The war for civilisation

Kennybhoy

Och that was one tremendous speech.

"For me, this ongoing war is a fairly obvious fact of life."

Indeed. Any person who is not aware of this is in one way or another, part of the problem.

Adam Levick

Spot-on analysis, Melanie. As always, thanks!

Augustus

The keyword is 'proposal', the Israeli parliament still has to approve the loyalty oath for those non-Jews (i.e. Arabs basically) who want to become naturalized citizens. Quite right and proper considering the lack of trust which Arabs have repeatedly shown towards Israel as a bona fide Jewish state. And anyway, such a law would only apply to newcomers, not to those already there who
already have equal status. So this doesn't really change very much anyway in terms of in any way altering the law of return,
i.e. who is really Jewish or of Jewish descent etc. Perhaps, instead of swearing allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, they could simply swear to be faithful to
Israel's Declaration of Independence. Why should a state
surrounded by a sea of sharks be divided against itself?

Neil Turner

Wouldn't it be nice to see Hamilton arguing strongly for Jewish rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.....

Don't hold your breath

Jez

It is a genuinly tremendous speech- but he's missing the elephant in the room.

The West is also getting severely weakened.... through its Islamification, via mass immigration.

Without a traditionally cooperative and friendly West, Israel is going to be ever more isolated by people openly hostile through their Muslim religion residing in Europe. These populations are set to be the dominant numbers in a decade or so in every major city across Europe.

And then there's the Turkey / EU question.

Then there's the Democrat Obama question.

The balls squarley in Rupert's court again.

Andre

An excellent speech and well worth reading. I had always dismissed Murdoch as Sun newspaper and Sky TV ignoramus. However this has changed my view. As Churchill apparently remarked on welcoming Russia and Stalin to the war effort - after Hitler had helpfully invaded the Soviet Union - 'I'd have a good word to say for the devil if he came down on our side.' This speech is clear and straightforward, the work of a thinking, articulate man - a product of Geelong grammar school, I understand. Israel needs more such friends. I, a British catholic, happily pledge my allegiance to a Jewish, democratic Israel - in which I once lived completely free and unhindered. Israel's struggle is the struggle of all good people for justice and liberty. Shabbat shalom.

GaryO

And yet his Fox News is partly owned by Middle Eastern Arabs! So for him to talk in defence of Israel quite so candidly is brave indeed. But I can very well see how this is going to play in the hands of anti-Israel media like Guardian who are against News Corp and Mr Murdoch's style of doing business anyway, so for them this is god's send opportunity for them to kill two birds. For them even more reason to oppose the Jewish state.

Melanie everybody knows that there is a soft war, a jihad of sorts by the Western progressives, that’s going on quite brazenly. Supports of Jewish state of Israel should take a lead from Mr Murdoch and launch a rear guard action.

Tancred

Isn't it funny how people are in a bate about Israel describing itself as a Jewish State whilst at the same time they freely refer to other countries as "Islamic" with no sense of contradiction.

Compare how Israel treats its Muslim, Samaritan and Christian population with the treatment meted out to non-muslims in Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan etc etc.

James Murphy

Hold onto that praise Melanie! Whilst welcome in its way - isn't that still the same Rupert Murdoch who owns that hideous Marxist-multi-cultural, pro-Palestinian rag 'The Times'? He should put his money where his mouth is and change that once reputable old paper's editorial philosophy if he wants his opinions to be taken seriously.

A.

If an oath of loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic" Israel is identical in meaning to an oath of loyalty to the state of Israel, why the change?

Adam B.

A great speech - but why is the antisemitic Press TV, straight from the mullahs in Iran, allowed to broadcast on Sky?

Mailman

As you point out Mel, the carry on about Israel demanding its new citizens pledging loyalty to it is a such a joke,

As you also point out, I am required to swear an oath to the Queen when I am naturalised. I do that because to me that is a priviledge and in some small way is a token of my gratutude to a country that has taken me and my family in and given me opportunities for work and travel that arent easily available to me in my home country (New Zealand).

And as you say Kenn, if you cant see what is right in front of you, then you are part of the problem.

Mailman

Brian

Writing as a practical Zionist (I immigrated to Israel from the UK this year) I usually agree wholeheartedly with Melanie. However on this issue I believe that she, like the Israel government, is wrong, dead wrong. It serves no positive purpose whatsoever to insert these words into the oath of allegience, on the contrary it is a divisive gesture. Yes, anyone applying for UK citizenship has to swear an oath of allegience to the Queen but not to the Church of England of which she's head.
A simple oath of allegience to the State of Israel is surely sufficient and morally correct.

Lao Tzu's best friend

The way that critics of Israel are assumed to be anti-Semitic is also a vulgar caricature.

In fact, I'm confident that most civilised people will criticise war crimes and other acts of aggression when confronted with strong evidence of its occurrence.

Also, I'm not sure that you can honestly say Israel gives all citizens "full civil and political rights" - there are a number of clear examples where members of the Arab demographic have been institutionally discriminated against, even as parliamentarians in the Knesset.

