Clueless in Libya

Shakassoc

At risk of being simplistic, Cameron has done it because he is a know-nothing, self-regarding, immature fool, who is more interested in his 'image' than even Blair was.

What is puzzling is that so many MPs supported him in this foolhardy adventure, committing vast sums of money we can ill afford to a course of action whose unforeseen consequences are beyond the wit of our current government to contemplate.

In fact, so clearly stuipid is this latest piece of sabre rattling that even some sections of the mainstream media have spotted it.

Is there something they are not telling us?

Heaven help us.

Augustus

"I've started, so I'll finish'
said the quizmaster. But how?
Operation Odyssey Dawn has started, but dawn hasn't arrived
for millions of Libyans still living under the dark tyranny of
tribes and their chiefs. America
doesn't really care to get involved in yet another war in the Islamic world, and besides,
Obama doesn't even have a coherent strategy regarding Libya, or anywhere else, it seems, in the Muslim world. So
over to Europe which, not unexpectedly was deeply divided
about the UN resolving to use
violence. But because the mad
colonel decided, just like Saddam, to talk and act in terms
of violence, the British and French changed their minds. But the political question remains:
Why does Europe and America really interfere in a civil war in Libya? And who is going to guarantee that those who follow
Gaddafi will be finer chaps than
he? Can Cameron answer that? Can Sarkozy? In Jemen and Bahrain hundreds were killed, but the West doesn't interfere there, because there the oppositions are followers of political Islam. Libya can still be divided into various areas, Gaddafi could stay on for some time, so why wage war?
Two reasons spring to mind: The eyes of the world (the presence of journalists), and the use of
military planes to bomb one's own civilians. Without the press
there would be no proof, but Gaddafi had bad luck, the world's press was there. So international law had be upheld,
was the conclusion that even China and Russia came to by not vetoing the no-fly zone resolution. Hope springs eternal, and the West may rightfully hope that the result of all this upheaval is that populations in these Muslim countries hold their dictators
to account. But there will, no doubt, be plenty of opportunities for Islamic fundamentalist groups to blame the imperialist West for supporting these dictators and
create more breeding grounds for anti-Western hate and terror.

M.Bard

Surely the doctrine can applied both ways - as a doctrine in support of the overriding duty sovereign state to protect its citizens? How could that be distinguished in the circumstances of fifty rockets launched in one day against Israeli citizens? The Israeli government in such circumstances have a clear 'responsibility to protect'. That leaves merely the question of 'proportionality', and individual acts of criminality with which to undermine the right to self defence. If fifty rockets in one day do not amount to a concerted 'armed attack entitling self defence' - what would it take? Nothing short of a nuclear attack and then no doubt, after the event.

Frank P

If only there were people currently holding office in Western governments capable of reading this coruscating, collation of data and riveting analysis, never mind having sufficient moral compass and conscience to hang their heads in shame at the implications of it. Another seminal essay, Melanie; grateful thanks for the time and effort expended.

TomTom

At what point does Obama need Congressional Approval for this venture ?

Herbert Thornton

When I read about the No Fly Zone I think of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

When I read about David Cameron I envisage him performing Silly Walks to raise money for some Bad Cause.

Somewhere in this mad situation there must also be quite recognisable parallels both with the Dead Parrot skit and with Tiddlywinks?

Emet

Neither Caroline Glick, nor Melanie Phillips care to ponder what would have happened if Mubarak had fallen despite US support? Which was likely as long as the army wasn't prepared to contemplate a bloodbath. The Americans improve their image and preserve their influence by telling Mubarak to go. Think along the same lines for the case of Libya although the circumstances are different. And, if a theocracy gets in its still got to sell oil. If it attacks us we can drop bombs on it. Libya is shot and no threat to anyone much anyhow. We don't stand to lose much and it looks like the end of the road for the 'big thug' approach to keeping the Arabs in line.

They might also care to ponder the cost of hegemony to the US., particularly in the Middle East. Coal can be turned into petrol at $52-$56 a barrel (2007 prices). There is a lot of coal in America and elsewhere. And, you don't have to brain some Arab, by proxy or directly, to fill
the fuel tank of your car.

Rich, and with a clear conscience, we in the West might come to forget where the Middle East is.

Mustapha Bunn

.. and now some plonker in "government" is quoted as saying it may last for 30 years !

