil. In Islam this struggle very quickly acquired political and even military dimensions. And so, in the period we are talking about
the Palestinian leadership during the Mandate had no qualms
about inciting its followers against Zionism and the Jews. As later so did PLO officials use the billions of Arab oil dollars, and the donations by the international community to finance their personal and political goals while ordinary Palestinians still scrambled for a livelihood. And so it goes on and on...From generation of Palestinian leaders to generation...And now today with Western anti-Zionists
joining the fray, calling for the dismantlement of the state.
Not for new leaders, not for new
politicians putting their own self-inflicted 'catastrophe' behind them.

phil

Thomas
June 15th, 2010 12:16pm what did Gilad do ? and please do not answer by asking what the Palestinian terrorists did -I cannot obviously account for all of them but most have committed crimes and some murder ,or attempted murder .

Harold

Augustus
June 15th, 2010 5:51pm

I thought my comment quite clearly relevant to what you said. I can't say the same for your response:

"There is, of course, a struggle in human hearts between good and evil, between God's commandments
and the tempter. But this is a
struggle ordained by God, and with its outcome pre-ordained by God, serving as it does as a test for mankind" - what the...?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas; "Can I reiterate that I think this an excellent description of what looks like the only feasible solution. It will require painful compromise from Israel."

..not to mention from the Palestinians...and still more "compromise" from Iran's present rulers...

Thomas

phil
June 15th, 2010 6:08pm

You can't account for "all" the terrorists, but you do know that they are terrorists? Are you referring to all the detainees? or only the ones you "know" to be terrorists?

You will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it Corporal Shalit was in a unit operating a mobile artillery piece - one of those whose job was to lob shells into Gaza.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "What happened to the self-determination Woodrow Wilson was so loudly hypocritical about? Would the natural solution in hindsight not have been for Great Britain to consult the population in 1918, or 1923, or even 1947?"

Perhaps you should take a look at the Palestine Constitution of 1922 rejected in toto by an Arab Palestine Congress in Nablus in 1922, though accepted by the Jews.

The Constitution established a legislative Council. It was to have a majority of non official members, most of whom would be elected. In its representative aspect - the only on e that mattered - the council would have been a predominantly Arab body.

So, from almost the very beginning of the British Mandate, there was a significant attempt by the British to move in the direction of representative institutions - something which the Arabs nevertheless felt was unacceptable despite the fact acceptance would have likely have enshrined Arab dominance in Palestine.

It was a grave miscalculation and one which even the primary International Legal insitution in 1947 - the UN - did not see fit to undo.

Democracy and International Law, then, is not all it's cracked up to be, I guess? We better be careful how we weald those sticks, therefore, when it comes to establishing a basis for criticising Israel.

Peace can only come through mutual compromise and genuine accommodation. If that holds steady over time and proves its viability, then perhaps an ethos of cooperation can grow and change the region.

The alternative is bleak.

Augustus

Harold - Forgive me! My aim was to relieve you of the 'tortuous
sophistry' you accused me of foisting upon you. However, I believe that, at the partition date, the figure for Jewish population within the area of the Mandate which became the actual state of Israel was over 50%. It was, no doubt, somewhat less throughout the entire Mandate area. There are of course many things Great Britain
should have done between 1918 and 1948, but I think that no amount of 'consultations' with the Arab population would have succeeded in changing their minds that Zionists were out to
dispossess their land. And, of course, the land area granted to the British Mandate was much larger than the area sought by the Zionists, and in 1922 Britain declared that the boundary of Palestine would be
limited to the West of the river Jordan. The area East (Transjordan) now Jordan, was eventually given independence. Furthermore, all the riots and pogroms against the Jews in the 1920s were entirely due to Arab nationalists opposed to the Mandate and the whole concept of the Jewish National Home. One of the main instigators of these riots was the so-called Grand Mufti Husseini, a title bestowed upon him by the British
who later became a Nazi collaborator. The Husseini family killed both Jews and members of Palestinian Arab families who opposed their hegemony. Later on and before Israel's birth, when the Peel Commission of 1937 recommended partitioning Palestine into a small Jewish state and a large Arab one, including a recommendation of voluntary transfer of Arabs and Jews to seperate populations, the Arab leadership still rejected the plan (including King Saud of Saudi Arabia). They even demanded that the British curtail Jewish immigration notwithstanding what was happening in Germany, Austria, Poland etc. They even threatened to side with the enemy against the British if it came to war if the British failed to follow Arab wishes. Thereupon, and in response to the riots, the British did begin to limit immigration. Because of this many poor souls could have been saved from the Holocaust, although illegal immigration was organized, and tens of thousands were saved. Finally, when the UN took over, and recommended partition, guess what? The Jews accepted partition, but the Arabs rejected it. Square one, or what?

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 15th, 2010 10:51pm

You pick me up on international law and some of the history of the Mandate.

My point (rhetorical, I admit) was that international law was proclaimed to be founded on self-determination but was in fact an imperialist carve-up. By the time the Mandate Power was talking about local government with the inhabitants, self-determination had already been denied them.

On the detail you remind me of. I understood that the Zionists agreed in the knowledge that the Arabs would refuse; and when the Arabs, in a rare fit of good sense, agreed,the Zionists refused.

I think that we have to assess the Mandate period as a whole and in all its complexity. In general, however, the Zionists were way more effective and their avowed goal was sovereignty over Palestine. The British on the whole helped the Zionists, with every so often an attempt to appease "the natives". And the Palestinians Arabs were incompetent.

You use the one episode during the Mandate to warn me to be careful in pointing out that Israel does not observe international law.

My opinion (for what it is worth!) is that we have to make do with the history of international law that got us here, and the Palestinians do too, despite the manifest injustice. It reminds me of the Irishmen who, when asked for directions, replied "Well, I wouldn't start from here." The League of Nations, an imperialist charade, is the foundation of our current international law. The UN is its successor. The Palestinians have learned the hard way that they have to accept this. Israel has been able to disregard it because the UN has been for most of its history an instrument of US policy (as Roosevelt intended), and on the rare occasions it has disobeyed the US has ignored it.

I agree with your final two paragraphs.

Harold

Augustus
June 15th, 2010 11:17pm

It was to relieve me from your sophistry - kind, but how? The meaning of what you said still eludes me.

You now revert to sophistry: the proportion of Jews within the part of Palestine alloted to them in the partition is irrelevant in a discussion of self-determination within Palestine. (That a third of the population was Jewish as a consequence of British policy, and that the two communities were unsurprisingly at each others throats, is relevant, as it defines the dilemma the British had got themselves into.)

"...Arab population would have succeeded in changing their minds that Zionists were out to
dispossess their land." Let's not pussyfoot around this - they were out to dispossess them.

"the land area granted to the British Mandate was much larger than the area sought by the Zionists" - I'm not sure about that.

