The BBC maintains its impeccable even-handedness between murderer and victim

jzsnake

The BBC is nauseating.

James

I have no respect for single-issue human beings.

cyllan

so the border from gaza is now open, anything from biological weapons to nuclear heads can get to half a mile from israel,

do you think hamas wont use the new weapons?

this isnt a conflict of a few settlements, this is intended mass genocide and plain antisemitism.

israel should do more to guarantee its security, the people of sderot live like human targets.

i havent never seen so many evil people in my whole life, and i am not talking about the palestinians only, this is the 1930s all over again.

Truthtriumphs

The BBC, the EU and UN governments, tacitly give the green light to these terrorist organisations to murder Israeli innocents with impunity, by their duplicitous, cowardly and amoral behaviour, so this is the inevitable consequence.

Here's a part adaptation of that marvellous article in Comment is Free by
Harold Evans, of Tuesday 8 August 2006, in response to the "We are all Hezbollah now" rallying cry.
It applies perfectly to the activities of Hamas as well....and to this latest obscenely cruel and depraved outrage:--

"If we are all Hamas now, who are we?

Are we the violent hijackers of Gaza who started this war without provocation?
Are we the "democrats" who hold hostages for years and murder political opponents?

Are we the suicide bombers, Hamas's contribution to civilization, randomly murdering innocents in the thousands - Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, for this cause or that, it makes no difference?

Are we the cowards hiding our fighters and rocket launchers among women and children?

Are we not the cleverest of tacticians? If the human shield works, we are free to attack, and if it fails, Israel will bear the odium. What does it matter that our cruel deceit violates Article 58 of the Geneva Convention?

Are we the renegades who have for years shown what we think of the Geneva Convention, international law (and UN resolution 1559) by regularly launching rockets across the border into Israel loaded with ball-bearings to shred human flesh. Yes, people died, six in a school bus, but they were only Jews and did you see the world take any notice? Nobody marched in London."

Jose Mendoza

Congratulations on your objective analysis. Also, don't forget that Palestinian missiles "hit" a bus, as if unintentionally, an inadvertent afterthought of someone who actually launched them with the real intent to maximize harm.

John Bele

I think the BBC has written all the information you have. Obviously you would write it in a different way. The only people that are the victims are the people being killed and injured on both sides. obviously more are killed on the Palestinian side as Israel is the more powerfull one. Don't you think you can do more good writing about peace rather than wasting time critisising other peoples reports. Its easy to talk about problems, what about talking about solutions?

gary ashton

shocking!
why do people still pay their fee to this obviously inept news information service. surely you expect a somewhat better quality of balance in your news. no!
then it's to late.

Gershon

William Hague was no better. This was his response on twitter: "Appalling attack on a bus in Israel. Unacceptable & very damaging for prospects for peace. Important to prevent a spiral of violence." The translation of the last sentence into English from "diplomatic double-speak" is Israel, don't shoot back."

When he had time to think a bit, this was the official FCO response: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=581264682 He also plays the "Israel said..." game ("The initial reports we have received suggest the bus was deliberately targeted...), and then goes on to call Israel to be restrained.
What is it he doesn't understand? A mortar is launched in a general direction in the hope that it hits something (which is what makes it so frightening to be on the receiving end). An anti-tank missile is sent to a specific target; in this case a school bus (as in the USA, school buses in Israel are painted yellow. The perpetrators could have had no illusions as to what they were firing at). So when terrorists deliberately target children, Israel is meant to sit on her hands and stay calm. It's about time that Mr. Hague realised that (to paraphrase Thumper) "If you haven't got anything intelligent to say, don't say nothing at all."

Merlyn

For heavens sakes- when will humans open their eyes?
Our world is ruled by the love of money, not the love of children.

Exon/Mobil earned $39.5 billion dollar profit for 2006, I don't know what it was last year
In the last century, Stan Meyers invented a powerful hydrocar making more energy than it used. He then died after by 'food poisoning' after refusing billions from oil companies.

Israel is the 1st country on its way to converting cars to electricity....
Israel is a threat to those with billions invested in oil.

Kermack

Yellow buses in Israel are used exclusivly to transport children to and from school. There can be no mistaking that this attack was aimed at killing as many as possible, and it seems strange that the 'usual suspects' are not on here already making their excuses.

Cameron

Melanie - As a Canadian living in London it is difficult to find another scribe here as courageously devoted to western civilizational survival, starting with Israel, as you are. You are priceless. I applaud you and send my very best regards, Cameron

Forest Fan

It sounds like all this trouble will play into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood come election time.
Who was it at the BBC who said the Muslim Brotherhood are pussy cats or something along those lines?

Corpus

The question is why is the BBC doing this?

Mladen Andrijasevic

In the US vehicles have to stop 20 feet away for school buses displaying flashing lights. http://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2010/346/346.48.html
Yesterday Hamas fired an anti- tank missile at a yellow Israeli school bus critically wounding a 16–year old boy only moments after most of the children had gotten off the bus.

Is there anything that more clearly demonstrates the Hamas jihadist mindset? Those in the West who refuse to see how sick these Hamas people are are themselves not exactly sane either.

Andy Gill

I expect the Palestinians will be handing out sweets again to celebrate yet another cowardly and vicious attack on defenceless children.

A society that applauds such degenerate behaviour is evil, sick, and inhuman. Israel should exact harsh reprisals in the only language Hamas understand.

Derek BLADES

Melanie quotes Jon Donnison’s side-bar with disapproval. He wrote "Israel, where casualties are rare, is under pressure from its border communities to punish militants in Gaza for any attacks. Hamas is under pressure from its militant wing and other armed groups in Gaza to respond forcefully. Both sides seem unable to see the other’s perspective."

That correctly describes the tit-for-tat nature of what is essentially a dispute over land. Hamas supporters want back the land that was taken from them at the founding of Israel. Israeli’s want to keep it and are hoping that the Palestinians they have dispossessed will somehow just disappear.

It's not going to happen folks. Negotiations along the lines proposed by the Quartet are the only way this dispute will be resolved. And with a limited right of return and monetary compensation for the majority of displaced Palestinians a solution can be found that does not in any way compromise Israel’s security.

Incidentally, I was puzzled by Melanie's parallel between the BBCs coverage of this story and Tiananmen Square. The BBC rightly and strongly condemned the Chinese government's actions. Melanie must have missed it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

John Bele: "Its easy to talk about problems, what about talking about solutions?"

Here's the solution:

1) Hamas announces that it will change it Charter - excising all call for genocide of Jews and conquest of all Israel.

2) Hamas announces that it will renounce all violence against Israel and work with Fatah do reign in all Jihadis comited to the elimination of the Jewish state.

3) Hamas and Fatah recognise Israel as a Jewish state with the right to exist within final negotiated boarders based on UN Res 242. - and a practical solution to the refugee problem - both Jewish and arab.

4) Hamas and Fatah call upon all Jihadists elements within the Middle East, including Iran and Hizbollah, to stop all jew-hating propaganda and calls for Jewish genocide.

5) In return, Israel should announce the immediate freezing of all new settlement building as well as new building within settlements which are likely to remain in any negotiated boarders.

6) On this basis, negotiations can begin.

If the Palestinian agenda continues to be informed and defined by Qutbist jihadism, as it is currently, there can be absolutely no way forwad and Israel, like any state, will continue to use every power at its disposal to halt any form of aggression against it. Right or wrong, this is how states behave. Israel, with far less ruthlessness than most arb states and actors, though I guess that is by the by.

Trust, exerminated over 100 years of war, needs to be restored. Without, progress will be halting, at best, and war always lurking in the ings..

If treaties are not considered sacrosanct and their underming by unofficial actions completely and formally eschewed, that trust will have no chance of ever being restored.

This conflict will never end , as long as Jihadism is the organising concept of Arab nationalism.

Since the Palestinian position is so murky - a cauldron of bastardised western catch concepts claiming afiliation with liberalism and/or democracy and/or nationalism, mixed in with a huge dollop of Islamism - its leadership needs to unite and assert a position which enables some kind of faith in their good intentions to build. Israel cannot do that, because nothing it can offer right now, will satisfy enough of the moslem and arab players in the process to make peace even vaguely likely or possible.