J Dalton

I agree with you Melanie.
I think your pieces here are very good.
But what can I do about it, I feel as if i should be doing something positive in response to your writing, but dificult to see what it is.

Frank P

Perhaps it's time for a transfer back into the Sainted Rupe's fold, gal. He can afford the transfer fee, I'm sure.

But why am I looking so carefully into this gift horses mouth? Though all the teeth in the speech seem sound, his multi-faceted approach keeps my simple mind skipping all the time, particularly as Fox is now my main source of news coverage from the States. It sure he is putting the fear of Murdoch into the White House, though. But even Fox hath three tongues, one of of them forked.

Then there is SKY - a different kettle of fish altogether - all very puzzling. I think we're ripe for a British version of Fox over here. And why can't we get Fox Business News? I DEMAND it! (as the CAVUTO imperative goes). The clips we get through Fox News indicate it would be a better option than some of the crappy US channels that are available over here.

Btw - no communique from CAMERA in Bwaarst'n?? Or did I miss it?

A.

If an ethnic group, why? ("As a citizen of the US, I swear alleigance to the WASPs"?)

If a religion, why? ("As a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I swear alleigance to Islam"? - queasy.)

Tiberius

The new Few has increased its number by one, it seems.

Grumpy concerned Zionist

Increasingly we can expect a warped and demented slant on events pertaining to Israel, from the left leaning/marxist gutter press ie Independant/Guardian etc.

As an antidote I recommend that one counterbalances this with some reading from 'The Gates of Vienna' weblog, where one can read an interesting little review of your (Britain) newly appointed shadow(y)justice minister.

Sadiq Khan (Con)

Exposed three times for expenses fraud (no big deal - half of your goverment was on the take - but to then appoint him justice minister!!)

Five members of his family and various clients belong to the fundamentalist (terror) group - Hizb ut Tahrir -he calls this claim 'irrelevant' and 'trivial'

He put himself forward to join the defence team of the connvicted 9/11 al quaida bomber - Zacarias Moussaovi

Former chairman of the Muslim Council of Britain, and is considered along with this organization, to be extreme(ly) islamist friendly.

According to this source -Gates of Vienna - Britain is now primed to have its very own islamist justice minister

As GoV states - 'talk about having the fox in the chicken coop'

...so my point is, with this sort of situation looming, who cares about the Hamiltons of this world -they're tiny blips on the screen

kay

Absolutely spot on in the analysis.I am constantly amazed by the present attitudes to Israel despite the arab aggression towards it.Let's face it the arab states are hardly models of government for anyone!

Ian Walker

As an atheist and a humanist, I object to the assumption that one set of mistaken beliefs is more "civilised" than a different set of mistaken beliefs.

To be fair to the Jews though, they've never tried to blow me up, unlike the Muslims (once) and the Christians (twice), so on the rather narrow measure of attempting to murder my wonderful self, they are more civilized.

Most of these religious conflicts, though, give me a rather odd feeling of sadness mixed with chortling smugness.

Such is the lot of the rational enlightened man.

Brian O'Connor

Lao Tzu's best friend
October 15th, 2010 12:15pm

The way that critics of Israel are assumed to be anti-Semitic is also a vulgar caricature.

You're painting with too broad a brush here, and in doing so, you've created a strawman. I don't know of anyone — certainly not Mel — who has made such an assumption.

In fact, I'm confident that most civilised people will criticise war crimes and other acts of aggression when confronted with strong evidence of its occurrence.

This seems to be a veiled (or maybe not so veiled) accusation that Israel is guilty of war crimes and other acts of aggression.

If so, let me play a little.

Perhaps you and I can agree that indiscriminately lobbing rockets into Israel towns, suicide bombings of Israeli pizza shops, kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, etc. are war crimes or other acts of aggression. Or is the evidence not strong enough?

Now let's go a little further . . . and try a thought experiment: what would happen were Hamas to unilaterally disarm, to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, to cease attacks against Israel and to punish anyone guilty of continuing them, and to request Israel's assistance in improving Gaza's infrastructure and the life conditions of Gaza's residents (hospitals, schools, apartments, electricity, sewage, etc.)?

Now — what would happen were Israel to unilaterally disarm, open their Gaza border and allow whomsoever wished to pass into Israel to do so, bringing with them whatever they wanted, without being searched, detained or otherwise inconvenienced?

I'm not sure you can see the logic of your point (assuming my take on your implication is correct), so I'll point it out: you are holding Israel to one standard, and those who wish to exterminate the state of Israel, and its citizens as well, to another.

In doing so, you are essentially arguing that because Israel is not perfect, its policies are no better than those of Hamas.

Do you really believe this?

C.Gee

A:

"If an oath of loyalty to a "Jewish and democratic" Israel is identical in meaning to an oath of loyalty to the state of Israel, why the change?"