SandrafromManc

I am confused!
What has changed from Quadaffi being a sort of friend to an absolute enemy?
Who and what do the rebels stand for, does anyone really know?
What happens if the coalition kills civillians...will that be disproportionate?
How does this differ from fighting in Iraq in the view of the Stop the War group? Will this bring about more danger of Islamic bombings here, as they tell us that the Iraq war has?
Why have we chosen Libyan rebels to support and not Iranian ones? Why if we want to help the downtrodden are we not helping in Zimbabwe, Somalia, Sudan etc.
Where is the money coming from, when we are constantly being told we are broke?
Answers on a postcard please!

YG

British Colonel Richard Kemp:
I don’t think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the IDF is doing today in Gaza."
While israeli citizens I daily attacked by missles from Gaza, I can't recall any missle shut at British citizen from Libya.
So who has the right to react, Britian or Israel ?

Robbo

This article should be required reading by every self-serving, ignorant (of history, of geography, of common sense and decency) politician in the Western world. By their deeds they are determined to hasten the downfall of Western Civilisation and hasten in a new Dark Age that will be almost impossible to ever throw off. Why? Why on earth would they wish that upon us? Has their hatred of Jews become so raged & blind that they cannot see where they are taking us? If so, they are clinically insane.

AY

..not everything is that bad, what is there..

1) Successful show the superiority of Western weapons over Russian/Chinese/NorthKorean devices.

2) Some heavy weaponry are taken out.. good. Overall, the less weapons are left in the hands of axis of oil and evil, the cheaper the price of oil will be.

3) Qaddafi eventually pays for his artistic performances. Including Lockerbie. Hopefully, his collection of expensive clothes will include an Iraqi tie.

4) Libya will be transformed into another Somalia or Gaza. Short-term, it will raise terrorism and piracy in Mleediterranean. Long-term - another terror enclave will be isolated and beseiged.

5) Right message is sent to Iran and Syria. Their armies aren't much better than Libyan (tyrants aren't better, too).

6) after that sudden syndrom of "civilian protection" diarrhea in Europe, it won't be that easy to condemn Israel for protecting their civilians.

7) after one or two hostile acts of Libyan carbonari against Western forces, they will become targets as well. As there is little hope for electing normal government there, West will treat "revolutionaries" for who they really are - armed gangs.

It looks like the most evil parts of Midle East are moving towards physical decline and desolation - which is an inevitable consequence of moral and intellectual degeneracy brought by Islam and by the oil parasitism.
So let them fall.

dmgold

Yes Khadafi is killing his own people, no different from dozens of other nations around the globe in recent history and today. Why single out one pepertrator amongst so many eligable candidates???
My 5 cents worth points to the dispraportionate drive of the media. It seems that the politicians are merely following media generated public opinion, much like the anti Israel histeria that we see daily and the idiotic responses of Haigs, Camerons, Sarkozies and Obamas and Ashtons. It seems the freedom of the press(no responsibility here only freedoms)may be writing its own demise, if the BBC and NYT's can direct conflicts and produce desired outcomes then the right of the press to demand press freedoms for itself come in to question.

Charlene

Yes I agree I feel getting rid of Mubarak and now going after Ghadaffi is ominous. Firstly it is creating a power vaccuum in the area and Iran can feasibly utilise this to their sinister advantage. It goes without saying that the Muslim brotherhood will be empowered as a result. All this is extremely ominous for the west and Israel the only democracy. I believe the R2P a very real danger to Israel, virtually Israel being shackled and her enemies being emboldened and empowered. Thank you Melanie for exposing the reality and peril of the diabolical goings on in the Middle East.

Ambrose

Yeah, so what would you have done then? Let Gaddafi's tanks liquidate Benghazi? How would you feel then?

Elizabeth

Civilians are and have been killed by tyrants in Syria, Iran and Bahrain, yet David and Nicolas interfere only in Libya. Why? It's the OIL and GAS! They have supported Gaddafi's opposition only after they were sure that it is going to win, and control the oil and gas faucets. Now that the odds have turned around, they are afraid that they will lose this business to China and India. This is why they now must ensure that the party they have sided with will win, no matter who they are.

blue_&_white_avenger

AY - with respect,some of what you write is wishful thinking: "5) Right message is sent to Iran and Syria. Their armies aren't much better than Libyan (tyrants aren't better, too)."
In fact their armies are much better & much bigger. Iran produces missiles (copied from Norf Korea)& remember they fought Saddam to a standstill by employing children as human shields/shahids. And there's 10X more of them than Libyans & most of them are under 30...