"all the riots and pogroms against the Jews in the 1920s were entirely due to Arab nationalists opposed to the Mandate and the whole concept of the Jewish National Home." - True, but also opposed to British rule, and also provoked, as British official inquiries and more thoughtful Zionists admitted, by Zionist attitudes and behaviour towards the Arabs.

"who later became a Nazi collaborator" - while he played his part with apparent relish and thus deserves all the opprobrium, I think it should be remembered that the Arabs were trying to play the Great Powers in much the same way as the Zionists. They were simply incompetent where the Zionists were past masters. The Zionists had the support of the imperial power in the region, and of its evident successor. Who was left - the Axis, who appeared to be winning, and so might free the Arabs from British rule. Naive, certainly, but not evil except with hindsight. Remember that Shamir was sent to explore a deal with the Nazis. In more recent times, remember the US supported the Khmer Rouge once Vietnam had invaded to oust them; and supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Such amorality is unfortunately commonplace.

The Zionists accepted partition in 1937 and 1947 on the explicit assumption that the Arabs would turn it down. The Zionists accepted it explicitly as a first step. The Zionists presented the various committees with maps of the minimum requirement for a Jewish state - somewhat more than was offered and somewhat less (but very close) to what was achieved in war. The Arabs would have been wise to accept, but who can fail to understand their difficulty in accepting the loss of half their land to newcomers?

More would have been saved from the Holocaust if the world powers in the 1930s and the Allies during the war had a more enlightened view of immigration into their own countries. Palestine was a very small part of their shameful conduct.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: “JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 15th, 2010 10:51pm
You pick me up on international law and some of the history of the Mandate.
My point (rhetorical, I admit) was that international law was proclaimed to be founded on self-determination but was in fact an imperialist carve-up. By the time the Mandate Power was talking about local government with the inhabitants, self-determination had already been denied them.”

My point is that International Law, like all Law, is an imperfect axe. Wealded, as it so often is - in the propaganda war - merely to bash one party to a dispute when it suits – as if it is the perfect whip – makes resolution of disputes often very difficult.

“On the detail you remind me of. I understood that the Zionists agreed in the knowledge that the Arabs would refuse; and when the Arabs, in a rare fit of good sense, agreed, the Zionists refused.”

Well, it is true the Mufti made many execrable decisions and some less so,when it was too late - normally because he had a penchant for backing the wrong political horses (like nazi Germany). A wicked world, I know…His descendents in the Arab/Palestinian political leadership elites seemed to follow in his footsteps in this regard. What their decision-making resulted in wasn’t called the Nabka for nothing, I guess…

“I think that we have to assess the Mandate period as a whole and in all its complexity. In general, however, the Zionists were way more effective and their avowed goal was sovereignty over Palestine.”

My point is that if the Arabs had many chances to create a peaceful solution to a very difficult issue. The solutions may not have been ideal from their point of view. Nor for the Jews, for that matter. However, unless "solutions" are "final" , this is what peace requires. Some, of course, seem constrained at least to apologise for or even support "final solutions" - of the right and of the Left. Both as bad as each other in this regard, i think. The left of Europe would enable a Saddam, becauseof its hatred of US Imperialism, for example; or, Pol Pots' murderousness excused becauuse of hatred of US policy; or the HRC condones Sril Lankan murder of 2,000 civilians etc etc etc etc..Sickening..and I am fed up with it.
Everyone knows the Arab molsem leadership in Palestine and the wider Arab world blew it too many times to count. And, as a result, we are nearly 100 years down the road without a solution to this conflict. So what? It only means the compromises now necessary – for the Arabs/Moslems and Israelis - have become more challenging than ever. It doesn't mean the blame game is the road we still need to be on.

“The British on the whole helped the Zionists, with every so often an attempt to appease "the natives". And the Palestinians Arabs were incompetent.”

Well, politics is a warm gun…Whatever british policy in Palestine (and many would not agree with you at all..but who the hell cares, anyway?), we are left now with an unholy shit fest caused, too often, by supposedly holy men.

“You use the one episode during the Mandate to warn me to be careful in pointing out that Israel does not observe international law.
My opinion (for what it is worth!) is that we have to make do with the history of international law that got us here, and the Palestinians do too, despite the manifest injustice.”

True, but it’s the way “you make do with it” that matters. After all, one man’s HRC, is another man’s talking shop for fascists and dictators with the worst human rights records you can imagine. Knowing that International Law too often becomes, primarily, a political instrument in the hands of ideologues pushing their own agendas, should make one who is genuinely interested in conflict resolution careful of predicating criticisms of one party to a dispute, only, on that Law alone.This is what is doen on a daily basis:" The israelis broke international maritime Law!!". Who cares? Would it make a difference to the aim of the flotilla? Would the Turks jump back in their amoral box? of course not!! It is this manifest flip-flopping – to underscore one’s sense of righteousness - which becomes a hindrance rather than a help in peace-making.

“It reminds me of the Irishmen who, when asked for directions, replied "Well, I wouldn't start from here." “

Mmm, yes, but I think it also apt that you were reminded of an Irishman, anyway. Perhaps this fact actually serves to underscore my point, too.

“The League of Nations, an imperialist charade, is the foundation of our current international law. The UN is its successor. “

Do you know of an International legal institution which may be free from being tarred with some kind of brush in the hands of one ideology or other? You can’t have it both ways – your Irishman on the one hand – to defend the worthiness of the Law, and your imperialist running dog, on the other, just to dismiss it, merely to suit your moral aganeda du jour. Not helpful. There has to be another way.

“The Palestinians have learned the hard way that they have to accept this.”

Just as Israel has had to accept the shenanigans – form its point of view - of the UN, also; or, in contrast, just as the Bosnian Serbs or Kossovars were saved from extermination by the ignoring of the UN completely!

“Israel has been able to disregard it because the UN has been for most of its history an instrument of US policy (as Roosevelt intended), and on the rare occasions it has disobeyed the US has ignored it.”

..but Israel also would probably never have existed without the Soviet UN vote, either. . Weird, isn’t it, how the real world may seem to taint ideology?

..and I guess you wouldn’t be silly enough to include the General Assembly in that assertion..but, yes, you’re right the UN is, after all, a political body and decisions which emanate from it reflect that fact. Again, you underscore my point. The UN and the Law can seem terribly unfair for that very reason; and for tht very reason, too, we have to move beyond that very obvious and painful realisation if we are to achieve peace.

It’s time to stop using the Law as just another propaganda tool. We need to get down to dealing with the realities on the ground and realistic ways to approach them – without being hoisted by the petard that can be - if we let it - be International Law. Uri Avneri is a wonderful example of someone who has dedicated most of his life to doing this. He has had some success with Israelis. Much less with Arabs and moslems. They need an Avneri to modify their position, too. We need many Avneris to build a genuine culture of peace and hope in Israel and the Moslem world.