There you have it. Over to you...(forget Richard et al. They shy away from open discussion re peace. They seem not to think that prospect titillating enough..).

raymond d

Typical BBC. How I wish we were free of it.

Roy

They don't want to see any other perspective. The BBC have their dyed-in-the-wool, pro-Palestinian, robotic employees of any decision making rank working only on the anti Israeli front. To them, there evidently is no other point of view.
What is wholly incomprehensibly is the way the English people and the establishment put up with this public media monopoly with its astounding bias with little or no protest.

mandelson

@ Derek Blades:
"he BBC rightly and strongly condemned the Chinese government's actions. Melanie must have missed it."

You sound like a refugee from CiF. This is where you are sharing the delusions of what the BBC is for. I do not want the BBC's "strong condemnation" or its endless views, opinions and editorial. Thatis the role of politicians with an agenda. Just report the news impartially and objectively ffs!

cyllan

JAMES

Melanie talks about this becase NOBODY ELSE IN THIS CONTINENT OR AMERICA talks about it.

and neither set of world leaders is prepared to move a muscle unless to help the poor hamasses of this world.

watch the video this is what melanie showed of the people of sderot, they are living like refugees and the BBC knows it and dont report it

Fernando

"That correctly describes the tit-for-tat nature of what is essentially a dispute over land."

Absolutely NOT.

What Jon Donnison actually does, is to falsify the nature of the conflict by denying that there is an aggressor (the Arabs) and a victim of said aggression (Israel). And once he injects that mother-of-all-moral-equivalences-lie, he proceeds to try to sell the rest of his lies.

And the idea that this conflict is about land is also false. The conflict is, and has always been, about the inability of Arabs to come to terms with the political independence of the Jewish people. Period.

"Hamas supporters want back the land that was taken from them at the founding of Israel."

First of all, Hamas supporters seek the eradication of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish people.

Second, your premise to try to whitewash the Hamas murderers is also false. No land whatsoever was taking from anyone with the founding of Israel. NONE.

"Israeli’s want to keep it and are hoping that the Palestinians they have dispossessed will somehow just disappear."

If that were true, then Israel could have simply expelled all Arabs in 1967 from Gaza and Judea & Samaria (I say Arabs because at the time so called "Palestinians" didn't exist as such).

But Israel didn't do that. In hindsight though, Israel should have transfered all Arabs from Gaza to Egypt, and all Arabs in Judea and Samaria to Jordan. Instead the Israelis tried to co-exist, and now they are reaping what they sowed - ie. buses with schoolchildren attacked with antitank weapons by Arab savages.

Edward in the USA

I see that the BBC was founded in 1922. Why does the BBC and its "experimental wireless project" STILL need to be support with mandatory license fees?

Why can't the BBC stand on its own merits, like any other media outlet, and sink or swim on its merits, or lack of?

Neil Turner

I have watched the media carefully over the last few weeks

I looked for evidence of reporting on the Itamar massacre, the dramatic rise in missiles and attacks fired from Gaza, and yesterday's attack on the school bus

I think that the BBC and Sky have a done an "excellent" job in burying these stories. I hope their editorial teams are proud

I recommend that all Israel watchers apply the following tests to what they see reported

1. Moral Equivalance - does the report deliberately confuse the victim and aggressor ? Typical phrases include "cycle of violence". Imagine that applied to the American war in the Pacific in 1942...

2. Photo bias - do the pictures distort the events ? eg a missile is fired from Gaza into Ashkelon, but the picture shows a child in a ghetto in Gaza

3. Chronological Inversion - as with the BBC's account above, does the story start with the response, making it look to the casual observer like Israel is the aggressor ?

4. Cynical Punctuation - the classic here is the use of speech marks, almost always applied to what Israel has said. Almost never applied to what the Palestinians say. Especially if you are Pally "medic", then everything you say is Gospel

Don't expect to see this bias applied to civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya

They get a different set of rules becuase they aren't Jewish

Neil Craig

From that i don't think the BBC can be accused of having reached as high as "moral equivalence" between child murders and their victims. At every point they have put Jamas actions in the back seat and concentrated on the Israeli defence. As normal.

BBC delenda est.

blue_&_white_avenger

John Roosevelt: What's with you and a) the English language & b)builing ? "
5) In return, Israel should announce the immediate freezing of all new settlement building as well as new building within settlements which are likely to remain in any negotiated boarders.

For "boarders - which means in english, people / students who lodge overnight at school - you mean "borders" I think.
Why should "Israel announce" another freeze in building?
Firstly, there are limits on what a government is allowed to do; within the limits of civic restictions on building, planning permission etc. a government may not interfere.
Secondly, since people buy their houses, giving them certain rights to build, why shouldn't they build? You think some Israel government could make such an announcement & expect to survive in power? In your US, people build as & when. Jews have children (unlike most of the Brits), the kids get married & they need housing. Especially, since it's our land; Hamas has plenty of opportunity to build in Gaza - apparently only the party members & those whose families have qualified as suicide bombers need apply

Michael

another rational, fair, and balanced article.

Good grief.

Eugene

"And the BBC is its echo-chamber" - and a most enthusiastic one to boot. From informative to downright evil - and in just one generation - what an amazing agility!

Mark2

Dereck Blades

"Hamas supporters want back the land that was taken from them at the founding of Israel."

Then either you, or they or most probably both of you are being disingenuous. WHAT land are you talking about? Spell it out. If you mean the West Bank east of the 1948 cease fire line the that is certainly not all that Hamas means. Stop hiding behind their blood stained skirts. Gaza was evacuated by Israel - need I tell you what happened.

BalaamsAss

I am afraid the Israel will have to invade Gaza again soon.

Israel should act in its own interests, ignoring foreign noise, and quickly, because a delay could cause tremendous suffering to Israelis.

Y. Sandiford

Thank you.

GaryL

Neil Turner
Your No.3, Chronological Inversion, is the most common journalistic practice in order to frame Israel as the primary aggressor.

GaryL

I object strongly to Israel being called “the victim”. Israel is “the target” not “the victim”. Palestinians are “the victim” – but of their own faith in their hatred of Israelis.

From an online dictionary –

“Victim” – a person who is deceived or cheated, as by his or her own emotions or ignorance, or by the dishonesty of others.

“Victim” – a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

“Target” - an object, usually marked [eg. a yellow school bus] with concentric circles, to be aimed at in shooting practice or contests.

“Target” - anything fired at.

“Target” - an object of abuse, scorn, derision, etc.; butt.

Sean

The problem is a simple one, the news media create and prioritise their reports to match the interests for the majority of their subscribers.

Apart from a few Zionist mouth frothers and the faux leftie jahadists no one actually cares what's happening over there.

The region has had more resources thrown at so many different peace initiatives that the majority of the public in the UK are just bored.

If either side was to actually show a willingness for change then that might get noticed. Until that time then I can only feel pity for the victims on both sides and contempt for the aggressors on both sides.

Thomas

Fernando
April 8th, 2011 12:01pm

"What Jon Donnison actually does, is to falsify the nature of the conflict by denying that there is an aggressor (the Arabs) and a victim of said aggression (Israel)."

I would be very interested how you arrived at this misunderstanding.

Hysteria

the Rubin article in PJM makes a rather more worrying point that Hamas are deliberately preparing for (provoking if possible) war with Israel. And sadly we have leftist milquetoasts as leaders - we live in VERY dangerous times

Neil Turner

Sean 4.25pm
"Apart from a few Zionist mouth frothers and the faux leftie jahadists no one actually cares what's happening over there"

I can think of two anxious parents, sitting by the bedside of a critically ill 16 year old.

The young lad was visiting his gran, and wanted to ride on the school bus with his uncle, who was the driver

You must have a heart like stone

I'd just like you to know that I care

Neil Turner

GaryL

I sort of know where you're coming from with your definitions

However, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "victim" as
"a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action"

I see Israelis as both victims and targets

"both and" not "either or" ?

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 8th, 2011 4:39pm
Fernando
April 8th, 2011 12:01pm

""What Jon Donnison actually does, is to falsify the nature of the conflict by denying that there is an aggressor (the Arabs) and a victim of said aggression (Israel)."

I would be very interested how you arrived at this misunderstanding."

It's called EVIDENCE.
The evidence has been garnered for more than 90 years.
It's very simple.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs
April 8th, 2011 5:57pm

And yet you manage to arrive at your misunderstandings by ignoring the evidence (even when it is put under your nose).