Peter

The aim of the coalition (and the UN resolution) is to prevent atrocities on the Libyan people who happen to think that Gaddafi is not actually God incarnate.

Since these attacks are by the Libyan army, the best way to achieve this with certainty is to disable the CIC. That's why attacks on Gaddafi are not only legitimate but very necessary.

steve

There isn't one clear coherent neo-conservative position on these issues and several of the most prominent ones, including Charles Krauthammer, have made it clear that American self-interest trumps humanitarian concerns when it comes to interventions. And it is the Arab League, not the "Muslim League" that is backtracking from supporting the No Fly Zone.

john

Are Pres. Obama and side-kick, Samantha Powers, (perhaps sick-kick might be more appropriate) prepared for the nearly 6 million Israelis who will be claiming political asylum in the US a few years down the line. The Democrats can kiss goodbye to political power for decades, if they turn the refugees away.

Graeme Thompson

You could well be right about what lies behind Obama's thinking in supporting intervention in Libya, but from a British perspective, we had no choice.

After Cameron's very partisan comments against Gaddafi from the outset, we could not afford that he remains in power.

Frankly, I dont think that any of us have a clue what will happen in Libya if Gaddafi falls. Kate Adie advises that the Libyan people want a western style democracy, but this still does not make it a foregone conclusion that Islamists will take over.

mandelson

@Ambrose
This is about real British flesh and blood ie sons and fathers of this country. The Arab world is armed to the teeth with weapons we sold them but useless, so why are we killing muslims to save muslims again? I suggest you stick to your Playstation, reality is a step too far.

AKUS

One of your best commentaries ever. Noone knows what we are doing in Libya or why, or who would replace gaddafi and why he would be any better, and not do to Gaddafi and his supporters exactly what Gaddafi wants to do to them.

Thanks for highlighting R2P - a new term for me, and an ominous one. Even leaving aside the danger to Israel, it could mean America being involved in endless wars in places where it has no interests,through a bizarre coalition of supposed do-gooders and neocon chickenhawks.

By the way - the combination of Powers and Clinton, and remembering Thatcher, for example, throws an interesting light on the idea that if only women were in charge there would be fewer wars.

Merlyn

More news just in

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pjm-exclusive-iran-orders-attacks-on-saudi-interests-worldwide/

Iran has ordered openly created centers to recruit volunteers for suicide bombings against Saudi Arabia’s interests worldwide because of its interference in Bahrain.

Adam B.

No-one in government or the media asks the question - who are the rebels? What do they stand for?

Frank P

Graeme Thompson

Isn't there a 'not' missing from your last sentence?

Graeme

there are good questions to ask about Libya. One , Who are the rebels in Libya and what do they stand for? Two, as the journalist Patrick Baz has reported, where are the soldiers, who surrendered to the rebels and why are they not leading the rebels? Baz has reported that the rebels are firing anti tank weapons at aircraft and anti-aircraft guns at tanks.

Mike Jenkins

When David Cameron said 'we have to enforce the will of the UN' I shuddered, because the will of the UN is inherently anti Israel, even anti-semitic. It doesn't take an Einstein to see where this sort of thinking could lead, probably will leadto, and that is the attack on little Israel. What clueless leaders we really do have.

Mike Jenkins

When David Cameron said 'we have to enforce the will of the UN' I shuddered, because the will of the UN is inherently anti Israel, even anti-semitic. It doesn't take an Einstein to see where this sort of thinking could lead, probably will leadto, and that is the attack on little Israel. What clueless leaders we really do have.

Maddy1

Our courageous, non fighting politicians, are digging up that old African Rennaisance Bone up as part of the warmongering spin.

blue_&_white_avenger

Graham T quoting Kate Adie :"Kate Adie advises that the Libyan people want a western style democracy, but this still does not make it a foregone conclusion that Islamists will take over."
It shows you how little the BBC correspondents understand their subjects - unless when she says "western STYLE democracy" it's like "kosher STYLE food" meaning it looks similar but is completely different

Bob

Melanie. Don't worry. The IAF would likely obliterate any US Navy task force sent to the region. Here's why:

"Is the US Navy Overrated?" a study from Kightsbridge Univ:
The Israeli Air Force, perhaps the best-trained and most experienced in the world, has outshined the US Navy, and they have done so more than once. A joint USN-IAF air combat exercise in 1999 underlines and highlights the thesis that the US Navy is overrated. On September 14, 1999, The Jerusalem Post announced that the Israelis soundly dispatched the air wing from the USS Theodore Roosevelt (which, incidentally, was the same carrier the Dutch destroyed in 1999). Israeli F-16s squared off against American F-14s and F-18s. The final results were astonishing. The Israelis shot down a whopping 220 US aircraft while losing only 20 themselves. The 10:1 kill ratio was so embarrassing that the results were not âœofficially published â˜to save the reputations of the US Navy pilots.â™â� The magazine article on which the article was based, however, reported the kill ratio to be about 20:1.
This incident was not the first time the US Navy has found itself running behind the Israelis in air combat. Back in 1983, significant qualitative differences between the Israeli Air Force and US naval aviation became obvious when the US Navy botched a raid over Lebanon to suppress Syrian forces there. Aircrews from the USS John F. Kennedy were not properly briefed, launched with the wrong weapons, used outdated tactics, lost twenty percent of their aircraft, and in return, did very little damage to the Syrian positions. The Israelis, conversely, had enjoyed great success during hundreds of missions over the Bekaa Valley with negligible losses. Yes, the Israelis had far more experience flying over the region, and thus a major advantage, but even Secretary Lehman, himself a Naval Reserve aviator, granted that the Israelis were simply more organized, more creative, and had far better planning and tactics than the Americans did.

From World Daily Net, 2005:
WorldNetDaily (WND) reported February 14 that the Israeli air force had trounced a U.S. fighter force from the USS Theodore Roosevelt in a mock battle. During this training exercise in the Negev desert between Israeli air force F-16 pilots and U.S. Navy pilots from the USS Theodore Roosevelt, Israeli air force pilots, according to the Jerusalem Post, "shot down" 220 Navy F-14s and F-18s while only "losing" 20 F-16s. In one exercise, the paper said, the reported kill ratio was 40:1 in the Israelis' favor, an outcome so stunning

Judith

I thought that heads of state could not be targeted according to International Law.

Michael Harris

Also, the message to African and Asian dictatorships is...get your hands on nuclear weapons NOW. The West will not invade you if you possess nuclear weapons-that is why Sudan is at present trying to buy these weapons off Iran. No, obviously nobody thought of that either...

Herzen

I really must point out, for those who may not have noticed it,this from Caroline Glick: "What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny." Is this ignorance or dishonesty? Any thoughts anyone?

Dave M

I thought I was the only one who thought this intervention is not such a good idea and now I read this. Seems I'm not alone and neither are the Russians (who disapprove).
My view is simply Libya is none of my business. You have to have a very good reason to meddle in the political strife within another country and that would mean a genuine humanitarian crisis. In fact, I think America is always interfering in the Middle East, destabilising the region as a whole. I don't see why Arab countries shouldn't be able to police their own territories.
Once again you see politicians over here mindlessly following the U.S.A. to try and win favour.

GaryP

Melanie, you have called it right once again. Samantha Power was always been in the background informing Obama and it seems to me that on this false mandate of protection the incursion into Libya was always going to be a precedent for the ultimate end game which is to get the UN into Israel as a peacekeeping force. The length of time that it took the UN resolution to agree the mandate to go into Libya will seem like a millennium in comparison to the speed that they will approve any potential action to defend the Palestinians against the "evil apartheid oppressors" of Israel. The recent scaling up of activity by Hamas is only the precursor for further hostilities by its neighbours.
Your voice seems to be one of the few who is willing to speak it how it is. Keep up the good work.

Ambrose

@mandelson

I'm not sure I understand your stance completely, but you seem to be suggesting that muslim lives aren't worth saving, which is a disgraceful position to hold.

There are good and bad muslims, just like there are good and bad jews, and good and bad christians.

I feel that, if you've got the power to prevent an atrocity from being committed, then choosing to do nothing is morally unacceptable.

Dave Cameron feels the same way.

Herzen

Two things, (if I may, Moderator?):

Caroline Glick is quoted above. It is 24 carot: "...the neoconservatives are not motivated to act by concern for the US’s core regional interests. What motivates them is their belief that the US must always oppose tyranny."

Who's gast would not be flabbered by this?

And, secondly, does no-one here try to keep track of the weekly doings of the IDF in Gaza? Or do we only notice when something impinges on Israel?

We have to hope that today's terrorist atrocity in Jerusalem is not the first in a new campaign. Why was Israel so irresponsible as to break off negotiations with Hamas in 2008? Even the security chiefs told the cabinet at the time that Hamas was observing the ceasefire and was even succeeding in controlling the other groups operating in Gaza. Why break off negotiations and resort to force?