These arguments and assertions re the rights and wrongs of British imperialist policy and Jew loving; the US “love fest” with Israel; the “venal cabal” that is the Jewish lobby; the “international Jewish conspiracy”; the Ayatollahs being the shining light of “humanitarianism”; one man’s massacre being another man’s road to eternal life with 72 vestels – all only serve to widen the divisions between Palestinians and Israelis and deepen mutual mistrust and hatred. If you care for peace, rather than pretend to - as a tactic for achieving a wider strategy of violence - this claptrap has to stop and we must ALL encourage it to stop. It's like a nightmare vision of the naughty class in kindergarten. Pathetic. Puerile..and laughable, if it weren't for the horror of the history of suffering on all sides that has only been compunded by this nonsense.

There is only so much useful mileage in coopting the support of the ignorant, innocent and manipulable to an agenda which has war as its main immediate aim. As the Mufti learned too late - and the Arabs and moslems should lear now from his mistakes - to achieve peace there has to be compromise. and, to be able to achieve compromise, there has to be a change in approach to one’s own history and defining ideologies.

We don’t have the luxury to miss that chance too often…

Linda Smith

Harold argues, like all antizionists dressed up in sheep's clothing, on a highly selective view of history. He hones in on the area of the Ottoman Empire which became the Jewish State of Israel.

The Ottoman Empire was a theocracy. The law of the land for Muslims was shari'a, the holy law of the Kur'an-i Kerim (Holy Koran). Christian and Jewish minorities were governed by their own laws, based on their own Scriptures, subject to the ultimate rule of the sultan. During the 19th century and particularly following the Ottoman defeat in the Crimean War, European intervention alleviated the persecution of the non-Muslims dictated in the Koran.

In arguing in favour of "self determination" of the majority population in the defeated Turkish Empire at the end of the First World War, Harold is arguing in favour of the rule of Sharia law throughout the Middle East, and in favour of the perpetual oppression, dhimmitude, of the non-Muslim. The creation of Israel provided a refuge from Islamic oppression for victims such as the barefoot Jews of Yemen rescued from dhimmitude by the fledgling state of Israel in 1950 in Operation Magic Carpet.

The notion of "Arab nationalism" was invented by Christian Arabs in the 19th century but was soon hijacked and Islamified by the majority Muslim Arabs. When Arabs talk about "dispossession" they mean loss of land previously conquered in holy jihad.

Christian Arabs are persecuted dhimmis as are Jews.
Harold's legalistic codswallop is morally bankrupt.

phil

homas -As usual you never answer a question ,which is no doubt the reason that you are seen as a bufoon here -Your words no longer have any value to any of us even I am sure those that are on the same side of the fence as you .Wasting time with you has proven to be a mistake for all of us ,so have a nice day thomas -I am done with you .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Linda Smith wrote: "Harold's legalistic codswallop is morally bankrupt."

Linda Smith, Mozart, and a good bottle of Barolo. Now. that has to be heaven on Earth, surely??

Worried

little outrage from the left about this, but then, the people being massacred are successful. Hmmm...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/16/kyrgyzstan-killings-attempted-genocide-uzbeks

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 16th, 2010 12:15pm

I think I asked you earlier to keep your comments clear and simple, and here it is me who has obviously failed. - The Irishman's response was meant to show the futility of wishing to start from somewhere other than where you are. In this instance, we have to start from the international law we have, regardless of the fact that it was instituted to further the interests of imperialists. Its history has practical significance now only insofar as it affects the attitudes of either party towards the other. I think that a balanced history will moderate the opinions of both.

You lapse briefly into generic abuse: "These arguments and assertions re the rights and wrongs of British imperialist policy and Jew loving; the US “love fest” with Israel; the “venal cabal” that is the Jewish lobby; the “international Jewish conspiracy”; the Ayatollahs being the shining light of “humanitarianism”; one man’s massacre being another man’s road to eternal life with 72 vestels – all only serve to widen the divisions between Palestinians and Israelis and deepen mutual mistrust and hatred. If you care for peace, rather than pretend to - as a tactic for achieving a wider strategy of violence..."

I'm sorry, but this is silly.

Other than that, I think we agree more than we might be willing to admit.

The main difference seems to be on who has to compromise most. It seems to me that we have, on one side, a powerful and prosperous Israel, with the military wherewithal to ensure its survival, in control of the resources of the region, and with the Palestinians more or less where it wants them; and, on the other, the Palestinians, captive and impoverished, at the mercy not just of Israel but of their own gangsters. Israel is offering the Palestinians 14% of Mandate Palestine (as was) in little bits, on condition that the Palestinians make yet more concessions. Who here is in a position to compromise for peace? Both need to: The Palestinians to escape immiseration and chaos. The Israelis because they cannot forever keep captive a people as populous as their own. I think we differ on the answer - but negotiations between the two, mediated by an honest broker, could arrive at an agreement.

I think you are right in saying that Uri Avnery is a fine example of what is possible. I am not sure that he has had any effect on Israelis - but that might just be the ignorance of someone looking on from afar.

Thomas

phil
June 16th, 2010 5:44pm

"what did Gilad do ?"

"Corporal Shalit was in a unit operating a mobile artillery piece - one of those whose job was to lob shells into Gaza."

"As usual you never answer a question"

?

Shome mishtake shurely?

Is it that you can't understand what is said, but can't bear to be left out, so "join in" the discussion anyway?

Adam B.

No Thomas, not "lob shells", but to protect Israel from terrorist attack. Sometimes that means targeting terrorists.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 16th, 2010 12:15pm

I think I asked you earlier to keep your comments clear and simple, and here it is me who has obviously failed."

No, Harold. That was Thomas, but it you do seem to be one nd the same. Seems your favored opening gambit in any response to me. Very wounding, to be sure..but not sure it matters, though..and, anyway, you're a fine one to talk! It's all useless banter, Harold..so just leave it out.

"The Irishman's response was meant to show the futility of wishing to start from somewhere other than where you are."

Ag..der..yes..I know, mate. You never even heard my point wizzing over your head, then..(?)

" In this instance, we have to start from the international law we have, regardless of the fact that it was instituted to further the interests of imperialists. Its history has practical significance now only insofar as it affects the attitudes of either party towards the other. I think that a balanced history will moderate the opinions of both."

Sorry? You really will have to unbundle that thought for me...but you did miss my point completely. I didn't miss yours.

"You lapse briefly into generic abuse: "These arguments and assertions re the rights and wrongs of British imperialist policy and Jew loving; the US “love fest” with Israel; the “venal cabal” that is the Jewish lobby; the “international Jewish conspiracy”; the Ayatollahs being the shining light of “humanitarianism”; one man’s massacre being another man’s road to eternal life with 72 vestels – all only serve to widen the divisions between Palestinians and Israelis and deepen mutual mistrust and hatred. If you care for peace, rather than pretend to - as a tactic for achieving a wider strategy of violence..."