Colin Wright

Propaganda on this level is utterly despicable. It does not even merit a rebuttal.

Tony

"Doubtless had Jon Donnison been reporting from, say, Poland in 1939
he would not have seen fit to observe

both sides seem unable to see the other’s perspective."

We're talking about the same group that virtually banned Sir Winston Churchill from warning what was happening in Germany before WWII aren't we ?
So I'd think that "statement" would have come from them back then too.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 8th, 2011 6:30pm
Truthtriumphs
April 8th, 2011 5:57pm

"And yet you manage to arrive at your misunderstandings by ignoring the evidence (even when it is put under your nose)"

Most, on this blog, agree with me. You are in the extreme minority.

Hatfield

Melanie, the root problem is that Israel does not respect itself. No country, as you mentioned, would suffer attacks without massive retaliation. Don't forget, at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese attack killed 2119 Americans. And for that, we killed (or created conditions so they died) about 3 million Japanese and no one thinks our response was overkill. Yet Israel continues to supply Gaza with power, water and food. Why? Did we send the Japanese and Germans food shipments during WWII? Why not? Weren't they innocent civilians, too, just like the innocent Gazans? The root problem is that Israel doesn't act as if it has self-respect and do what every other country would do. And if you don't respect yourself you shouldn't expect others to do so.

david elder

Blades! Slashing through everything again, especially the facts. So we indulge Hamas and are going to get a peaceful solution from their fanatical one-state demands?

Aaron Jacobs

Thanks melanie keep up your most important work

Niv

Another thing:
" an anti-tank missile fired from the Palestinian territory hit a bus..."
the missile was just fired by itself, no one is responsible. On the other hand: "Israeli tanks, helicopters and planes have struck Gaza..." - now we clearly know that it is Israel.

Great report, Melanie!

Forest Fan

'I am afraid the Israel will have to invade Gaza again soon.'

That's what the Muslim Brotherhood wants..it will win them more votes.

Augustus

The BBC didn't seem to object when the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were occupied by Jordan and Egypt. Those 'occupations' drew not a whimper of protest from the world at large either. So why all the fuss about Israel? Similarly, nothing was wrong when Jordan killed thousands of their fellow Arab
Palestinians and drove just as many as they had killed from their refugee camps into Lebanon. And why were they silent when Kuwait deported Palestinians in the aftermath of the Iraq war? Because in all these cases nobody including the BBC, cared a hoot about the Palestinians, it just gave them no chance to bash Israel.

cyllan

actually there are ways to deal with hamas.

since this is a gaza issue, hamas voted by gazans, the answer is obvious.

after each attack like the bus one or the slaugher of babies last week, israel should close the border to everything for a month.

when the incredible well supplied markets start running out of consummer products gazans will start thinking what is good for them,

maybe it would force some elections.

oh wait ...... gazans cant vote , is a 1 party for life goverment.....!!!!, just like the west , maybe somebody could campaign...... "HOPE AND CHANGE".

seems to be a good slogan.....;)

Derek BLADES

The Hamas rocket was fired at the bus after all the chilfred except one the had left.

Chance or deliberate?

Makevet

The BBC may be 'nauseating' as jzsnake writes but the Telegraph seems to be catching up handily:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8439315/Israel-attacks-Gaza-Strip-in-worst-violence-since-2009-war.html

JOHN ROOSEVELT

The BBC has dumbed itself down to the level of the tabloids: whatever sells, seems to be its credo these days.

On this morning's 07h00 News on Radio 4, there was a report on the current round of vilence between Hmas and Israel. the first two thirds of the bulletin o nly mentioned the Gazan casulaties. There was nothing till that point on the reason for the escalation in violence. No reason given for Israel's attacks - making it sound like it was an arbitrary decision just to persececute innocent Gazans - the implication being, civilians.

In the last third of the report, there was a cursory mention of Israel "believing" Hamas had crossed a red line, by firing an anti tank weapon at a bus as result of which a 16 year "was injured".

IT ended, however, by asserting that "anyway", Israel has killed far more Gazans etc etc...

There was no mention, nor any attempt to underscore that it IS a war crime to deliberately target civilians.

There was no mention of the fact that clearly Hamas has now - since the the Egyptian "revolution" - received an increasing number of sophisticated weapons and the implications of that.

There has been no mention of the attempts of Hamas and Hizbollah, under the aegis of Iran, to buy chemical weapons from the "pro democracy" "rebels" of Libya and the implications of this.

The BBC is unequivocally anti Israel...and it sees this as the popular position, good for the listnership.

However, the reporting itself is of an execrably low standard, by any criteria, let alone the unassailable fact that it is now merely another news organisation with a political axe to grind.

It is time it paid the price i.e. NO MORE LICENSE FEE. Let it go private and take its place amongst all the other rags - and let the market determine whether its bigotry is bought or consigned to the dustbin, where it belongs.

Afterword: the irony that this the BBC report of this morning - like so many of them - was made from jerusalem is lost on most, if not the BBC itself.. That Israel allows it to continue to report - in fact inciting violence against Israel by apololgising for Palestinian war crimes - is a testament to its tolerance. One wonders what that great "democracy" - Iran - would do to these reporters if, form Teheran, they continuously inciting violence against it.

Israel should not stop reacting to Hamas violence. If Hamas stops the violence, then Israel will not atack it. Pretty simple, raeally.

If Hamas and the BBC thinks slitting a three month old baby's throat or blowing up a school bus is ok - whatever the political motive - is just dandy - then there can be no other response but violence against the perpetrators and those who vote them in.

It's not rocket science...or is it?

Neil Turner

I attach below a copy of a letter to the Press Complaints Commission for interest

The Daily Telegraph is at it too....
__________

Headline : Israel attacks Gaza Strip in worst violence since 2009 war

Online : Yes

Link to article : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8439315/Israel-attacks-Gaza-Strip-in-worst-violence-since-2009-war.html

Explanation :

1. The headline infers that Israel initiated this conflict. This misapprehension is compounded in the first few lines of the report. This is a chronological inversion, inferring that Israel instigated the conflict

2. The majority of the report focuses on Israel's reponse, rather than explaining why Israel had to respond, thus making Israel into the "aggressor" and the "Gazans" the victim. This is a moral inversion and highly misleading

3. The reason for Israel's response is played down. "The missile was one of about 50 the Israeli army SAID had been fired across the border on Thursday". There are two facts in play here:

a. Over the last two months Southern Israel has been attacked from Gaza by at least 200 rocket / missile / mortars. This is fact, not what Israel "said"

4. When it comes to the casualties in Gaza no such questioning of the evidence is made: "Immediately after the attack, Israeli forces shelled the border area from which the missile had been fired, killing a 50-year-old man and wounding five others, including a young child. " How do we know this ? Who provided the evidence ?

5. The attack on the bus wa s from around 4 miles away, and therefore must have utilised a highly advanced anti-tank munition. Hamas have been saying for over a week now that they were going to exact revenge for a previous incident. The strong inference therefore is that the attack on the civilian school bus was a wilful, deliberate, act, a breach of UN resolutions, against a civilian target. There is no mention of this in the article

6. The report makes it look like the IDF deliberately attacked civilians in some kind of revenge mission ie tit for tat. THis is a moral inversion, equating the victim (Israel) with the aggressor (Hamas) as Israel was at all times attacking Hamas operatives and facilities. It is well known that Hamas use human shields, and well proven that the IDF's record of care when vivilians are involved is the best of any modern army (according to Col Richard Kemp)

JOHN ROOSEVELT

If people support hamas's crimes against humanity. If people support Hamas's uncontended war crimes..the people have accepted that anything goes.

Thos epeople who apologise and directly support uncontended war crimes against a state, should not be surprised at ANYTHING that state does to influence the prevention of those uncontended crimes.

lord haw was hanged, I believe...

The BBC and their flotilla of ant Israel "reporters" should perhaps think about that.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs,

I'm interested in the pathology.

In an earlier thread, Richard quoted you chapter and verse to show that your made a mistake.

Have you forgotten? Or can you not bring yourself to admit a mistake?

We all make mistakes. It is best to admit to them.

And, with reference to your latest comment to Thomas, do you consider the rest of the contributors here an unbiased sample, at all?