I think you could work out the answer to that one. What is your opinion on transcendental citizenship? Should we not all be Palestinian?

martin paice

Well Sinn Fein and the SNP and the SSP will all tell you that the Britsh oath does discriminate. I disagree with all their political views but the fact is - it does - you can't sit in the Commons uness you swear allegiance to the Crown.
No one should have to do so. And no Israeli citizen should have to swaqer to believe in a Jewish state.
These things are so plain and obviously wrong that I'm stunned anyone would argue in favour.
Converesely , if you volunteer to join a country as a citizen then you are striing a fair deal - thus the latest Islamic terrorist to be sentenced is wicked for swearing a false oath in addition to the more obvious crime of trying to blow Times Square.
But if you are born in a place and told your opinion does not count unless you agree to swear against your belief. Pffaff.

Peter G

Calm down Melanie. The West is not going to allow the State of Israel to go to the wall. History has given it a right to exist and it will. The question is its boundaries. It does not have the right to expand further at the expense of the Palestinians. Would you care to give your views on the illegal settlements. Where do you stand on this issue which also affects the security of the West in which we live.

rippon

It will be difficult for Arabs to swear allegiance to a state that perpetrates injustices like this:

As Jewish Israelis enjoy trips to the beach, neighbourhood swimming pools, unfettered access to clean drinking water, state-of-the-art sewage treatment infrastructure, and endless amounts of running water in their homes, Palestinians in communities separated by boundaries, walls, and checkpoints brace and prepare each time the weather heats up and the antiquated wells dry up.

According to current statistics by Amnesty International, Israel takes 80% of the water in the Mountain aquifers in the north (one of many water sources available to Israel, including the state's full access to the Jordan River, which runs inside the occupied West Bank); while Palestinians in the West Bank are left with just the remaining 20% of that one aquifer, and are prohibited from accessing water from the Jordan river altogether.

However, in Gaza, 95% of the groundwater is extremely polluted and deemed unfit for human consumption, according to new reports from Israeli human rights organization B'tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/Gaza_Strip/20100823_Gaza_water_crisis.asp). The water crisis has entered into a troubling phase as Israel maintains its suffocating blockade against the 1.5 million Palestinians trapped inside the strip. This blockade, which has been in place as collective punishment following the Hamas party's political takeover in 2007, prevents entry to hundreds of items – including essential industrial materials needed to repair the water infrastructure.

MikeF

Ian - which Christians tried to blow you up? I can't think of any groups in the world who try to blow up other people for Christian reasons. Maybe it was the IRA in your case - but they are a fuelled by a mix of Marxism and nationalism not Christianity. Pray enlighten us.

Pip

RIPPON, you really do need to get your facts correct and stop quoting the regular falsehoods spoonfed to so many who willingly soak it up without doing their own research, it all gets so tiresome, same old same old:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=27&x_article=1880

Pip

In fact RIPPON, all the 'water issues' can be found here: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/camera?domains=camera.org&sitesearch=camera.org&q=water - take your pick from the many falsehoods which even includes falsehoods from Amnesty Internation (shame on them)!

Brian O'Connor

Ian Walker
October 15th, 2010 5:33pm

As an atheist and a humanist, I object to the assumption that one set of mistaken beliefs is more "civilised" than a different set of mistaken beliefs.

Which mistaken beliefs are those?

kate

There's nothing inherently wrong with the wording in the oath but in the context it's hardly helpful:

- all new citizens make the UK pledge of allegiance. This new oath is currently for non-Jewish new citizens only. That would be like asking only Republicans to pledge allegiance to the Queen. You can see that that would make the issue unnecessarily divisive.

- as Melanie says, the oath is "tactically unwise". By that I'm guessing she means that at a politically very sensitive time it raises tensions. As she probably knows, this bill originated from Yisrael Beitenu which has also advocated removal of citizenship from Israeli Arabs in any final agreement. So it looks bad. It matters who says this stuff as well as what they say.

- Personally, I dom't think there is much point in swearing things when you don't know what you are swearing. This goes for the UK pledge of allegiance - do you get your citizenship revoked if you campaign for a referendum on the monarchy or write an article saying Northern Ireland should be amalgamated with the Republic? Similarly tell me what a Jewish State is before asking me to swear loyalty to it. As I say, this is a problem with all such oaths but the sensitivities in this part of the world make such ambiguity more fraught.

The Jewish identity of Israel and the rights and responsibilities of Arab Israelis are intricate problems. They demand serious thought and policy interventions. This doesn't strike me as either. It doesn't clarify the Jewish nature of Israel. It will probably further alienate the Arab Israeli population without guaranteeing in any way the loyalty of new members of it.

RobZone

Melanie, this is unrelated but I do not have an email address for you. There is a story meriting further attention but it is not getting sufficient media attention:
The story has received only limited, passing coverage:

NY Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/trading_cape_for_the_burqa_SVLKS5gF1HlJugmRPFJepL

TheStreet:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10886399/1/discovery-hasbro-stir-debate-with-the-99.html

FOX Op-Ed:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/13/phyllis-chesler-muslim-superhero-role-models-islamic-jihad-muhammed-allah-god/

Matthew Coniam

Dear Ian Walker,
As a fellow atheist and humanist, I do not object to the assumption that one set of mistaken beliefs is more "civilised" than a different set of mistaken beliefs - especially if they are.
This lesson is the most important one we atheists can take on board at the present time.
I'll warn you in advance though - it takes moral courage.