I'm sorry, but this is silly."

"Genteic abuse"? :))))..and you call me "silly"? I'm breathless, Harold, at your crassness...

"Other than that, I think we agree more than we might be willing to admit.

The main difference seems to be on who has to compromise most. It seems to me that we have, on one side, a powerful and prosperous Israel, with the military wherewithal to ensure its survival, in control of the resources of the region, and with the Palestinians more or less where it wants them; and, on the other, the Palestinians, captive and impoverished, at the mercy not just of Israel but of their own gangsters. Israel is offering the Palestinians 14% of Mandate Palestine (as was) in little bits, on condition that the Palestinians make yet more concessions."

Not just israel. The UN, also, I think...

" Who here is in a position to compromise for peace? Both need to: The Palestinians to escape immiseration and chaos. The Israelis because they cannot forever keep captive a people as populous as their own. I think we differ on the answer - but negotiations between the two, mediated by an honest broker, could arrive at an agreement."

yeah, yeah..let's hope so.. but it's useful, I think to realise that too many Israel bashers carry on as if wars have no consequences and the fact that all the principal wars in the Middle East have been initiated - rightly or wrongly - by the Arabs, and they have lost them.. just seems an irrelevance. Well, it's not. When you loose wars which have as their express purpose the extermination of your enemy and you loose, watch out...That's no ideological position, just common sense.

Now, the situation is grim, it is true.. Whichever side you adore, it is grim. Something has to change. However, realistically, I think, Israel needs to feel that it is not just dealing with fundamentalist Islam, hellbent on wiping it off the map. True or false - it's a real and defining perception. To keep reinforcing this perception - and now Turkey, in cahoots with Iran. will reinforce it in a way which could set peace back several more generations - cant do the Palestinians any good - at least those who want peace and are prepared to accomodate israel.

..and don't think for a moment that states "have to" operate morally. This is a nonsense. If anything, most states think the oppositie, and act the opposite whilst spreading the bs re their moral behaviour.

Your banging on about Israel's existence not being threatened is a red herring. The point is, Israel perceives it's enemies WANT to threaten its existence. That's enough to cause Israel not to want to do its enemies any favours.Again, this is not an ideological postion. It's just a fact.

How does one change that?

You go figure, but in my book, the Palestinians wont move towards any dreams of viable independence without a sea change in attitude or, at least, a serious attempt to convince Israel that is wants to find common ground rather than destroy it - however justified they think they are in wishing that. Again, common sense for a anyone who wants to move towards peace.

This is no tennis game, Harold. It is a war. The rhetoric is TOTALLY misplaced, as is the conflation of and confusion between prescriptions, dreams and facts on the ground. if you are genuinely looking for a way to break the impasse. If you want Israel to disappear, I wouldn't put money on it willingly doing so, if I were you. Another way has to be found and alot of convincing has to be done.

From Israel's side, as I said, it needs badly to make concrete gestures to the palestinians- yet again. The propaganda war, at least, may thereby be diminished somewhat.. and that might help matters.

I think you are right in saying that Uri Avnery is a fine example of what is possible. I am not sure that he has had any effect on Israelis - but that might just be the ignorance of someone looking on from afar.

Linda Smith

John Roosevelt, watch out for Harold and his alternative universe. "Compromise for peace" he says. Tell him to have a decko at Palestinian Media Watch. The only compromise the PA are interested in is the destruction of Israel.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 17th, 2010 12:19am

"Very wounding, to be sure" - I'm sorry, the target this time was not you, but ME.

"No, Harold. That was Thomas"

No, John. It was me:

"Harold
June 13th, 2010 10:10pm
JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 13th, 2010 3:18pm

Your stuff may be easy to write, but it certainly isn't to read.

Simple sentences. Short paragraphs. None of the insults. So much easier."

And my point was that your comments were perfectly clear this time but mine evidently were not.

Your point on international law and the Irsihman has indeed flown straight over my head. I'm sorry. If you have the patience, could you explain it.

I meant only that the international law we have is founded on the League of Nations and the UN, both of which were originally intended to further the interests, not of every nation and people, but of the Great Powers. Despite this, international law can help to civilise international relations.

The history of who did what to whom during the Mandate etc. is only relevant now in that it influences how the two sides look at each other now. If each had a fuller picture of the history, they might be more willing to see the other's point of view.

The insults were generic, in that they referred to nothing I have ever said. You do it again in your latest: "If you want Israel to disappear, I wouldn't put money on it willingly doing so, if I were you." - You seem to imply that I would seriously consider this.

"Your banging on about Israel's existence not being threatened is a red herring. The point is, Israel perceives it's enemies WANT to threaten its existence. That's enough to cause Israel not to want to do its enemies any favours." - Israelis feel that their enemies want to do away with them, even although Israelis know that their enemies can't. Palestinians have been slaughtered in their thousands and pushed into ghetoes. They know Israel is well capable of more. As I said, who here is better able to make the first move. Israel would not just be doing the Palestinians a favour, but themselves.

"it's useful, I think to realise that too many Israel bashers carry on as if wars have no consequences and the fact that all the principal wars in the Middle East have been initiated - rightly or wrongly - by the Arabs, and they have lost them.. just seems an irrelevance. Well, it's not." - There is plenty of historical evidence that Israel was as much to blame as the Arab states for the wars. And the wars between the Arab states and Israel surely need not prevent Israel reaching an accomodation with the Palestinians.

"..and don't think for a moment that states "have to" operate morally." You are right, and I don't.

phil

Thomas
June 16th, 2010 9:51pm You are an amusing old man ,but I don`t think that is what you prefer,were you slightly tipsy ?I am probably the only one answering you ,because I need to smile from time to time ,and you certainly provide me with one .Sadly your knowledge of the subject matter of this thread is minimal ,so providing a laugh is about all you can expect ,sorry old boy .

ahad ha'amoratsim

steve and Harold seem to be missing the point. The danger signs are not in the execrable remarks of laughing stock Helen Thomas, who should have been fired for incompetence long ago. The danger signs are in the apparently wide spread reaction to her firing.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: sorry I confused you with Thomas..

Yes, some misunderstanding here..Let me cut to the chase:

"I meant only that the international law we have is founded on the League of Nations and the UN, both of which were originally intended to further the interests, not of every nation and people, but of the Great Powers. Despite this, international law can help to civilise international relations."

I am not suggesting we abandon the Law at all, just not to abuse it for propaganda purposes.

We know, for example, it wouldn't have made any difference to their agenda whatsoever, if the those on the Peace flotilla were boarded and stopped within Israeli waters and there was, therefore, no issue re maritime Law.etc.etc..