Fernando

"I would be very interested how you arrived at this misunderstanding."

Thomas, I assume you refer to how did I conclude that the Arabs are the aggressor party in this 90 year conflict, not to my denunciation of the BBC as an obvious anti-Israeli propaganda outlet that tries to sell the idea that there is a "cycle of violence" (a journalistic euphemism designed to whitewash one century of violence against the Jews of Israel).

Well, one only needs to look at the Wars Israel has fought.

Every single one of those Wars was forced on her by the Arabs - and yes, I include Sinai 1956, Lebanon 1982 and Lebanon 2006. And then you have the terrorist campaigns, which have systematically targeted civilians and have never ceased.

From the 1929 Hebron massacre, through Israel's acceptance of the partition resolution and its repeated offers for Peace, to the butchering of a family in Itamar just few days ago, a clear pattern emerges, one that demonstrates that if the Arabs laid down their weapons, there will be Peace, and if the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be a Genocide.

Thomas

Fernando
April 9th, 2011 11:12am
It is simply false that 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 were wars of self-defence forced on Israel. We can go through the detailed record if you wish, although it would probably take up too much space for the moderator here to accept.

It is not clear whether 1947-8 can more accurately be called a war of self-defence or of conquest. The civil war began with strikes and sporadic attacks by Palestinians, which the British military called unplanned and uncoordinated, and attacks by Zionists forces, which the British military reported to be organized and efficient and considerably more lethal. The Zionist forces were well organized, armed and battle hardened. They very quickly went on the offensive, and their leaders were supremely confident of victory. They cleansed of Palestinians not just the area designated for them in the partition but well beyond. When the Arab states intervened, it was no longer a question of preventing the establishment of a Zionist state, but of trying to defend the inhabitants. The only one that entered the area designated for the Zionists was Egypt en route to a link-up with the Jordanians. Israel's leaders were supremely confident of victory. In the midst of the fighting Ben Gurion was exulting over the opportunity to take land from Lebanon, Syria and Egypt..

Yom Kippur was a war of self-defence. Even there, many Israeli analysts now see it as much a failure of diplomacy. Sadat had been offering a peace deal since he came to power. Kissinger in effect told him that the US and Israel would ignore his offers unless he could persuade them otherwise. Golda Meir we all know about. Sadat's intention in launching his attack was not to defeat Israel, which he thought impossible, but to force it to the negotiating table. The deal eventually struck was in essentials the one he offered before the war.

The Zionists arrived in Palestine to establish a Jewish state in which they would be at the very least a permanent majority. You expect the inhabitants not to resist?

The Zionists accepted partition quite openly with the intention of disregarding any constraints on their territorial ambitions and plans for population transfers. Why would the Palestinians willingly accept a partition that rode roughshod over their right to self-determination?

Israel's peace ofers have been all about dividing the Palestinians among themselves, confining them in little enclaves easily sealed off, and persuading them to acquire "sovereignty" i.e. set up security forces armed and trained by the US and Israel to relieve Israel of the task of keeping them in place and of the responsibility as occupying power for their welfare. Rabin said as much of Oslo, and this principle has informed all Israel's efforts since. Israel has resolutely refused to negotiate on the peace deal proposed by everyone else from the UN to the Arab League (even for a time some segments of US administrations). When talking amongst themselves they have been quite explicit that they intend to draw out the "pece process" for as long as possible to complete the work of expropriating the land and confining the Palestinians to ghettoes.

And you expect the Palestinians not to resist?

Terrorism against civilians is certainly wrong. Perhaps mass civil disobedience against the occupying power is the last resort (it is not clear that Israel would kill many more of them than it already does).

Celato

Jose Mendoza:

You (and others) will be doubtless be glad to hear that Reuters more than made up for the BBC's sinister use of the word "hit" when describing the bus attack.

According to the agency's globally-circulating report on Israel's retaliatory air strikes on Gaza, "an 11-year-old was fatally hit" and an "elderly Palestinian and two women died earlier when their house was hit".

This, I assume, was perfectly correct use of the word in your view because every civilian death in an Israeli air strike is "unintentional" and "inadvertent" - despite being an unsurprisingly repeated occurrence considering the densely-populated nature of the target (or should that be "victim"?) area.

Hmm ... perhaps the less attention paid to media analysis, the better for Israel.

Augustus

Derek Blades - It's still not a very brave thing to do, to deliberately aim a rocket at a school bus; whether only one 16-year-old was critically injured, or 16 or 20 teenagers were hit. A pity people like you can't admit that.

Regarding the BBC, the thing to do is keep writing to the BBC Trust, it is only they who can overrule editorial bias and reporting. However, the whole BBC has now been taken over by Israel-bashers for so long now I doubt whether even an independent regulator would do any good unless the complaints were truly massive.

Derek BLADES

Fernando tells us that

"Every single one [of the Wars Israel has fought] was forced on her by the Arabs". He specifically mentions the Sinai War and the two Wars on Lebanon. Presumably he includes the War on Gaza as well.

The Kaiser apparently felt that the first World War was "forced" on Germany and perhaps Bush thinks he was "forced" to invade Iraq to save the world from WMDs..

Sorry Fernando, aggressor nations habitually claim that the other fellow started it. Israel's wars have largely been wars of choice. You may fool yourself but please give the rest of us credit for a little common-sense.

Babs

@ John Bele, "..obviously you would write it in a different way..." I don't think you get it, John Bele. Melanie and other clear thinking individuals who have not yet been seduced into the dichotomous "Israel = aggressor, Palestinians = victims" mind set, would write it as objective reality. The bus didn't just get "hit" by an anti-tank missile - terrorists targeted that missile deliberately at a school bus.

I know there are killed and wounded on both sides but until Palestinians are encouraged, forced even to take responsibility for their actions against Israeli civilians, it is racist, infantilising and discriminatory towards them to deprive them of the chance to develop any sort of moral or other agency by giving them a free pass for their actions again and again.

And can you point us to a link where you have advocated writing about peace to any pro-Palestinian website? It does take two to tango.

nage

lets see now...
Palestinians kill Israelis, Palestine offers/calls for cease fire, Israel takes revenge, and because Palestine have called cease fire after their attack, and before Israels retaliation, Israel is made to be aggressor.
How do we wake up the world to what is really going on?
(even here in UK we at least, at first, said that Hamas is a terrorist organization)
Love the blogs Mel

Richard

I am extremely puzzeled by all this warped reporting of the events occurring in Israel. Is it rampant anti-semitism? What is at play here? You are absolutely correct in your assessment of a USA response if indeed 80 rockets were fired from any country into our country. As a teen in 1967, I cheered Israel on..I cheer and grieve with Israel now. The Western powers should unite against the worldwide Arab tyrannyjust as they did against the Nazis in WWII.

John

Notice how little they are saying about the British atrocities in Kenya? Not me says Hague. Has a more graceless, spineless figure represented Britain on the world stage. I used to think the French were past masters in hypocrisy. Presently, I think the Brits outdo them. Is there a European competition for the vilest political hypocrite? It is the FCO/FO that funds the British Bigotry Corporatio.

logdon

From Robin Shepherd...

' To the horror of a European political intelligentsia which has been steadfast to the point of fanatical in its opposition to Israeli “settlements” in east Jerusalem, the Palestinian leadership itself, we now know, has long accepted that the vast majority of Israeli settlements can be considered legitimate and would become part of Israel under any reasonable peace agreement.

This is utterly devastating since it simultaneously shows that everyone from the British Foreign Office and the BBC to the European Commission and the continent’s passionately anti-Israeli NGO community have been adopting a position which was significantly more uncompromising on “settlements” than the Palestinian leadership itself, and also that that same Palestinian leadership had accepted that the so called 1967 “borders” — the gold standard for practically every anti-Israeli polemic around — are irrelevant to the prospects of a lasting peace'.

robinshepherdonline.com/british-foreign-office-bbc-european-liberal-left-devastated-by-leaked-revelations-on-israeli-settlements-guardian-furious-at-%E2%80%9Cweak%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Ccraven%E2%80%9D-palestinian-leadersh/

Edward in the USA

To the BBC and the mandatory license fee...

No taxation without representation!

It worked for the former colonies.