A.

Are all Jewish citizens required to take the oath? Are all Jewish citizens happy to take the oath?

Harold

Pip
October 16th, 2010 5:32am
"RIPPON, you really do need to get your facts correct and stop quoting the regular falsehoods spoonfed to so many who willingly soak it up without doing their own research, it all gets so tiresome, same old same old"

All very laudable...but CAMERA?

"...quoting the regular falsehoods spoonfed..."

"...without doing their own research..."

Jack R

It would be something if News Corp was a pro-Israel counter to anti-Israel media of Islamic countries, and of the likes of BBC/'Guardian'; but News Corp is partly owned by Saudi interests.

Skeptic

>>>>>>>>The Jewish identity of Israel and the rights and responsibilities of Arab Israelis are intricate problems. They demand serious thought and policy interventions. This doesn't strike me as either. It doesn't clarify the Jewish nature of Israel. It will probably further alienate the Arab Israeli population without guaranteeing in any way the loyalty of new members of it.

I think Kate is correct here (many Israelies agree).

Comprehensiveboy

Does Israel operate the millet system?

A.

If an ethnocracy, how democratic unless all of the same ethnic origin? If a theocracy, how a democracy unless all of the same faith?

YG

Ripon,
Not only "jewish Israelies" go to the beach.
Al Israeli citizens including Muslems and christians enjoy the beach, and until the terror attacks on Israeli busses and cafes, all Plaestinians could move freely inside Israel.
It is the extremist Islamists and Leftists who are the agitators that cause most of the problems.
I guess sitting in a pub in London while the British and US army kills more than 100,000 Muslems in Iraq and Aganistan, does not disturb your health.
I guess throwing your guilt on the Jewish state is a nice way to wash your British soul.
Well, I guess this is the role of the Jewish people for the last centuries.

Neil Craig

I think it is more a War Against Competence & for Numbers in western society of which the war against Jews/Israel is but a small part.

I also think tactically that is the way for Jews to play it. At various times (6 day war, Entebbe raid) Israel has demonstrated incredible competence & earned the world's awed respect Even now Israeli scientists are at the foreforont in many fields. The maintenance of Israel as an amazing contributor to human technological capacity is an easier way to sell support to the rest of the world than an appeal to western altruism, & arguably it should be.

kate

Skeptic. You and me should be in charge. The more time I hang round with politicians and diplomats the more I believe that they are a barrier to ordinary people achieving peace rather than a facilitation.

Mustapha Bunn - I went to Ramle cemetery today. Photographs on their way.

Skeptic

>>>>>Does Israel operate the millet system?

In civil and criminal law, no. In religious law (marriage / divorce / who determines if food is Kosher / Hallal), yes. There is no civil marriage, for instance.

Before you ask, yes, it IS inherited originally from the Ottomans.

Skeptic

>>>>>>All very laudable...but CAMERA?

In the immortal words of Colonel Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth".

Skeptic

Kate:

Take a look @ memeritv.org. You will find ton of death-to-the-Jews stuff.

But.

You will also find rogue, isolated, but brave voices for peace and reconciliation, as well as -- perhaps more significant -- many voices that say that the whole Israel-Palestine issues is a diversion from the Arab and Muslim world's real problems. Also, you will find criticism of Israel (e.g., Egyptian chief archeologist who wants no Jewish museum in Egypt before peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but not against it in principle) which is perhaps unfair, but, not "death to the Jews" flavor.

With the latter folks peace is possible. With the former, not.

And what are you going to do when the former are the rulers and the latter are the playwrights, exiles, and archeologist?

Wyn

The situation has been well analysed by Murdoch, that's for sure.But what can we do about it? Our government is appeasing Muslims, when we vote for a change of government, the policy is the same, more appeasement. The mass media supports anyone who disparages Israel. The chilling warning signs are there for all to see if they take the time to look.If Israel, as the only democracy in that area, is overwhelmed, then we are all in great danger.Already the UK and other European countries are being pressurised by the Muslim minority and their constant demands.Our politicians do not have the courage to resist them and any attempt at protest by ordinary people is parried by the formidable "r" word.The old left wing zealots have now become the new fascists, so where to next?

Jerry

re Peter G: You wrote, "The West is not going to allow the State of Israel to go to the wall."

Are you blind, man? That is exactly what the West is doing! Support for the Arabs is "over-determined." That means there are multiple reasons to defecate on Israel at every opportunity. Let me list the ways:

1) Oil

2) Anti-Semitism

3) Business competition

4) Fear of Islamism

5) Head counting: 6 million Jews vs 1.3 billion Muslims

6) Jealousy of a sort that differs slightly from Anti-Semitism - "That shi**y little country" - French Ambassador to England, Daniel Bernard, 2001.

What information, pray tell Peter, do you have that says that the West will save Israel rather than cry at its funeral?

rippon

@Wyn (October 16th, 2010 7:49pm)
What are the “constant demands” of the Muslim minority in the UK?