We also know that if Israel were to agree to the general interpretation of 242, it may make no difference to the peace proces, given how many Arabs and moslems would still believe that to wipe it off the map is a just cause and continue the fight, believing that the international law in this instance is invalid, because they believe Israel to be an illegitimate state anyway.

In other words, the Law is an imperfect basis for peace. Insufficient. It will continue to be abused and international relations will continue to be uncivilised. When it comes to peace making, we sometimes need to do things which work....then see if the Law is consonant with it or not. If necessary, we then change the Law. Not saying this should be a rule, but Laws do change as situations demand it. This one might...

"The history of who did what to whom during the Mandate etc. is only relevant now in that it influences how the two sides look at each other now."

Yo dont say!

"The Jihad exists because of this If each had a fuller picture of the history, they might be more willing to see the other's point of view."

I dream of the day...

"The insults were generic, in that they referred to nothing I have ever said. You do it again in your latest: "If you want Israel to disappear, I wouldn't put money on it willingly doing so, if I were you." - You seem to imply that I would seriously consider this."

I was referring not to you but to those who approach the conflict as if history needs to be rolled back to pre 1948.

"Your banging on about Israel's existence not being threatened is a red herring. The point is, Israel perceives it's enemies WANT to threaten its existence. That's enough to cause Israel not to want to do its enemies any favours." - Israelis feel that their enemies want to do away with them, even although Israelis know that their enemies can't. Palestinians have been slaughtered in their thousands and pushed into ghetoes. They know Israel is well capable of more."

Not sure i get this point. I have been referring to Israeli perceptons. If these coincide with objective fact or not is another matter. If they feel the Jihadis will hold sway over policy making with regard to Israel, they will feel threatened and will act accordingly. The reason will be the intention of the enemy, not just, if at all, the likely or possible outcome of policy. This gap between these two narrows as the miltiary balance changes..and Iran is trying desparately to do that.

Israel also operates influenced by a graphic memory of the past. In 1947, when the Jews were attacked by the Arab Legion, the roles were reversed..and thousands of Jews were slaughtered at the hands of a power which seemed to dwarf that of the Jews.

" As I said, who here is better able to make the first move. Israel would not just be doing the Palestinians a favour, but themselves."

I agree.

"it's useful, I think to realise that too many Israel bashers carry on as if wars have no consequences and the fact that all the principal wars in the Middle East have been initiated - rightly or wrongly - by the Arabs, and they have lost them.. just seems an irrelevance. Well, it's not." - There is plenty of historical evidence that Israel was as much to blame as the Arab states for the wars."

No there isn't. If the Arabs didnt attack the Jews there would not have been any war. All the jews did was welcome the UN resolution. What you seem to be implying is similar to the case of the rapist telling the victim: "see what you made me do?!!". In this case, Israel could do like wise as it nukes Iran and wipes out the Palestinians completely. No, Harold..I dont think so.

"And the wars between the Arab states and Israel surely need not prevent Israel reaching an accomodation with the Palestinians."

In theory, not. Anything might be possible. But we would have to be idiots to think it easy or likely. This is what I meant by dealing with the reality on the ground. We have discussed Israel's perceptions. Arabs should be aware of them. Likewise, the Israelis need to be aware of the Arab perceptions. However, if the Arab perception remains predominantly that the only way forward is through Jihad, there is no chance of peace, whatever Israel does, gestures it makes etc. This is the fate of extremism.

We are now in dangerous waters indeed. Turkey is joining iran in brinkmanship with israel, all in the name of justice and humanitarianism? Appalling if this leads to war...The flotilla crowd will no doubt, like Stalin etc before them, think it all worth it. God help us all.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 17th, 2010 7:46pm

I think you have made yourself clear. I hope I have made myself clearer. It seems to me we agree to a surprising extent.

If you don't mind, just one or two final comments on what you said.

"I am not suggesting we abandon the Law at all, just not to abuse it for propaganda purposes." - And I am simply suggesting that Israel would do better to observe international law. In breaking the law, it has not enhanced its security; it has confirmed to its opponents that it is bloodthirsty and hungry for land; and it has conveyed the message that it is unwilling to negotiate.

(The convoy was not planning on entering Israeli territorial waters.)

You try to educate me in how Israelis perceive their dilemma. My point was simply that you say Israelis (understandably) bridle at some of their opponents' threats even although they know that they can't act upon them, but Palestinians actually endure the Israelis putting their threats into practice - Israel is saying, "we will keep killing, maiming,and oppressing until those among you who make impossible threats stop making impossible threats". This is not compromise, this is not going the extra mile for peace, this is not recognizing who is in the stronger position and therefore able to make the first move - this is bullying, and its purpose is not to achieve peace. It is not the behaviour those in Israel who are serious about peace ever advocate.

We could lapse into pantomime - "oh, yes it is" "oh, no it isn't" - but it is better that we simply go back to our history books. I maintain that the history is much more complicated than your summary allows.

Linda Smith

If Harold had ever consulted a history book, he would know that the "Palestinians" don't want peace, they want to destroy Israel. Nothing has changed.

PMW reports Al-Ayyam - May 30, 2000:

PA Minister: Acceptance of Oslo to gain foothold; "struggle" will continue

PA Minister of Supplies, Abd El Aziz Shahian:
“The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements to gain a foothold and not as a permanent settlement, since war and struggle on the land is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land…The Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the ’65 revolution…[i.e., destruction of Israel].”

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=462&doc_id=2436

Richard

A footnote:

One "C. Gee" produced some arguments, confident, some would say overweening, but wrong, and then disappeared rather than answer the questions and rebuttals that naturally followed. Is this his/her usual behaviour?

Harold

"If Harold had ever consulted a history book"

"http://www.palwatch.org"

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas wrote: “And I am simply suggesting that Israel would do better to observe international law. In breaking the law, it has not enhanced its security; it has confirmed to its opponents that it is bloodthirsty and hungry for land; and it has conveyed the message that it is unwilling to negotiate.”
I agree that Israel is loosing the propaganda war re perceptions of International Legal behavior.
However, in reality, what would Israel have to do to obey International Law, in your view: conform to the common interpretation of Resolution 242?
Do you feel this is what Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran want? I don’t.
“You try to educate me in how Israelis perceive their dilemma. My point was simply that you say Israelis (understandably) bridle at some of their opponents' threats even although they know that they can't act upon them,”
Again, the common propaganda line – which you help push in your posts – is that the Arab Moslem side is just a toy warrior which Israel is simply neurotic and paranoid about because since they have not yet been able to destroy it. Israel has not done well in altering that perception and the Arabs are not going to much to change it.
The reality that the Arab armies waged war on the Jews in 1947 when they could not legally arm themselves; in ’48; in ‘67; in ‘73..and has been attacking it almost ceaselessly and murdering its civilians ever since the Nabka, seems to be by the by for you and those – like so many on the flotilla – who believe it.