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, there you go again, singling out Israel for defending herself.

Have you not been paying attention to what the Arab populations have been doing to each other over the last few years? OK the Press and Media tried to keep it quiet, but now it's all out in the open.

They kill each other for no other reason but religon, and power, killing people even in their mosques, and they call each other "Jews" if they wish to insult them with the worst insults.

Why on earth would Israel trust signing any treaty with Hamas?

Hamas cannot even make peace with their fellow Palestinians.

I am at a loss at why anyone with an ounce of intelligence, which you clearly possess, can pick Hamas as worthy of any consideration whatsover.

They have no position to negotiate that is even close to something Israel can accept.

They are nihilistic fanatics and Iranian proxies.

If they truly cared about Palestinians they would not slaughter them and hide it by controlling their Press and free speech.

Should Britain sign a treaty with al Qaeda? What can either side offer each other?

As for Samantha Power, I have to disagree with Melanie's analysis here.

Congress would never pass a vote for US military intervention to shoot down Israeli war planes or hit their tanks. And not just because they would fear what IDF forces would do to them if they try, but because 70% of Americans still support Israel.

And the US relies very heavily on Mossad intellignece for its intel on Middle Eastern affairs.

It also needs an ally to counter Iran, and there is no nation strong enough to do that other than Israel.

Susan Powers and Obama may have the same intentions, as they both clearly dislike Israel and love Arabs, but Obama is not the US Government, and the Democratic party would never stomach this useless man going to war with Israel, as too many Jews support his party.

Even that anti-Semite, Carter could not do that.

Melanie may be right about their intentions, but I think she overestimates R2P's ability to control Congress and the House.

And right now Obama is unable to even control Libya.

Mustapha Bunn

The Daily Mail,@ 23rd.March,is now reporting that MI5 has warned of terrorist attacks in Britain,by Libyans supporters of Ghadaffi.
Thanks for that Cameron !

davod

"6) after that sudden syndrom of "civilian protection" diarrhea in Europe, it won't be that easy to condemn Israel for protecting their civilians."

There you go, thinking logically. You forget the global perspective that Israel is the aggressor.

You should think of Libya as a prelude for intervention in Israel.

Powers aim is to get the US miltary directly between the Arabs and Israelis. Popular support for Israel dissapears the moment a US soldier, sailor or airman is killed.

Additionally, there is a world of difference between dog fighting with aircraft from a US aircraft carrier and being attacked by the full resources of the US national security apparatus. Not to mention being any support from same.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 23rd, 2011 8:21pm
I think you mistake what I said.

I recalled what the Israeli security services themselves told the Israeli cabinet.

There have been Israeli security chiefs saying for many years (although they usually wait until they've retired) that Israel must talk to Hamas. Hamas has in turn indicated for many years that it is willing to talk (and willing to accept what the Palestinian people accept - so if they go for the 1967 line, so will it; and ditto Hizballah).

Israel of course has a duty to its citizens to defend them from attack. There are laws on what counts as self-defence.

The way you talk about this conflict is ahistorical. Israel took the land. The Palestinians were driven off the land. Yet you talk as if Israel is simply enjoying what is its by right and those who attack it are simply purely evil and anti-Semitic. When the Jewish immigrants came up against the British in the 1940s, they too resorted to what Israel would now call terrorism (and what we all recoil from as barbarous).

This is not between the purely good and the purely evil. It is a conflict that should be amenable to negotiation (although Israel appears determined to achieve final victory - the occupied territories it wants annexed and the natives in reservations; and so the Palestinians have lacked a genuine "partner in peace").

It is bizarre to discuss whether President Obama is considering using military force against Israel.

And it is gratuitously offensive to call President Carter anti-Semitic.

It is a reasonable question whether Israel should be given free rein to attack a defenceless population again. Military intervention is not remotely an option for any of Israel's allies; and not remotely an option for any of Israel's enemies, who know they would be pulverised.

davod

Correction of my last sentence -

"Not to mention being >denied< any support from same."

Augustus

Herzen - You look foolish when you say that the Palestinians have lacked a genuine peace partner. Isn't it about time that those against Israel realize that Jewish communities
don't pose any obstacle to peace
but have simply been used as another ploy, since Jewish settlements were first established, to enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish State.
Besides, the longer the series
of Arab illegal aggression courses through the decades of time, the less likely Israel will be to listen to those voices in the international community who, like yourself, empower terrorism by endowing Palestinians with a false history, an aura of bogus statehood, and a mythical power
to grab territory in which they
would illegally deny access to
Jewish people. Less likely in fact to want to reward the loser
who tried to wipe it out.