The Muslims haven’t ‘demanded’ anything of me. The societal and cultural parameters by which I live in the UK haven’t changed at all over the last thirty-forty years (except for the better – more liberalism, e.g. gay people being more open, more non-white faces on tv).

kristin

This is just as racist as it would be to require people living in America to pledge loyalty to a anglo saxon Christian state.

Wyn

Rippon Oct. 17th 2.49 am. If you cannot see what is happening, then I am not qualified to help you.

C.Gee

The suggestion of a new loyalty oath arises in the context of the negotiations for a peace agreement - or, more precisely, the negotiations for agreement on definitions of terms, without which a peace agreement would mean different things to each side (see Dennis Ross’s maps showing the Israeli boundary offer and the Palestinian perception of it - another proof that Palestine exists only as a state of mind).

The loyalty oath is designed to test the good faith of the Palestinian negotiators, not to guarantee the fealty of non-Jewish new citizens. One may swear, or affirm, to the state of Israel, a Jewish and democratic state, and not mean a word of it: either because one is Arab, Muslim or a post-national leftist. One may also undergo conversion, and not believe in or practice Judaism. There is as much magic in the formulation of citizenship oaths as there is in conversion rituals.

“Here are the actual facts. The amendment would require naturalized citizens, who are currently required to take an oath of allegiance only to the State of Israel, to instead swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” That phrase first entered the law books in 1992, when two new Basic Laws on human rights defined the country as a “Jewish and democratic state.” (Evelyn Gordon, Commentary)

Whether citizens explicitly swear - or affirm - to be faithful to the laws of Israel (or any nation), they are assumed to know them and abide by them. That assumption of obedience to the national jurisdiction - and the national jurisdiction exclusively (a citizen shall have no other laws before it ) - is fundamental to national sovereignty. Whatever “Jewish” means culturally, practically or legally, that is what citizens of Israel are assumed to have allegiance to. It is no more hard to grasp or problematic than “American” or “French” as a term for a nation’s constitutional self-characterization. It identifies the sovereignty. Being American or French or Israeli means agreeing to live under America or French or Israeli law. Where the law permits religious freedom (even if religion is part of the common identity of the people constituting themselves nationally), and freedom of speech and assembly (political freedom), swearing or affirming the oath as a devout believer, a religious imperialist or a post-national lefty should present no problem at all.

The issue of an Jewish-identified sovereignty has no political significance except in the context of peace with the Arabs. But it is precisely the recognition of a Jewish sovereignty - not even as an enemy - that the Palestinians will not do.

When Israel sets forth a condition to negotiations that one state of the two-state solution is to be recognized as a state with a Jewish identity, it is seeking to preempt the Palestinian’s “de facto” recognition of Israel. The legal status of an agreement in which the de jure status of a signatory is equivocal would also be equivocal. I can think of no peace treaty in which one nation accepts the other’s identity on a provisional basis. A peace agreement would result in a Palestinian state. How perverse it would be if in signing an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel, a real, functioning, de jure state, should submit to becoming a non-de jure state in order to establish its non-state enemy-entity as a state both de facto and de jure.

It would be clearer to all what is being asked of the Palestinians - and why they refuse, and slither out of negotiations and will not accept peace offers - if Israel were called “Jewland”. Then being Jewish citizens in Jewland would not not be any more racist, ethnocentric or theocratic than being American citizens in America or French citizens in France, or Finnish citizens in Finland. What Palestinian citizens in Palestine would be, I think we know.

Augustus

A good speech, but the argument for Israel's legitimacy does not depend on what people say in speeches. It has been made by history. It has been made by the men and women who made the desert green, by Nobel prizes earned, by ground-breaking innovations and enviable institutions, by lives saved, democracy defended, peace made and battles won. There can be no denying the right of the Jewish people to live in peace and security in a homeland to which they have a connection going back thousands of years.
The world must never allow the moral destinctions between tyranny and freedom to be erased
or try to edit history. Israel is a field of hope on which fear can be vanquished. An island of refuge that can stand firm no matter how stormy the seas of anti-Semitism return. And that's why we must always keep it safe, and always keep it free.

Derek BLADES

Can anyone tell me what on earth Murdoch meant by the "anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west"?

What is true is that more and more people in the West are appalled at Israel’s behaviour towards Gaza and Lebanon and there is no longer the automatic support from the West that Israel enjoyed up to the mid-1980s. But to interpret this as an “anti-Jew frenzy...consuming the West" is bordering on the ridiculous.

No Western governments are calling for Israel to be dismantled. On the contrary, the recent inclusion of Israel in the OECD is a clear affirmation by the other 31 members of that prestigious organisation of Israel's right to exist.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades: "What is true is that more and more people in the West are appalled at Israel’s behaviour towards Gaza and Lebanon and there is no longer the automatic support from the West that Israel enjoyed up to the mid-1980s. But to interpret this as an “anti-Jew frenzy...consuming the West" is bordering on the ridiculous.

No Western governments are calling for Israel to be dismantled. On the contrary, the recent inclusion of Israel in the OECD is a clear affirmation by the other 31 members of that prestigious organisation of Israel's right to exist."

Phew, what a relief. For a moment, there...