“…but Palestinians actually endure the Israelis putting their threats into practice - Israel is saying, "we will keep killing, maming,and oppressing until those among you who make impossible threats stop making impossible threats".
I guess the Taliban and Al Qaeda may feel similarly when it comes to the Nato murdering them…but, again, Israel is loosing the propaganda war, for sure..
“This is not compromise, this is not going the extra mile for peace, this is not recognizing who is in the stronger position and therefore able to make the first move - this is bullying, and its purpose is not to achieve peace. It is not the behaviour those in Israel who are serious about peace ever advocate.”

Just when I thought we were talking re Arab Moslem propaganda, you come out in support of it as the “truth”.
Part of the problem is that you believe your own propaganda, like the Arabs and moslems have always had a tendency to do (the ’67 War is a case in point). You would like to believe the characterization of Israel that it has no concrete grounds to feel threatened by its enemies, it seems. The wars fought; the scores of thousands of Israelis dead as a result; the women, children etc murdered by “freedom fighters”..you would like to believe means little to them and should definitely not cause them to react harshly. Clearly, Thomas, this would be not to understand their point of view at all or to flagrantly disregard it in the hope that by doing so you will help delegitimise it. All well and good in terms of what we know to be Arab Moslem strategy, but doesn’t help in the context of you and I have been debating – how to move towards peace.
“We could lapse into pantomime - "oh, yes it is" "oh, no it isn't" - but it is better that we simply go back to our history books. I maintain that the history is much more complicated than your summary allows.”
You may “maintain” it, Thomas, but so far you haven’t told us why or, for what reason (and presumably you do not want us to believe you have a grip on the “complexities of history” by asserting merely that Israel’s enemies haven’t yet fulfilled their ambition of destroying it). If you believe that one should understand the “complexities of history” is to help us understand both sides’ perception of the other – in order to see what possibly can be achieved in terms of peace i.e. a realistic approach to peace – I celebrate you and your “complexities”. If, on the other hand, you do so in order to reinforce the propaganda position that Israel has no legitimacy, it cannot help us and I condemn you for it.
As one non Zionist commentator has said: “Many people are understandably concerned about the siege of Gaza by Israel. But the flotilla incident this week confirms that there’s a more pressing, profound and almost completely unquestioned problem today: the intellectual, moral siege of Israel by the Respectable World. There is nothing remotely progressive, far less radical, in the transformation of Israel into the whipping boy of a motley crew of Western moral entrepreneurs, radical Islamists and momentum-seeking left-wing activists. In fact it is fuelled by a quite intense hypocrisy and political opportunism, and it is warping the political dynamic in the Middle East, making life worse for Israelis and Palestinians.”
I do believe Israel needs to take bold steps. It is, I think, a necessary condition for Peace. However, it is far from a sufficient one, just as the obeying of International Law is a sufficient one. For Peace to be realised, the Jihad has to stop. No Holy ambition to destroy Israel can bring us anywhere near peace. That is self evident..and no support of this position – by design or default, however nimbly argued, will change that..and, in fact, if the West is seen to sustain this position – by the Arabs and Moslems of the region the results could be far worse than maintenance of the status quo.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard wrote: "If Israel wants a civilized neighbour it should cease its deliberate policy of decades to degrade and destroy the fabric of society in the Occupied Territories. Any people would descend into chaos under such oppression."

...perhaps so, Richard, but you are not suggesting - surely - that if Israel abandoned all the settlements in the "Occupied Territories" i.e those occupied after the Arabs were defeated in '67 - and adhered to the common interpretation of Resolution 242, that would or should be the end of the conflict, are you?

If so, you are being crass or disingenuous. If not, and you - like hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Fatah - in fact define the "Ocuupied Territories" as all land on which the state of Israel exists, we have a slightly different story, no?

You play the same old flip flop game, Richard. You use International Law as a mere propaganda tool and the criticisms of specific actions of Israel as a veil for your real aim of delegitimising her very existence.

This is a recipe for disaster for Israelis and Palestinians because it will only help sustain war...and that should cause you to hang your head in shame along with those you clearly think should do so.

Linda Smith

Richard wrote "If Israel wants a civilized neighbour..."
How can any State governed by discriminatory Sharia be deemed civilized? I'm not surprised C.Gee didn't waste his time responding to jihadi apologist Richard.

Thomas

I thought I would drop in to see if anyone had managed to answer any of the questions prompted by Israel's piracy on the high seas.

No.

What I have found is someone lashing out at points I didn't make, although from what I have read I would be happy to.

John Roosevelt, I see that you continue to struggle with the notion that history is complicated and that Israel may be more sinning than sinned against. Try reading more of Uri Avnery's writings. I'm sure you've read it, but his memoir of 1948 is likely to become a classic - but what I have in mind here are his political commentaries, which I think give an honest assessment of Israel's behaviour.

Harold

John Roosevelt,
I thought about answering you point by point. Much better you read Uri Avnery, as advised. It would be a start.

Linda Smith

John Roosevelt, I think you need to examine Uri Avnery's views with a bit more care. Uri Avnery's views are based on his own left wing secular atheistic wishful thinking and are divorced from historical fact. He fabricates history, distorts facts, and pretends that Islamic religious ideology does not underpin the "Israeli-Palestinian" struggle.

In his article "A War of Religions? God Forbid!", 19 Feb 2006, Avneri writes:
"I myself am a 100% atheist. And I am increasingly worried that the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, which dominates our entire life, is assuming a more and more religious character."

"...At one stage of its development, the PLO called for the creation of a "Democratic secular state, where Muslims, Jews and Christians will live together". (Arafat did not like the term "secular", preferring "la-maliah", meaning "non-sectarian".)

"On the day Arafat died, many Israelis were angry with me for saying (in a Haaretz interview) that we shall yet long for this secular leader, who was both willing and able to make peace with us."

Arafat was no "secular leader", His aim was to destroy Israel and create an Islamic State. Under Arafat and his successors, the "State of Palestine" has been listed as a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference since 1967. Its Basic Law states that the official religion is Islam and its principal source of legislation is Sharia. Accordingly all "human rights" legislation and the entire legal system is subject to the prescriptions and limitations of Shar'ia, ie "equality" before the law within the rules of sharia, not equality before the law in Western terms.