Guierall Moreno

What a bunch of leftist babble and slanted lies. Typical Muslim enablers. What are you people scared of? Tell the truth for once and quit sucking up to these terrorist. It is going to be you fault when they take over your country. You no longer have any cojones.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
April 9th, 2011 10:37am
Truthtriumphs,

"I'm interested in the pathology.
In an earlier thread, Richard quoted you chapter and verse to show that your made a mistake.
Have you forgotten? Or can you not bring yourself to admit a mistake?"

Then you should recognise your own pathologically deluded state of mind.

On many other earlier threads, I, together with many others,
quoted you chapter and verse to show that your made frequent mistakes.
Have you forgotten? Or can you not bring yourself to admit your mistakes?"

SunMan

Its amazing that the BBC can get away with this ongoing, clearly biased position. Its a absolute disgrace.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Is there any expert in International Law who would argue against the the contention that Hamas has committed crimes against humanity/war crimes by targeting civilians deliberately?

The Islamists believe wholeheartedly that anything goes when it comes to wiping out anyone they think their enemy, including 3 month old Jews.

The anti Zionists would never come out and condemn these acts as Crimes against Humanity. Of course some say how aweful these acts are but they always qualify that by saying it's understandable, given the heinous Jew whom these baby killers claim are the enemy.

You cannot condone one stae or non state actor's unequivocal Crimes against Humanity and condemn another's. The Law is the Law and what would the anti Zionists have in their israel deligitimisation box of tricks if not International Law.?

In the absence of International Law being applied to Hamas and the Palestinians in general - not to mention Iran (just killed 30 of its own civilians),, Israel has to take it upon itself, alone, to deal with these killers - anyway it deems fit and to hell with all those who start crying, as a result. Let them bleat to the International Court, if they dare.

.

Okey

The world can take it as a given that the BBC represents institutionalised extremist anti-Zionism, and is , in effect, an integral part of the jihadist-leftist global drive to destroy Israel as a prelude to bringing down liberal capitalist democracy.

Terry in Oz

Mel, this isn't new. Years ago, Israeli kids on a Gaza schoolbus lost their limbs due to a genocide attack. The head of teh arab league went apoptectic over Israel's response - to send helicopters to destroy PA buildings, all prewarned so no genocide murderers would get injured. And if I recall, the bbc back then took up the self righteous indignation that Israel used helicopters, and ignored Jewish kids with their legs blown off. Always the same mantra - Israel must never do anything to upset teh 'peace process'. this must be the peace process which in reality never existed.

Israel must do what is necessary. If this costs genocide murderers'lives, so be it. No arab child will ever die without Israel having been provoked. They stop genocide killings, Israel stops retaliation.

Too hard by far for the bbc to understand, though.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
April 9th, 2011 11:43pm

No, but seriously...

You said you had read the Mandate in detail and many times and it contained NOTHING about Palestinian citizenship.

Richard quoted you the precise clause that concerns itself with Palestinian citizenship.

You went very quiet.

Then the other day you demanded of him scornfully where he had ever proved you to be in error - never, seemed to be your forgetful opinion.

This is nothing to do with competing interpretations of evidence, or differences in ideology. This is a simple question of fact. And you have proved unable to admit to a mistake.

It diminishes yet further your minimal credibility.

Just admit you made a mistake. (You can quote Mark Twain and Martin Luther King if it comforts you.)

Adam B.

Blades, presumably you regard Britain's entry into WW2 as a "war of choice" as well, considering we were not directly threatened at the time, and that consequently we were wrong to be aggressive and wage war on the Nazis?

A "war of choice" is sometimes necessary - especially when faced with an extremist enemy intent on genocide. Waiting for them to land the first blow is not always an option - especially when your country is 9 miles wide, as is the case with Israel.

Celato

Edward in the USA:

The whole point about the BBC is that it is mandated NOT to "represent" anyone.

Its job is to give various factions vying for attention a fair chance to represent their own case.

If Zionists are failing to achieve their aims, you might consider that one reason could be that they are not seeking "balance" in BBC reporting but demanding a propaganda service. Anything that falls short of a wholly uncritical stance on Israel is therefore viewed as treacherous.

Given a choice between a service which at least ATTEMPTS impartiality and one which succumbs meekly to whichever pressure group shouts loudest or has most money, I know which one I would infinitely prefer.

Adam B.

Celato, the BBC does not attempt impartiality, it has a long history of hostility towards Israel. Look at the headline in this instance; the Israeli response is termed as active, whilst the initial Palestinian attack is passive. Indeed, the term "Palestinian" isn't even used, thus the reader is left with the impression of Israeli aggression, instead of a response to a terror attack on a school bus. The fact that it was a school bus carrying children was not even initially reported, and, as always, the Israeli response gets reported before the attack which initiated the violence. If you have looked at BBc headlines over several years (and Trevor asserson has done sterling work in this regard), you will note that this is part of a pattern, not a one off. It is the consistency of that pattern which is the problem.

Why doesn't the BBc release the Balen report, which was paid for by us?

gareth

Thank God for the internet - the BBC are losing credibility daily. Also CNN. ha ha.

sleeping dolls

Roosevelt:
I think people do expect a higher standard of Israel than from the palestinians. Would you prefer that they didn't?

"Israel has to take it upon itself, alone, to deal with these killers - anyway it deems fit and to hell with all those who start crying, as a result."

Like the mothers of palestinian children inadvertantly killed? (Note the use of the word inadvertantly)

Of course, if what many here claim - that israeli military operations led to a) only the perpetrators of the crime being killed or injured, or b) a stop to the violence being targeted at Israel, then people might take a different view of those military operations.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, the only time the violence stopped was a result of negotiations.

Do you want the violence to stop? Or is it more important to punish? Simples.

logdon

Here's a video which should be distributed far and wide.

BBC bias debunked, slice by slice on their prediliction of taking an islamist viewpoint time after time.

It specifically adresses the recent 'Walk in the Park' dross and misinformation pumped out by Jane Corbyn.

www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wqoOWYZZu8k

Elizabeth

The Hamas has intentionally aimed its anti-tank missile at a YELLOW SCHOOL BUS knowing that it will have CHILDREN on-board. The only thing they did not know was that this particular bus at that particular moment had only one child on-board. The child was critically wounded, and the bus driver was also severely wounded. Their intension was to mass-murder tens of children.

Celato

Adam B

You seem to think that someone contributing to these blogs has "insider" knowledge about the Balen Report but is refusing to disclose its findings. As far as I can see from discussions on the subject so far, you are doomed to disappointment.

All I - and you - can do is speculate. So my recommendation is that you look back at the speculation (occupying acres of space, and to which you yourself contributed) on the thread headlined "An MP speaks out against the BBC on Israel". (My view, for what it's worth, is broadly in line with Tilly's - you can look that up for yourself if you're really interested; alternatively, stop nagging at this tired old bone until such time as some new - and concrete - information comes to light.)

As for the "anti-Israel bias" analysis offered by Melanie, you and others, my observations are these:

1. If you look at the BBC report in full, it seems to be falling over backwards to give both sides a fair hearing - so much so, that the story is a right old jumble. Melanie's main objection seems to be that the perspective from Gaza isn't "worthy" of serious consideration - she WANTS bias from the BBC on this, wants the Beeb to take a clear "moral" position aligning itself with Israel. This is an unreasonable demand on an institution mandated to strive for impartiality. You're fighting a losing battle on this front - and quite rightly so.

2. Active and passive lexis: often a good guide to the sympathies/opinions of the author, but not if picked out selectively and passages which don't fit the expected pattern are ignored. In this story both sides seem to be portrayed as acting aggressively and defensively in roughly equal measure - quite an achievement, considering the casualty disparities. The headline you object to clearly has Israel responding (actively) to an (active) attack - nothing inaccurate or "biased" about that; failure to use the word "Palestinian" in headline in no way misleads the reader into thinking some other group was responsible for attacking the bus. Who ELSE would it be...?

3. Use of the word "militants" rather than "terrorists". Quite apart from the fact that "terrorism" implies no motive other than a wish to inspire terror (rather than identifying political aims), in the ME context it is particularly misleading because conventional military action is not an option for those on one side of the conflict. Every violent action, ranging from the suicide bombing of a crowded cafe to stone-throwing at approaching tanks, is thus defined by Israel as "terrorism" - and that's just plain wrong. Anyone with half a brain cell can see the propagandist ploy involved. And quite correctly the BBC tries to avoid embroilment in this exercise.