Derek, do yourself a favour and read some good books on attitudes to Jews and Israel. Start, perhaps, with the excellent:

"A State beyond the Pale" - by the non Jew ROBIN SHEPHERD.

rippon

There’s a plethora of books out there. One could equally well recommend work by (say) Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Norman Finkelstein, Benny Morris, Noam Chomsky ( - with the accompanying bleat “read some good books”).

Derek Blades makes the perfectly valid point:

“What on earth does Murdoch mean by the "anti-Jew frenzy now consuming the west"?”
“No Western governments are calling for Israel to be dismantled. On the contrary, the recent inclusion of Israel in the OECD is a clear affirmation by the other 31 members of that prestigious organisation of Israel's right to exist.”

Any valid argument deserves an honest rebuttal; merely recommending a book does not constitute that.

A.

I am still not clear.

Is this like an oath of loyalty to an "Afrikaans and democratic state" to be taken before negotiations can take place? Or to an "Ulster Prostestant and democratic state" before negotiations can take place? (In Northern Ireland I think negotiations produced a trade-off. The Catholic minority would accept the majority on sovereignty. The majority would allow the Catholics equal opportunity and stop preferential treatment.)

Say in thirty years from now 50.01% of the population is not Jewish, what happens? Does the Jewish 49.99% expel sufficient to regain the majority? Is the constitution changed? Do the majority swear to maintain a "Jewish and democratic state"?

If I understand the super-subtle C. Gee (and I don't think I do) Israel is like any other liberal democratic state. Or is it that it is they will come to resemble Israel when, as is so often threatened here, they all become "Islamic and democratic states"?

Kevin

I think the "single most important and defining issue of our time" is our culture's acceptance that it should be legal to abort babies so that they do not interfere with your sex life.

J D Bryan aka Brian Durack

In response to Ian Walker
(dated 15/10/10 time 5:15)
Surely this not a theological debate but no less than the survival of Israel. The only free society, liberal democracy in the region.

J D Bryan aka Brian Durack

It should not be surprising the Hard Left are revealing anti-Semitism. As illustrated in the following.

Socialism, full blooded if you like, is now in global retreat. This is because socialism has shown to be intellectually and morally bankrupt. Thus in ideological (emotional) desperation the Hard Left cannot thus help resort to their fall back position. As the people will not accept socialism. The Hard Left, ideological assured, feel compelled to apply "the will to power". Yes, fascism. Hold, any enemy of the west is thine friend, even "Islamo" fascism. This is not some form of name calling but something Hayek, Mises and others have shown. Was not the first fascist leader, Mussolini, an earnest Communist, a few years earlier? That Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin created what for all intents and purposes was a "fascist" state. The only reason Trotsky was not anti-Semitic was because he was Jewish. A taste of his humanity is revealed in his earnest call. "Let us once and for all put an end to the Papist/Quaker babble about the sanctity of human life. He called for civil war, against the Russian people, for grain. Yes, he was charmer. Lenin was the founder of the world's first police state, which Hitler later was to adopt.
These socialist leaders were ruthless, intolerent revolutionary Zenophobes and racist bigots. Sounds like Bin laden et al.

Well, today the Hard Left have shown where they stand in the "Islamo" fascist
war declared against the west. Tony Benn claimed a moral equivalence between suicide bombers and Stealth bombers. The weapon employed in the name of an "Islamo" fascist society was the morally equivalant to the armoury of America, the underwriter of the free society which Benn et al have thrived whilst aiming to undermine. Benn also argued the bombing of Horishima and Nagasaki were the worst ever war crimes. Thus relegating the holocaust. Thus claim, the industrialized mass murder of a race was less evil than a desperate attempt by a free society to rapidly end a war of aggression initiated by racist, egregious empire (Japan), who had allied with the very regime that was to commit this genocide.

That Livingstone, the so called champian against racism, states all whites are racist. The only difference is those who admit thus. Furthermore was quite prepared to sit on the same platform as a racist, zenophobic, sexist, homphobic intolerant religeous extremist bigot. Had this man been a white person Livingstone would have dismissed this out of hand. However, as a Muslim, I believe Arabic, Livingstone thought this quite justified. Indeed, in "defense" he piped out. This man was a moderate!

George Galloway does see not the Taliban as his enemy. Thus is either supportive or indifferent to a racist, zenophobic, homophobic, sexist and n intolerant religeous extremist form of society. Fascist in all but name. Galloway now claims to fight for Muslims yet had supported the Soviet Union which persecuted all groups including Muslims. Indeed, created much of the mess in Near East but where America is now held to account.
Thus the Hard left having hijacked liberalism for political expediency are now gradually discarding. This is no co-incidence. Rather, revealing their true colours. It is, I hold, because the west is now in a form of retreat.

It seems obvious, if we look, the Hard Left are the same as the "Far Right", British National Party. Socialist's historical claim to be far to the "Left of "Right-wing fascism is nothing but political spin. Both aim for the same socialist economic policies. Aim to control the economcy thus society for their respective ends. The only main difference is Marxist-Leninism has lost economic credibilty. Thus socialists adopt non-Marxist socialist economic polices. Just as the anti-Marxist, Hitler and Mussolini.