There is plenty of evidence of Arafat's religiously driven ideology. Here's just one example, from videos available to view on PMW:

Arafat: Palestinians fight eternal religious war – Ribat

"I say to the Palestinians [what Muhammad said]:
'A group [of people] from amongst my nation will adhere to their religion and defeat their enemies. Their enemies won't harm them. Allah will help them.'
The Prophet was asked: 'Where are they? Who are they?'
He answered: 'They are in Jerusalem and its surroundings. They are in Ribat (religious war) until Judgment Day. One Shahid of theirs [Jerusalem] is equivalent to 40 Shahids.' According to another source: 'One Shahid of theirs is equivalent to 70 Shahids.'"

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=711&fld_id=721&doc_id=612

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Linda Smith: it goes without saying that i agree with you completely and I know perfectly well what Avneri's position is on Arafat etc..

To Harold and Thomas: you both disappoint me. You are flip flopping, as always...

Thomas, you keep banging on about the questions (Avneri's) posed about the flotilla incident. .. Why? To help in your propaganda war? Will it make a difference if Israel does agree to an UN anointed inquiry and is found not guilty of the sundry crimes it is accused of?

No. It would not alter your agenda a jot, nor that of the so-called "peace"activists; and would do the cause for Peace no good at all.

Israel should not fear an international inquiry, as long as it has some say on how it is composed(the UN's reputation for impartiality, after all, is bad). Israel, I feel, should also not fear pushing, again, for negotiations based on Resolutuion 242 - without preconditions. I also feel it has nothing to fear from declaring a complete halt to further settlement in order to show its readiness to negotiate.

Clearly, this is a big "ask" in terms of the constraints the politics of coalition place on any Israeli Government. However, in principle, I think Avneri, as I have said, is totally correct that this is the only potentially feasible road towards peace, as opposed to the uni state position held by those like Pappe and the Thomas's of this world. That would never work.

I also have no doubt whatsoever that the Iran, hamas, hezbollah, Fatah, Syria will all find a reason to scuper any peace proposal based on 242, just as Arafat did...but it's worth a try. The rejection of such a proposal should at lease underscore the real agenda of all these Arab moslem players and to a world increasingly intoxicated by the baying for Israeli blood.

Then the bombs can start to fall, I guess...

Harold

John Roosevelt,

"to scupper any peace proposal based on 242, just as Arafat did..."

In what parallel universe was this?

And when you say Israel should call a halt to further building in the illegal settlements, do you mean a halt in the Oslo sense i.e. an acceleration?

It is indeed a big ask to expect the Israeli government to declare that it will observe the international law that brought it into existence (let alone expect it to do any more than make a declaration).

Flip-flop indeed. Decide whether you want to take part in a reasonable discussion about what is required for peace or to stick with the bigots and zealots.

Linda Smith

John Roosevelt, here's a couple of juicy bits from "Understanding Arafat Before His Attempted Rehabilitation" by Lt Col. Jonathan D. Halevi.http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-32.htm

"In Arafat's view, the creation of the Zionist movement to return the Jewish people to their historic homeland is akin to an "original sin" - a "Zionist-imperialist plot" to which the Palestinians will never acquiesce. Arafat insists on the total and exclusive rights of the Palestinian people to historic Palestine based first and foremost on religious grounds. Arafat labels the Palestinian struggle a "jihad, a holy war against the infidels." Those who perpetrate suicide bombings and their handlers are all, without exception, described by Arafat as "jihad warriors," as "heroes" who "by their arms" will realize the Palestinian vision.

Arafat's "peace of the brave" means peace based on the "Stages Plan," adopted by the PLO in 1974 to destroy Israel in stages. Moreover, this ideological doctrine has been adopted by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as part of their formal political agenda, so that even those rebelling against the PA's system of governance do not question the ideological legacy that Arafat has left for future generations."

I think it's about time we tell Harold to put a sock on it. No point arguing with a fantasist.

Linda Smith

John Roosevelt, I don't give a hoot what Avnery says about peace - I haven't bothered to read his fantasies after the Arafat fiction.

There's not going to be any Palestinian State because Hamas will take over if Israel withdraws from the West Bank. All the stuff about "peace talks" is a load of *****. Fatah know they can't survive without Israel's support.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: again you fail to address anything I say...What's your problem? Bashful? Stupid? hateful? Are you just a liar?

Why not, then, just respond to what Linda Smith says:

"Arafat's "peace of the brave" means peace based on the "Stages Plan," adopted by the PLO in 1974 to destroy Israel in stages. Moreover, this ideological doctrine has been adopted by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades as part of their formal political agenda, so that even those rebelling against the PA's system of governance do not question the ideological legacy that Arafat has left for future generations."

I think it's about time we tell Harold to put a sock on it. No point arguing with a fantasist."

...or, do us all a favour, and indeed "put a sock in it"..

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: you want Israel to obey International Law - as if you mean by this that it represents the gateway to Peace. You're a liar and cheap propagandist.

You actually don't respect International law at all. You actually don't respect any Western notion of sovereignty at all.

As you have stated clearly, you want a uni state i.e. you respect UN Security Council resolutions only in so far as they may be a means of achieving this. 242, therefore, like for Arafat, is a mere weapon to be used in the attainment of the destruction of Israel.

You use only those parts of Avenri's work that may demonise Israel to further this aim. No doubt he would be the first to be shot, come the victory you pine for.

You cannot, like Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, countenance peace with Israel. You invite, therefore, nothing but war.

You think you are on a winning streak and chanting accusations of "piracy on the high seas", and other great causes in the name of the Law, will reinforce your victory. Such are the imperatives of propaganda.

Shades of Nasser, Harold. Take a leaf out of your "complexities of history" and learn from his experience.

Should we put our money on the faux "freedom fighters" you have chosen to be the spokesman for?
Well, let God decide..He did in 1947, 1967, 1973...........

Linda Smith

Lawks-a-mercy, John Roosevelt! Can we leave God out of this!!!
There are plenty of atheists in Israel who don't want to live under Sharia law.

Harold

John Roosevelt,

I am sorry you feel that I don't answer the points you make. I have checked back over the last few weeks. You seem to have one point, that the only impediment to peace is Islamist jihadis who threaten what they can't deliver (and their Western dupes). You have been answered several times by several different people. I am not sure what else you expect.

I am grateful that you answered my questions. You were not entirely clear on which parallel universe, or, to be more precise, which possible but not actual world. You are clearer on flipping and flopping - you clearly choose to flop.

You have a habit or nervous tick: you make as if you believe that your opponent has said things that you must know they haven't (see, for example, the whole of your last, which I'm afraid is just lame and foolish - you can do better).

You will struggle to support both Uri Avnery and the bigots and zealots and remain consistent. Are you in two minds? Or unaware? Or, when Western dupes of the jihadis annoy you, does reason just desert you?

Linda Smith

Bulls eye Harold! At last you've got it - the obstacle to peace are jihadis and their Western dupes - go look in the mirror you Western dupe you!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

John Roosevelt,
“I am sorry you feel that I don't answer the points you make. I have checked back over the last few weeks. You seem to have one point, that the only impediment to peace is Islamist jihadis who threaten what they can't deliver (and their Western dupes). You have been answered several times by several different people. I am not sure what else you expect.”