Mike Walsh

First, a salient fact: Europe has taken the initiative –military action—in this matter. They would only be doing this if they had a strong incentive. Civil wars in North Africa are producing boatloads of refugees. Thus, their policy in North Africa is like our policy with regard to Haiti: we don’t really care who governs that sorry little place, as long as Haiti’s problems stay in Haiti. Obama supplies American forces to provide an appearance of internationalism, to make the effort seem less nakedly self-interested.

Carl

Meanwhile, the entirely sane and rational Avigdor Lieberman calls for the west to attack Syria and Iran. A cunning ruse, but I think we can see through it.

Jez

Absolute dynamite Melanie!

Brilliant.

Herzen

Augustus
March 24th, 2011 2:02pm
It is an honour and an accolade to be described thus by you. Thank you.

Adam B.

Carl, the point being made is that the Westy is goign after someone who was contained, whilst it is ignoring the protestors in Iran and Syria. A key difference is that we don't know what the rebels in Libya stand for (some of them are clearly hardline Islamists) whilst those on the streets of tehran genuinely do want democracy. We're backing the Islamists and leaving the pro-democracy protestors out to dry.

Crazy.

An American

I wonder why people can't see the big picture?

What is happening in the Middle East isn't really about freedom and democracy. Its about an Iranian Shite tsunanmi. The Muslim Brotherhood have used naive young Middle Eastern men to force all of their country's dictators/rulers out. These young men have been hoodwinked and will soon discover that they will have far less 'freedom' under the Imans than under the Dictators...just ask the Iranians.

Are all of the Western leaders really so stupid to not see what is happening? Obama certainly isn't. He didn't encourage the Iranians in their fight against their crazy Shite leaders...but came out against Mubarhak and is busy using American taxpayer's monies to bomb Ghadaffi..all in the name of freedom and democracy. What a crock!

The Middle East will very soon be under the thumb of Iran and its Imans.

Why do you think the Saudis are helping the ruler of Bharain...they know the score.

In the meantime, our Muslim president, Obama, is doing everything to weaken the US. No drilling for oil (let's depend on the Middle Easterners and Brazil's and Venezulea's Communist governments), destroying the economy, his friends Soros and the Chinese and Russians are planning to get rid of the US dollar, the highest coming inflation in our history, etc. etc. etc.

When the US is the weakest in its history...Iran will nuke us.

We are being destroyed from within, so that we can be easily destroyed from without.

Be sure to vote for Obama in 2012, so he can finish his endeavor.

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, how come there are 1,500,000 Arabs living in Israel? If the Jews wanted to drive Arabs off their land, I guess they did a really poor job.

My default position is that if you single out Israel for criticism while ignoring the actions of people or states that do the same thing, there is something dark behind that.

You don't have to agree with me, but it is just my view.

Carter calls Israel an apatheid state in his book. As I said, Israel has 30% of it's population as non-Jews, and Arabs in the Knesset and Arabs in its national soccer team.

Clearly they are not apartheid.

Yet none of the Arab states or the Palestinian wannabee states want ANY Jews living in them, and Carter says nothing.

So I consider him an anti-Semite. Or a blatant hypocrit. or both.

I do not think that is gratuitous. I think it is self-evident.

Derek BLADES

August tells us "..Jewish settlements were first established, to enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish State."

Not easy to understand what the old boy has in mind, but Augustus seems to be saying that the Israeli government encouraged the first settlements in order to ensure that there could be no peace negotiations with the Palestinians and no two-state solution.

He may well be right about that but for a pro-Zionist to actually come out and admit it is frankly astonishing. Or perhaps we should compliment him on his honesty?

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 25th, 2011 2:04am
Read the history of 1948. The Druze were left because they had the foresight to distance themselves from the rest. Those in Nazareth were spared despite direct orders and a definite plan because it was deemed too provocative (Christians and all that might attract opprobrium from the US). This is a general theme: they expelled those they could, and they left those they thought would draw too much attemtion when the support of the US and UN was crucial to the enterprise.

I am not sure how the presence of "Arab" Israelis refutes the charge of apartheid. You really should go back again to the history of how Israel dealt with its potential fifth column. The government and the Agencies (the JNF and Jewish Agency) systematically discriminated against "Arab" citizens in every shpere of life, not just under martial law, but after 1966 as well, and up to the present day.