4. The one thing no-one here seems to have a clue about is the significance of "news values" when analysing the priority given to certain events. The reason the bus attack didn't warrant as much attention as responsive air strikes had nothing to do with "anti-Israel bias" but with the comparative levels of death and destruction involved. Put simplistically, two people injured may perhaps trigger a paragraph; four deaths and 35 injured will always trigger proportionally more. If Israel seriously wishes itself to be seen as a pussycat, it cannot simultaneously behave like a roaring tiger and expect the world not to notice.

Hope this helps,
Celato

Danny Black

Derek BLADES, when exactly was it "their land"? Thats ignoring the fact that virtually all of the people in the Gaza strip never ever lived anywhere else. Even if we pretend that is true, exactly what in your mind justifies firing a missile at a school bus?

Danny Black

sleeping dolls, the violence stopped in 2003 for six months because Israel killed the top leadership of Hamas. The border with Syria has been silent because their army got wiped out in 1973. The border with Lebanon has been mostly silent since 2006 because of the pounding Hizbollah got and the West Bank has been mostly silent since 2004 because of the terrorists being either dead or unable to get to Israel.

On the other hand when there were negotiations in 1993, there wwas a spike in terror attacks in Israel and again in 2000.

Danny Black

Derek BLADES, so you are claiming it is a targeted assasination of a 16 year old boy by Hamas? What about the pizzerias and schoolbuses they targeted before that were not empty...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Sleeping dogs: "Roosevelt:
"I think people do expect a higher standard of Israel than from the palestinians. Would you prefer that they didn't?"

Really? Who? The Left? islamists" Those who support them? What's your point?

"Israel has to take it upon itself, alone, to deal with these killers - anyway it deems fit and to hell with all those who start crying, as a result."

Like the mothers of palestinian children inadvertantly killed? (Note the use of the word inadvertantly)"

In war, people get killed. Israel does more than any other army in the universe to avoid civilian casualties. Hams, in contrast deliberately targets them. Spot the difference? There certainly is on under International Law.

"Of course, if what many here claim - that israeli military operations led to a) only the perpetrators of the crime being killed or injured, or b) a stop to the violence being targeted at Israel, then people might take a different view of those military operations."

I certainly have not claimed that. Clearly, people take a different view of those operations. Goldstone did - at first. He seems to have changed his mind.

"But, correct me if I'm wrong, the only time the violence stopped was a result of negotiations."

Depends what you mean by "stopped"? Do you mean "forever"? We haven't got there, yet, but your point is meaningless if you are suggesting the inference should be that israel should not react to the deliberate targeting and massacres of its civilians. It is moralistic doublespeak.

"Do you want the violence to stop? Or is it more important to punish? Simples.`'

I think the most important aim is to have peace. How to get there is another matter. I think punishment has its place, particularly with regards to those who deliberately target civilians, thus unequivocally committing Crimes Against Humanity which - hitherto - have gone unpunished under International Law - the same Law cited by islamists and anti Zionsits - incessantly - in order to delegitimise the state of Israel - a crucial tactic in its war to eliminate israel and reverse the Nakba of '48..

You cannot have have it both ways. You cannot celebrate your murdering of the innocents (read Qaradawi on this and Qutb) and then expect those you accuse of doing the same to be punished under the Law - even if you could prove they had done so (and not even the venerable jurist, Goldstone, has manged to do so, it seems).

We need no further proof that Hamas and other islamist groups - Palestinian and others - are guilty of crimes against Humanity. NONE WHATSOEVER. If the International Court does not bring that group to trial and punish it - with the full force of the Law - then Israel has to do so. Simple.

Fernando

"It is simply false that 1956, 1967, 1982, 2006 were wars of self-defence forced on Israel."

Of course they were Wars of self-defence, initially provoked by Arab attacks that amounted to textbook Acts of War. Moreover, in some cases these were in literal breach of the armistice agreements:

In 1956 it was the closing of the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping; Nasser's use of Arab terrorists, or fedayeen, trained and equipped by Egyptian Intelligence to engage in hostile action on the border and to infiltrate Israel to commit acts of sabotage and murder, including the murder of civilians; the Egyptian blockade of Israel's shipping lane in the Straits of Tiran - and all these Acts of War, were duly echoed with unbelibeably violent threats into the bargain, like this one by Nasser himself dated October 14th, 1956:

"I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations"

Who was looking for a War here?

In 1967 it was again the closing of the Straits of Tiran, along with the Egyptians ejection of the UN peacekeeping force from the Sinai; the PLO's attacks on Israeli civilians from Lebanon that had been going on for years before the IDF ivaded souther Lebanon in 1982; the Party of God numerous attacks accross the border after Israel withdrew from all of south Lebanon and culminated with the final outrage on July 12th 2006 killing and kidnapping IDF soldiers and firing Katyusha rockets and mortar shells at Israel's northern borders' communities and IDF posts.

And so on....Every single one of the Arab Israeli Wars without exception has been started by the Arabs. It is a matter of historical record, and there is simply no way to deny it, or to dilute Casus Belli that are crystal clear - even for the layman.

Adam B.

Celato, neither you, nor Tilly, has given a reasonable explanation as to why you think it right that the BBC covers up a report about its own impartiality, paid for by us. You are right - neither you nor I know what the report contains. But we do know that the report has been suppressed, and that the BBC has gone to some considerable lengths to keep it from the very public who pay for it (spending £200,000 of licence fee payers' money to date). I believe in tranparency of public bodies. You, apparently, do not.

It is ludicrous to say that the BBC is impartial in its reporting - indeed, no such thing exists. The very fact that certain stories are cocvered at all, and in a particular order, whilst others are steadfastly ignored, itself constitutes a bias. Every news organization is guilty of it, it's just that the BBC pretends that it is something which it patently is not. You talk about the use of the term "terrorist". The BBC had no compunction calling the bombing of its own London offices by the IRA "terrorism" (an attack which harmed precisely no-one), nor did it struggle to call the Mumbai atrocity "terrorism". Yet whenever Israelis are murdered in a Palestinian suicide attack, or a school bus is targeted by a sophisticated Russian Komet rocket launcher, as in this case, it cannot bring itself to label it terrorism.

The list of the BBC's bias is too long for here - look at Trevor Asserson's forensic analysis of the BBC.

And, by the way, I find it interesting that, on these blogs, those who spring to the BBC's defence just happen to be relentessly critical of Israel.

Must be just a coincidence.

Fernando

"Sorry Fernando, aggressor nations habitually claim that the other fellow started it. Israel's wars have largely been wars of choice."

All those Wars were started by the Arabs. The fact that perhaps in some cases they could be defined as Wars of choice (as opposed to existential Wars like 1948 or 1967 when the very existence of Israel as a nation was in the line) does not mean AT ALL that Israel was the aggressor party.

For instance, and since you bring it up: Israel has no obligation to allow Hamas play the russian roulette with its kindergadens - so talking about common sense....if that doesn't make a clear Casus Belli, what on Earth does?

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
April 10th, 2011 10:57am

Truthtriumphs
April 9th, 2011 11:43pm

"Richard quoted you the precise clause that concerns itself with Palestinian citizenship.
This is nothing to do with competing interpretations of evidence, or differences in ideology. This is a simple question of fact. And you have proved unable to admit to a mistake".

Wrong---on every count.
Here are the relevant parts of the document, which you and Richard willfully misinterpret to serve your own ends.

Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

ART. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You distort the meaning of the words "Palestinian citizenship" to mean what you would like them to mean, namely, that there was then an independent, sovereign, functioning state/country called Palestine.
There is no ambiguity in the intention of the league to RECONSTITUTE the Jewish national home in the geographical area known as Palestine, which is all it ever was.
It was to be a Jewish state, and, obviously, as there had been no decision at that time as to the name of the future state, the term Palestinian was used.
Indeed, until 1948, it was only Jewish organisations within Palestine, that bore the name, such as Palestine Post, Palestine Symphony Orchestra etc.,not the Arab ones.
There cannot be more than one sovereign national home in any one piece of territory, and the fact that the Mandate stressed the civil and religious rights of the non Jewish existing population there, and omitted the political rights, rather confirms its intentions.