You’re a hopeless liar, Harold. I have not been answered at all by you or anyone else. All you and your doppelganger – Thomas – have responded with is the same old sloganising about not partaking in “reasonable discussion”, “piracy on the high seas” and Israel’s obligation to obey international law.

“I am grateful that you answered my questions. You were not entirely clear on which parallel universe, or, to be more precise, which possible but not actual world. You are clearer on flipping and flopping - you clearly choose to flop.”

You can do better than that, Harold, surely?

“You have a habit or nervous tick: you make as if you believe that your opponent has said things that you must know they haven't (see, for example, the whole of your last, which I'm afraid is just lame and foolish - you can do better).”

Another lame, duplicitous accusation, Harold. Reread my blogs. Refer to specifics, if you dare.

“You will struggle to support both Uri Avnery and the bigots and zealots and remain consistent.”

Really? What exactly would I find difficult? Tell us, please. Don't be frightened.

“Are you in two minds?”
About what? No, Harold. On the contrary. I have been very single minded: I repeat: you are a liar. I have said that your agenda is simply the same as that of Hamas, Iran, hezbollan and Arafat…to bang on about the virtues of international law simply as a tactic in your strategy to delegitimize Israel and boldster your historical fight to destroy it. Your only response to this is “how can this be true when the palestinians are incapable of destroying Israel”

You thus think that repetition of non sequiturs should be sufficient to convince us that you're talking anything but nonsense.

“Or unaware? Or, when Western dupes of the jihadis annoy you, does reason just desert you?”

Again, all hot air, Harold. You should be embarrassed. I leave you to Linda Smith to proffer, once again, a sock for you to put in it.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 21st, 2010 10:24pm

"you are a liar. I have said that your agenda is simply the same as that of Hamas, Iran, hezbollan and Arafat…to bang on about the virtues of international law simply as a tactic in your strategy to delegitimize Israel and boldster your historical fight to destroy it." - Oh dear, oh dear, there you go again. You really can't help yourself, can you?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: " Oh dear, oh dear, there you go again. You really can't help yourself, can you?"

:)))) Harold, you have not addressed any specific points made in the critiques of your posts. This is the point.

Nothing matters to you unless it comprises what you construe as an opening to impugn the very legitimacy of Israel. My point is that this will do the peace process no good at all and supports those who want war.

You are, as far as I am concerned, a nasty little propagandist. Linda has your number,my only criticism of her being that she has not managed to get that sock of hers positioned sufficiently correctly "in it" to get you back in your tawdry box.

We live in hope...

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 22nd, 2010 5:36pm

Oh dear, oh dear etc.

If you take one thing away from this, it should be: read Uri Avnery's articles and decide for yourself how it is possible to agree with him and at the same time think such as this Linda Smith someone you should associate with (do you really think her stuff is good?).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "OHN ROOSEVELT
June 22nd, 2010 5:36pm

Oh dear, oh dear etc.

If you take one thing away from this, it should be: read Uri Avnery's articles and decide for yourself how it is possible to agree with him and at the same time think such as this Linda Smith someone you should associate with (do you really think her stuff is good?)."

Ah, well, Harold..there you go again. You'r elike an eel on heat, in your eagerness to slip out of the request to the rebukes you receive by the truck load.

URI AVNERI wants peace based on the doable i.e the two state solution.

If one goes for this solution - based on the Law you and the flotilla flotsam claim to cherish so much, lambasting the Israeli for apparently not sharing your passion (but no mention of those you seem to support who couldn't care less about it at least as much, if not more).

Linda feels that you and those sharia pining "freedom fighters" you seem to adore - dont want a two state solution that URI want; and dont want to recognise the right of Israel to exist - which URI wants.

As I have said, I dont share URI's optimistic view of people like you. Either does Linda.

Now, please, put up or shut up, as my very wise granny loved to say.

Linda Smith

Harold, you really are ridiculous. Avnery's articles are built on false premises, (lies about Arafat, etc.) yet you still bang on about him as if he has any credibility.

Well, he hasn't and nor have you. You both swim in a sea of deception. Avnery lies that religious Islamic fervour has not always been at the heart of the "Palestinian" conflict with Israel. You don't mention Islam at all.

The self-proclaimed devout atheist Avneri dreams of a secular paradise in which the protagonists abandon their religious beliefs and live in harmony.

Avnery's atheism wouldn't have saved him from the gas chamber -Zionism did. I can't work out why Avnery's still in Israel and didn't go back to Germany, from where he and his parents emigrated in 1925. Does he think he has a mission to convert the Jews and Muslims to be devout atheists like himself to resolve the "Palestinian"-Israeli conflict? Despite his background, he just doesn't get it - he can't alter the antisemitism of a Nazi or Muslim, it's at the heart of the ideololgy. Why does Avnery think that a Muslim is any less devout in his Islamic belief than he is in his own atheism.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 22nd, 2010 11:37pm

Linda Smith
June 23rd, 2010 2:44am

You should be able to draw the conclusion.

Linda Smith

Harold writes enigmatically "you should be able to draw the conclusion"

But we may all draw different conclusions. Tell us what yours is, Harold.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold, like so many who lvoe to hold forth on immorality of Zionism, is at best very loath to tell us his conclusions.

Why? Simply because he is in great danger of being hoisted by the petard of the dissonance between his main propaganda line and what he truly would love to see happen.

On the one hand, he claims to represent the key Western values on humanitarianism and the upholding of International Law. In actual fact, however, he wants to ignore the Law when that Law recognises the right of Israel to exist and wants, rather, nothing less than israel to cease to exist as as a sovereign state. he would love the Uni State solution, pretending that Justice we prevail, then, at the behest of Hamas or Iran or whoever will pull the strings of the majority...and Jew and Islamist will live in perfect harmony.

The latter, of course, they cannot be explicit about for fear of undermining their purported position on the former.

Harold is a spokesperson for this very popular position but he has to dive into a vat of KY jelly before he graces the world with his command of the "complexities of history", so he can slip slide around anyone who picks him up on his arrant deceit.

he will never venture to tell us how the Uni state will come about and at what cost in human suffering for Jew and Palestinian and amny more besides. He no doubt would be very at ease in his role of ticking off the names of who would be shot for the sake of the fulfillment of his paradise on earth. Sound eerily familiar, don't you think, as one so much as glances over the history of Russia and Cambodia etc...?

As I have said before: Harold is havin' a laugh and, as Linda has rightly suggest, he should really put a sock in it.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 23rd, 2010 1:08pm
Entertaining.

But how is it you propose to reconcile your admiration for Uri Avnery with your endorsement of Linda Smith?