We can further see this with the Hard Left and so called ""far Right" in Britain. Also, Chavez of Venezuelahas adopted economic policies similar to Hitler. This socialist is becoming evermore authoritarian.
However, the Hard Left claimed to be anti-racist, which we argue is nothing but the result of their cynical hijack of true liberalism, which is anti-racist, anti-empire etc.
They do have one major difference, however.
Whereas, the "Far right" blame the ills of society on non-whites, Jews etc. The Hard Lft blame all global ills on the white western society, capitalism.

Brian O'Connor

I continue to marvel . . .

A group (of nations and of disenfranchised individuals in Gaza, enfranchised citizens in Europe and the US, etc.) denies that Israel has a right to exist. (Question: how many muslims have openly declared that Israel should be allowed to exist?)

Israel, as far as I know, has never asked for much of anything other than its right to exist and the right to defend herself — rights which the UN and EU seem unwilling to support (except in the most general and toothless ways).

And yet, our tolerant gentry stroke their chins and condemn Israel for her putative human rights abuses (!), while supporting Hamas, the PA and those who are driven to frenzy against Israel.

It's almost as if Israli muslims don't have more freedom than the citizenry of the surrounding territories!

Brian O'Connor

Stepping back for a moment, and focussing on the dreaded "oath."

Which is more repugnant, more hateful, more a violation of human rights/values?

Please select one:

1) A loyalty oath.

2) Declarations de-legitizizing an entire people and calling for the eradication of the state of Israel?

3) This is a false dichotomy — they're both equally reprehensible.

Bronson

Contradictory messages from Murdoch: This speech but Fox, which he owns tends to bend to the will of its 2nd largest shareholder, an Arab 'prince', and back pedal and apologize whenever its journalists forget their riding instructions.

C.Gee

A:

You are indeed "not clear".

Not clear on the concepts of sovereignty and nationhood, nationality and cultural loyalty, democracy and voting, allegiance to law and allegiance to political faction, national self-determination and pluralistic laws, cultural identity and citizenship.

The Northern Ireland peace accords resulted in NI remaining under British sovereignty. There was no demand by the Catholics for their own Protestant-free portion of the six counties, despite their underclass grievances.

The Afrikaans nationalists were the first to move to dismantle apartheid. The South African political settlement - the enfranchisement of the black population - was not a "peace " accord between two sovereignties, but a constitutional realignment to stop civil war within its own territory - to create a new polity, not a new nation.

The Middle East conflict is between a sovereignty and a would-be sovereignty claiming territory controlled by the first. Amazingly enough, all the would-be sovereignty is required to do to acquire both sovereignty and the territory over which to exercise it, is to accept the offered borders and lay down its arms. This it will not do. Rather than accept the reality of the existing sovereignty by establishing the reality of its own through a peace agreement, the would-be sovereignty prefers to situate itself transcendentally: on this imaginary plane, it has a constitution, a national identity, economic and legal institutions, administrative infrastructure, a voting citizenry, a flag, a history and a land since time immemorial which coincides with the Mandate borders minus Jordan. And to defend this transcendental state, they must kill the citizens of the existing sovereignty who "occupy" it.

By refusing to negotiate or sign an agreement with or recognize the Jewish state (the existing sovereignty) as such, Palestine calls its own bluff: that it is a state-in-waiting at all. Palestine will continue to insist that it remain a transcendental nation, because that is its elaborate front for what is essentially a conspiracy to commit murder and politicide . Palestine should be called Murder, Inc. And Israel should insist on recognizing it as such in the peace negotiations and as a pre-condition for them.

A.

C.Gee
October 21st, 2010 5:59pm
My reply has got lost.

I know I'm not clear on this question. I have taken Socrates' first step towards wisdom. You have not. You're remarks are anything but clear.

I asked a few questions and put forward a few hypotheticals. Your remarks on south Africa and N. Ireland, whether right or wrong, do not address them.

If a precondition had been an oath of loyalty to Afrikaanerdom, would negotiations have got anywhere?

Similarly, if the Loyalists had required the Catholic Republicans to renounce unification with Eire?

If it should happen that over 50% of Israelis were not Jews, would the state cease to be Jewish or cease to be democratic?

In a mixed state, what does it mean to be both Jewish and democratic? (An oath in the US of loyalty to WASPs; in Iran to Islam?)

Is this an oath all of Israel's Jewish citizens would be happy to take?

You appear to overlook that the oath is to be administered to Israeli citizens, not the stateless population of the occupied territories.

You say it is a test of good faith for the Palestinian negotiatiors. To require some but not all Israeli citizens to take an oath? And by test of good faith do mean something like a halt to settlement building, or a temporary pause, or the illusory appearance of a temporary pause?

You say that all that the Palestinians of the occupied territories and diaspora need do to escape your humourous "transcendental" state is accept the offered borders and lay down their arms. This is odd in so many ways. Just one: what borders? (It is dispiriting that you refer to Dennis Ross when more accurate information is available form Israeli government documents.) All that Israel has offered is confirmation of the perimeter of the ghettoes it intends the Palestinians to accept as a "state". The offer has been made because Israel wants to keep what it has taken in the West Bank and wants no further responsibility for the Palestinians it has taken it from. If the Palestinians accept this (and Abbas may well), they would be in an even worse position than now. They would have ratified their own displacement and Israel's expropriation.