Your mischievious misreading of the Mandate document, is a piece of sophistry designed to fool people into thinking that the Jews were interlopers in a functioning, existing country called Palestine, who stole it from the indigenous inhabitants.
Again, I challenge you to demonstrate proof of this fictional entity....who were its heads of state, what was its currency, language, borders, government etc. etc.?
You cannot, because it never existed.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
April 10th, 2011 12:23pm

Edward in the USA:

"The whole point about the BBC is that it is mandated NOT to "represent" anyone.

Given a choice between a service which at least ATTEMPTS impartiality and one which succumbs meekly to whichever pressure group shouts loudest or has most money, I know which one I would infinitely prefer."

You clearly favour the latter, because only someone with a warped sense of humour could equate the BBC with the former.
And you can add to the latter, a service which has an ideological, pre-determined mindset of the hard left, which holds the truth and factual evidence to be inconvenient obstacles, should they contradict its mindset.
Read what Peter Sissons had to say about it---- he should know---he was a top anchor man at its newsdesk for 20 years.
You were not.

Ian Hills

I have now stopped subscribing to the Jew-baiting BBC, and suggest that all decent-minded people do the same as me. Note, you don't have to let them in.

Drakken

There will be no peace solution untill the islamists are utterly totally defeated, the time has come to say the hell with world opinion and take the gloves off and do a Shermans march to the sea in Gaza. This is the only language those savages understand and I say give it to them in spades. You could give everything those savages want and they will never be satisfied untill Israel is no more.

Neil Turner

Folks, if you support Israel, and want to make a difference, I suggest you ignore Derek Blades etc and concentrate on writing to...

- the Press Complaints Commission

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html

- your MP

http://www.writetothem.com/

- the BBC Complaint site (yes I know they ignore it but they have to log it)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

Adam B.

Neil Turner, I agree completely. I would just like to add that when complaining to the BBC, it is important to escalate the complaint once one receives the inevitable initial brush off. The BBC usually respons with a standard email. It is only when the complaint is escalated to the next level, the Editorial Complaints Unit, that complaints get noticed. Beyond the ECU, take the complaint to the BBC Trust. It gets noticed at these higher levels. It is ridiculous that the BBC sits in judgment of itself, but that is the absurd situation which exists.

Thomas

Fernando
April 10th, 2011 11:25pm
Perhaps we will indeed need to go through each of these one by one.

Here is just one example. In 1967, Israel claimed at the UN that Egypt had attacked it first. when no-one swallowed it, Israel had to retract and admit that it started the hostilities. didn't stop it loudly maintaining it was a war of self-defence nonetheless. And because its friends are the US and Europe, its claim was not looked at too carefully.

In Lebanon, in 1982, Ariel Sharon had concocted a grandiose plan to set up a friendly regime in Beirut (Phalangists) and expell the PLO once and for all. Unfortunately, the PLO refused to respond to all manner of provocations, including the killling of schoolchildren in their school, and maintained the ceasefire Israel was breaching (as it tends to). Israel had to pretend the shooting of a diplomat in Europe by a different organization constituted an attack on it that required it to unleash a war of "self-defence" on the Lebanon.

As I say, we could go into the details if you require, but I suggest wider reading.

Adam B.

Thomas, this is revisionist nonsense. In 1967, it was Egypt who ordered the UN peacekeepers out. Now why did they do that? Then it was Egypt who illegally closed the Straight of Tiran. Egypt then massed its troops in the Sinai, whilst Nasser publicly proclaimed his intention of wiping Israel out. Jordan joined the military alliance of Egypt and Syria, and declarations of itent to commit genocide against the Jews of Israel were made by all three. Meanwhile, fedayeen attacks against Israeli civilians had been carried out by these three countries for years.

All cxlearly manifestations of peaceful intent by these Arab states. Who are you trying to kid?

C.d.G.

"Just imagine what the response of Britain or America would be if they were bombarded by more than 80 rocket attacks in one week. They would regard themselves as in a state of war, and they would respond, as any country would, with all the force at their disposal to end such attacks on their people".
Sorry, Melanie, not so sure it would happen as you wish. THAT was the normal reaction IN THE PAST. Now, the Western nations are in a action-reaction mood no more! Just wait and see.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 11th, 2011 10:52am
Fernando
April 10th, 2011 11:25pm

"Perhaps we will indeed need to go through each of these one by one.

Here is just one example. In 1967, Israel claimed at the UN that Egypt had attacked it first. when no-one swallowed it, Israel had to retract and admit that it started the hostilities. didn't stop it loudly maintaining it was a war of self-defence nonetheless".

Your pompous language does little to conceal a monumental ignorance of history on your part.

Re. the Six Day War, Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.

These were:--
1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack.
2. Closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran).
3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai.
4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai.
5. Perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoitre Israeli sensitive areas.
6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.

In addition, Nasser proclaimed his intention to destroy the Jewish state.

Israel could have legally launched a defensive war after any one of these casus belli. It chose, instead to try diplomacy, which not only failed to resolve the problem, but gave Egypt and Syria time to accelerate their own preparations for invasion.

Perhaps it's you who needs to go in for a bit of "wider reading".

Celato

Adam B:

So, I have failed to give you a "reasonable explanation" for the BBC's refusal to publish the Balen Report...

Here's an idea: Why don't you tell me exactly what you want me to say; then badger me endlessly to repeat what you've told me to say; then, when I finally can't stand your pestering any more and post your statement under my name word-for-word, you can crow about how you "won" the argument.

Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve - that, after all, seems pretty well to sum up the Zionist approach to tackling the issue of "anti-Israel bias" where the BBC is concerned.

If you think a report fails to cast Israel in the same idealised light you demand, keep up a barrage of complaints until it submits. (How revealing your conversation with Neil Turner is, incidentally: maybe you can't galvanise ENOUGH complaints, but you sure can raise a fine storm by reiterating your own!)

It may surprise you to know that there is a substantial body of research suggesting that this bullish approach actually seems to work - though evidently not to your impossibly high standards of satisfaction.

Zionists are not alone in analysing the BBC's coverage. Those complaining of PRO-Israel bias cite studies suggesting that the Beeb is so intimidated by complaints and hate-mail accusations of anti-Semitism, Nazism, left-wing conspiracy, etc (just the sort of stuff spookily echoed in these blogs) that its reports and commentary are disproportionately skewed in Israel's favour.

(Your cue now for yelling about the "Jewish lobby myth" - but you can't have it both ways, Adam; either you are working effectively as a team to combat BBC bias, or you're just a bunch of disorganised mavericks, flapping about in the dark...)

My personal impression is that the BBC does indeed exude anxiety in leaning towards Israel's perspective, but (thankfully) still has the guts to avoid the overt, in-your-face imbalance you require.

Among the reasons I suspect it is able to resist the pressure is this: You keep citing "evidence" of bias produced by researchers (like Trevor Asserson) whose clear mission is to support Israel through thick and thin. Conflicting "evidence" is produced by equally dedicated pro-Palestinian researchers, using much the same self-serving analytical techniques. Then there are studies by rather more dispassionate, academically rigorous researchers (eg Glasgow Media Group) tending to support the overall finding of PRO-Israel bias.

The amount of clamour made by each faction isn't half as important as the QUALITY of evidence presented - and judging by the standards of textual analysis presented in this thread, I'd say the BBC could breathe quite a sigh of relief.

Impartiality, I quite agree, is impossible (all I actually said was the BBC's mandate was to strive for it, which IS a worthwhile exercise). If what you want is blatant, wholly uncritical partisanship, then for God's sake be honest about it - and don't present pathetically easy-to-counter claims that Israel is being "bashed" by the Beeb.

I'd hate to see you win by such honest endeavour, of course, because that would ultimately spell the death of free speech, but that's just a nutty old fear of Stalinist, Nazi, Maoist propaganda spectres, I guess...

Neil Turner

Adam B

Noted, thanks

Website http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/handle.shtml

Derek BLADES

@ Neil Turner

In you complaint to the BBC about its report on the current upsurge in border skirmishes you wrote "Hamas have been saying for over a week now that they were going to exact revenge for a previous incident."

Was the "previous incident" you referred to the IDF bombardment that killed 14 Gazans including women and children and left nearly 50 persons injured?

Or was it another one you had in mind?