South Africa depended on the black population for its workforce. Israel does not depend on its Arab citizens. There is the difference.

To criticise Israel here on a blog defending Israel is no sign of anything sinister. For a former US president to criticise Israel is no sign of anything sinister. It is the US sustains the enterprise. It has every right to assess it.

There were Jewish communities in Arab lands before the coming of Zionism. As Jewish bigwigs from those communities (and Zionist officials themselves) warned, Zionism put them at risk of being seen as representatives of hostile external forces (much as "Arab" Israelis are by Lieberman et al.) If you believe the US government and Ben Gurion, Israel was more active in encouraging the exodus than is currently allowed to be admitted in polite society. Ben Gurion considered the need for manpower so pressing that he was willing to seek poor second class "human material" if he could not attract sufficient first class Europeans.

This exodus was one of the great tragedies of the conflict. The states involved should compensate their victims (Iraq etc.)

On the history of anti-Semitism in the modern Arab world, read Gilbert Achcar's recent scholarly work.

What appears self-evident to you need not be the truth, certainly not the whole truth.

Graeme Thompson

@Frank P
March 23rd, 2011 11:03am

No it was irony. I place very little store in Kate Adie.

Stephen Rothbart

So if Zionism in Israel entitled the Arabs to feel jutified in expelling the Jews in their midst, as you claim, then Israel would be entirely justified in expelling all its followers of Islam? Is that your point? But Israel does not and did not.

You are still on about what happened in 1948. The Arabs had been warning the British about Jewish immigration under the Balfour Declaration for some time. Jews fresh from the camps and even during the war, trying to escape to Palestine were blocked by the Royal Navy, and detained in camps on Cyprus or turned back to their eventual deaths.

Hardly Britain's finest hour.

The Arabs warned what would happen. Ben Gurion and his allies were simply manoeuvering for position for the war that they knew was coming.

But this is not 1948 and I am tired of people constsntly going back to that period when dealing with the situation today.

Should I go on about the slaughters of innocents by US troops in Vietnam, British troops in Borneo, Aden, Northern Ireland? French in Africa and Vietnam, Portugese in Africa?

How about Britain and France appeasing Hitler?

When do I stop and how far back?

Which nation does not have skeletons to hide?

Get over what happened in 1948. So much has happened since then.

The point you and everyone blogging here against Israel seems to miss is not about Israel's foundation.

It is about Zionism.

Zionim came to pass because of European attitudes to Jews living among them and their being persecuted and killed by their "hosts" for centuries. No Palestine, no land grabs to justiy it, just prejudice and unreasoned hate.

So with the agreement of leaders of Britain and then the UN, a Jewish homelad was set up in former Turkish ruled Palestine, because it was quite sparsely populated and there were Jews living in the region since many centuries, and a Jewish will to return.

Now, 60 years later, we see the same Europeans and now the Arabs beginning to persecute a nation for what seems to be nothing more than its Jewishness. Again.

How else to justify selectively accusing Israel for doing exactly what its critics have done and continue to do even now in Afghanistan, Iraq and now even Libya? Arabs slaughter each other all the time and until now, and I am sure oil never came into it, no one censured them. Libya was even elevated to Chairman of the UN Human Rights Commission! So they could help lead the regular UN sanctions against Israel.

So pro-Zionists and many Jews see this as anti-Semitism. The same thing that caused us all to seek a home where we were not persecuted becasue we were the outcasts has become the cause of further persecution

That is what these blogs are about.

One has only to see a question about a subject in the Middle East, and immediately out come all the old stories about Israel's foundation and right to exist. Why? It is past. It is over. Now what?

Where do we go from here? Not where do we go from 1948.

Leave Israel alone, tell the Arab to put their houses in order, and then start talking about Peace.

Paul

"Israel is already being told by false ‘friends’ such as Britain that its attempts to defend itself against rocket and missile attack or other forms of the war of extermination being waged against it are ‘disproportionate’ -- and so in effect any military action in its own defence is deemed to be impermissible, a doctrine applied to no other nation on earth"

And not applied to Israel either. It is one of the oldest concepts in war (going back to medieval just war theory) that the use of force must be proportionate. That does NOT mean that you can't use force to defend yourself, it means that the force used must be proportionate. So killing 1200 Palestinians in Operation Cast Lead in response to a dozen Israeli deaths is not proportionate.