You end with a flight of fancy that owes nothing to your mock-learned casuistical mode and everything to paranoia.

gareth

great speech thanks for the post Mel

C.Gee

A:

Perhaps your Socratic (!) questioning will find other takers in the agora. I tried to dignify your tendentious inquiries with answers, but was accused of casuistry. Someone else can have a go. Suffice it to say, that those questions could not be asked by anyone who does not believe that being “Jewish” means: if by religion, theocratic absolutism; if by nationality, imperialism; and if by ethnicity, zionazi racism. (I discount the question concerning bare majorities being able to change a constitution, which can be answered technically with respect to specific constitutions. As for discussions on the tension between democracy and national unity, pluralism and “self-determination”, there is a mountain of jurisprudence and political philosophy awaiting your eager curiosity.)

-"And by test of good faith do mean something like a halt to settlement building,..."

No. Certainly not. Israel's good faith does not need to be tested. It has made peace with Jordan and Egypt, it has released thousands of Palestinians prisoners (including those with "blood on their hands" who have gone back to the old resisting life-style), it has evacuated Gaza, it has removed settlements from the West Bank, it has granted the PLO control over daily life of Palestinians (poor sods), it has supplied weapons to security forces, it has entered into the fantasy of Oslo, it continues to pretend that there are "moderates" who seek to negotiate a two-state solution. Enough of Israel’s good faith already. Israel should demand a show of good faith from the Palestinians: the offer to negotiate for sovereignty over a territory which includes Jews, not just the Jews in Jerusalem, but the Jews living in the "heart" of the West Bank - Judea; the immediate and unconditional release of Gilad Shalit, alive; and, most importantly, recognition of Israel as the Jewish state. Without this much good faith, there can be no meaningful negotiations and no binding agreement and no peace.

-"...what borders?" Any of the borders offered over the course of the last 60 years.

-"If the Palestinians accept this (and Abbas may well), they would be in an even worse position than now." Worse? They would have a state. The "ghettoes" would be transformed immediately into Palestinian home-towns in the home-land. The refugees from Lebanon and elsewhere, currently living in real ghettoes could return to enjoy full civil rights as Palestinians.

-"They would have ratified their own displacement and Israel's expropriation." "Ratified"? Giving up on the "right" of return, like accepting any designated borders, would be giving up on their transcendental state. That transcendental state exists so that Israel may be accused of "expropriating" - or "stealing" - territory from it. The Palestinians need their transcendental state to justify their perpetual war.

We shall see whether Abbas unilaterally declares statehood, upon what borders and what that will mean for the "right of return" and recognition of the Jewish state. No doubt the borders would include areas which Israel would dispute - and defend. So it would be business as usual in terms of fighting a low-grade war. The alternative to the peace-process impasse is to have Israel unilaterally cede a Palestine a state within designated borders, make arrangements for the voluntary return of Jews living beyond them - and go back to the business as usual of dealing with murderous incursions. In any case - peace-process, Palestinian unilateral statehood, or Israel’s unilateral ceding of territory (and statehood) to Palestine, the war goes on. Unless the Palestinians -all factions - lay down their arms. Repeat: unless the Palestinians lay down their arms.

A.

C.Gee
October 23rd, 2010 10:01pm
Socrates said that the first step towards knowledge is to recognise your ignorance.

As I said, I've taken that first step. Your answers have not helped me get any further.

To continue with my philosophical pretensions, I take it you intend a reductio when you say,

"those questions could not be asked by anyone who does not believe that being “Jewish” means: if by religion, theocratic absolutism; if by nationality, imperialism; and if by ethnicity, zionazi racism."

Certainly, this is absurd. I suppose "Jewish" could bear these meanings. There is nothing in what I've said requires it. (Indeed, I'm struggling to work out what ZioNazism could be. I hope we agree that comparisons between Israel and the Nazis are ridiculous and offensive.)

I have thought of another option not covered: It may be that, for example, an oath be required of Muslims, Jews and Catholics to an English/Anglican and democratic state. Few care any more about the Anglican Church and its place in the establishment. The oath would still be offensive. Yet the oath we are talking about seems to require more.

If the new oath refines the old, why bother? If it does more, why pretend otherwise? If required of Palestinian citizens, why not of all Jewish citizens as well? And what does an oath for Israeli citizens have to do with negotiation with stateless Palestinians in occupied territory?

"Israel's good faith does not need to be tested." This is tragic and comic. Sign Oslo, accelerate the building of settlements.

"Worse? They would have a state. The "ghettoes" would be transformed immediately into Palestinian home-towns..." This suggests what can't be true, that you are unaware of conditions in the ghettoes and the effect several more millions would have.

Your last two paragraphs seem again to be fantasy. These millions want only to continue in squalor as an excuse to fight Israel.

Katie

An amazing article and a breath of fresh air... the situation so eloquently articulated.