Paul

"diabolical end game of intervention on behalf of the ‘oppressed’ swims horrifyingly into focus"

Yes intervening to protect oppressed people (the quote marks are unnecessary), what a horrifying prospect.

Melanie, when you are terrified about countries becoming democratic and tremble at the thought of the international community helping oppressed people - does it ever make you pause to wonder if you are on the right side?

Augustus

Derek Blades - Don't try to be nasty. You left out the word
'since', because there weren't any 'settlements' before the six-day war, therefore, considering all the objections
Arabs had made previously about
Jewish presence in the region,
this can only be classed, as I said, as a new ploy to enable the Palestinians to reject compromise with Israel. Besides,
the Palestine which Arafat sought to 'redeem' was neither the West Bank, nor Gaza, where Palestinians had been Jordanian
and Egyptian subjects, but the entire state itself within its 1949 'green line' borders. Read the original 1964 version of the PLO Covenant (Art.24):
'This Organization (the PLO) does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank
in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the Gaza Strip, or the Himmah area." The only 'homeland' the PLO sought to liberate when it first got going was the state that belonged to the Jews.

An American

The thing that bothers me about the people who blog here is how myopic many of you are.

Many of you can't see anything beyond what is happening in and around Israel. Look at what is happening in the US White House to point to the direction that world events are unraveling.

Iran is fermenting the revolutions that are quickly destroying middle eastern governments. When the Shia take over these governments, where will that put the Sunni Muslims? The Shia hate Sunnis even more than non-Muslims... How will the Saudis and other Sunni countries protect themselves from an Iran with nukes? The Saudis have already ignored the Obama and Hillary to come to the aid of Baharain against a Shia takeover.

The US is the main country that has, in the past, protected and helped Israel to protect itself. With the US in turmoil and decline with the help from Obama and his jew-hating advisors and administration...where do you think that puts Israel?

This is about more than just Israel.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 25th, 2011 12:35pm

“So if Zionism in Israel entitled the Arabs to feel justified in expelling the Jews in their midst...” You know I said no such thing. I answer your questions. You respond with this?

Recall that you tried to refute the charge of apartheid by pointing to the presence of “Arab” Israelis. I reminded you how they came to be there despite systematic ethnic cleansing. I pointed out as gently as I could that there could be no charge of apartheid if there were no natives to keep apart from the Jews. I suggested you look at the history of state discrimination from 1948 to the present day.

Your response? A plaintive cry that the anti-Semites keep dredging up the past. Why can't they just let bygones be bygones? First, the Zionists are, if anything, even more given to seeking justification in history. Secondly, 1948 and 1967 cannot be forgotten until Israel and the Palestinians reach an accommodation. Thirdly, “the slaughter of innocents by US troops in Vietnam, British troops in Borneo, Aden, Northern Ireland, French in Africa and Vietnam, Portuguese in Africa” (there are many, many more) – Yes, of course we should “go on about them”. The perpetrators have proved surprisingly obscenely good at forgetting. (Let's ask the Italians what this is the centenary of in Libya.) Israel has proved a past master at concocting a myth in which none of its crimes feature, a myth which justifies its current enjoyment of the spoils while demonising those it despoiled. Why let Israel forget?

(As an aside, “ Britain and France appeasing Hitler” is a tired old trope. If you had been in government in Britain or France, all too aware that you did not have the resources to defeat what appeared to be a particularly virulent form of traditional power politics, would you have tried to stall or buy off the enemy while working on the only power able to oppose him i.e. the US, which was resolutely determined not to get involved? This is what is called “appeasement”. There was a moment in 1938 when, with perfect knowledge, they might have been able to face down Hitler. Apart from that moment (and, of course, 1940), Churchill was no better informed, no more resolute, no more to be relied on for rational policies, than those he vilified. Other than the moment in 1938, is their policy so evidently flawed, except in retrospect?)

Your brief history of Zionism, 1947-9, and Israel is lamentably self-serving. I would respond point by point, but I fear I would simply receive in return yet more of the same.

Kevin

"not democracy but theocracy". We have a parliamentary monarchy, and the US has a constitutional republic. Children have the vote in neither country. Are they in danger as a result? Well, yes, if they are still in the womb. Children are protected by the law, provided that law submits to God's will that all men should be protected from murder. If that is what you mean by "theocracy" then it is preferable to "democracy", i.e. voting for a party that decides to withdraw the protection of the law from some people - effectively outsourcing their destruction to the private sector.