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
April 11th, 2011 12:14am

You now at least say that the Mandate does indeed talk of Palestinian citizenship. This is progress, but not much. Now you insist on an interpretation of Palestinian citizenship that is not tenable.

It is not at all clear what you think the status of Palestine under the Mandate. It is fortunate for our discussion that those engaged in its administration were quite clear.

I will not go through every relevant treaty or court case which shows the community of states treating Palestine as one of its number. The fact that treaties were made in Palestine's name and published in the League of Nations Treaty Series is sufficient. The League of Nations gave Britain the power to sign such treaties, but the capacity to make them vested in Palestine (see A McNair on the Law of Treaties).

On nationality, you cite Article 7 of the Mandate. (Richard's efforts were not in vain.) By Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the nationality of Ottoman nationals resident in Palestine was transferred from Turkey to Palestine. Article 7 of the Mandate required Britain to enact a “nationality” law to provide for the acquisition of “citizenship”.

(“Nationality” is the proper term for an individual's connection to a state, in an international context, a connection that puts the state under obligations and bestows rights on the individual. In this context, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. “Citizenship” is commonly the term used in domestic legislation to identify individuals enjoying certain rights under the law of a particular state.)

Britain enacted the Palestinian Citizenship Order on July 24 1925 as an order in council. The Palestine administration then adopted a Passport Ordinance issuing passports marked “British Passport. Palestine.” The Palestine administration extended citizenship to its inhabitants, granted naturalization to immigrants and issued passports for travel.

Pierre Ortis was Chair of the Permanent Mandate Commission. He was the person responsible for ensuring that the system was correctly administered, conforming to the intentions of the League of Nations. He took Article 7 to reflect Palestinian statehood: “the mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”

You repeat the mistake about the reconstitution of a Jewish National Home. I am sure you have read Lord Curzon's memo to the cabinet before they finalised their agreement to the form of words in the Mandate, “while Mr. Balfour's declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home – an extension of the phrase for which there is no justification” Balfour agreed with Curzon on this.

You say there cannot be more than one “sovereign national home in any one piece of territory”. The crucial word here is “sovereign”. No-one undertook to establish a sovereign state for the Jews represented by the Zionists. As I said at the outset, it is not clear what you think was the status of Palestine under the Mandate. The simple and obvious answer, the one you resist, is the correct one – Palestine was a sovereign state temporarily administered by the Great Powers. (I am not sure why you insist, somewhat frantically, that I name its currency or language or head of state...none of these are necessary or sufficient.)

Derek BLADES

@ Elizabeth

You wrote "The Hamas has intentionally aimed its anti-tank missile at a YELLOW SCHOOL BUS knowing that it will have CHILDREN on-board."

I could equally well write "Hamas deliberately waited until the children had left the bus before attacking it."

I would not write that because I have no reason to believe it is true or false. But then neither do you know if your statement is true or false.

Augustus

It's obvious that Hamas are the instigators in this war of attrition. The '80 rockets in a week' were followed by another 130 this
past weekend alone. Now Hamas says it wants a cease-fire, presumably so it can smuggle in another lot of far-reaching rockets. The sooner Hamas is totally destroyed the better
and when that happens the Gazans will thank the IDF for it.

Adam B.

Oh Celato, you don't need to be so emotional! You have consistently defended the BBC's decision not to publish a report about its own impartiality. You have not provided a reason why you think neither you nor I should see it. I don't see how such secrecy can be defended, unless you think we are all children who couldn't popssibly handle what the report states.

The mere fact that there are those who claim the BBC is too pro-Israel says precisely nothing about the BBC itself. So what? It is the merit of such arguments which should be examined - not the mere fact that such an argument exists at all. Impartiality does not mean you take two sides of an argument, then split the difference. Have you looked at Trevor Asserson's work? If so, do you think it inaccurate?

And as for your clumsy accusations about being part of a lobby, what exactly do you mean about having it "both ways", and who exactly is having it both ways? I think the BBC is institutionally and profoundly biased. I am entitled to say so, and equally I am entitled to complain to this public body, which insists on taking my money as a tax on watching TV. This, to you, makes me part of a sinister "organized" lobby, as if I am secretly taking orders from a bunker in Jerusalem (and the racist connotations that your accusation implies). Why is it that one never hears of a pro-Palestinian lobby, or a pro-Arab lobby, just a "Jewish lobby" or "Zionist lobby"? Is the "lobby" accusation saved just for Jews, or, in your convenient smoke screen parlance, "Zionists"? Do you think that there is no pro-Palestinian lobby? What are you then?

Celato

Truthtriumphs:

Peter Sissons seems to have enjoyed a very long, star-studded, lucrative career with the BBC until he was 60 years old. Happy as a lamb in clover he was. Then he got moved sideways to a less central (but still pretty glitzy) spot and remained there for another seven years.

Still no moans about left-wing mindsets ... but mounting bitterness at BBC ageism, the promotion of younger staff, huge pay-cheques to certain celebrity presenters ... and off he eventually goes in a huff (somewhat past normal retirement age) to write a book syndicated by the Daily Mail (which frowns very strongly indeed on left-wing mindsets and hates the BBC with almost as much passion as you do).

Not, perhaps, the most reliable source. Any other bright ideas?

mandelson

I see the BBC is up to its hide the inconvenient facts about the religion of peace again by not mentioning the Brazilian school massacre was carried out by a sufferer of sudden jihad syndrome. Why do we pay this polltax!

Adam B.

Celato - you don't need a source. All you need is access to the BBC's output, and a mind of your own, to know that this organization has a whole swathe of biases.

Neil Turner

Fascinating information on the IDF's website:

http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/2011/04/1108.htm

In the month of March, terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip, led by Hamas, fired more than 90 rockets and mortar shells towards southern Israel. Despite the escalation, the IDF continued to transfer medical and humanitarian aid to the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Israel permitted the entry of 3,656 trucks carrying goods (mainly food and medical supplies) to the Gaza Strip in March via the Kerem Shalom border crossing

C.Gee

Celato:

Your defense of the BBC is sufficient evidence of its anti-Israel bias.

On the one side, you have pro-Palestinians say the BBC is not telling the truth of Israel’s evil because it is intimidated by accusations of anti-semitism.

On the other side, you have pro-Israelis say the BBC is not painting Israel in an ideal light.

The middle ground? Criticizing Israel to the point of receiving accusations of anti-semitism. That is exactly where the BBC locates itself. Israel is as evil as the institution wishes to paint it, and its receiving accusations of anti-semitism validates its reporting as balanced: somewhere between the Palestinian truth about Israel and the Israeli lie about itself.

Fernando

"In 1967, Israel claimed at the UN that Egypt had attacked it first."

Egypt indeed attacked first in 1967, beginning the War with its decision to close the Gulf of Aqaba to Israeli shipping and to remove UN troops from Sinai.

Thus, the AGGRESSION was started by Egypt when it closed the Straits of Tiran and kicked out the UNEF from the Sinai in violation of the armistice agreement.

On the morning of June 5th 1967, Israel simply took the INITIATIVE.

Spot the difference?

As for Jordan, Prime Minister Eshkol sent repeated messages to King Hussein promising not to attack Jordan unless Jordan attacked first. With no avail: Jordan started the hostilities by shelling Israeli civilians with heavy artillery. I repeat, Jordan deliberately targeted civilians with heavy artillery in cold blood. It is not easy to grasp the sheer brutality involved in that action.

For its part, Syria joined the attack from the get-go. Hafid al-Assad, from the al-Assad crime family, is quoted by the prominent expert Michael Oren ordering his Syrian soldiers to "strike the enemy's [civilian] settlements, turn them into dust, pave the Arab roads with the skulls of Jews" and characterizing the forthcoming attack on Israel as "battle of annihilation".

Truthtriumphs

Herzen
April 11th, 2011 3:12pm

"You repeat the mistake about the reconstitution of a Jewish National Home. I am sure you have read Lord Curzon's memo to the cabinet before they finalised their agreement to the form of words in the Mandate, “while Mr. Balfour's declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home – an extension of the phrase for which there is no justification”.

Lord Balfour suggested an alternative which was accepted.

"Whereas recognition has thereby [i.e. by the Treaty of Sèvres] been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the [sentimental] grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country ..."

The truth is , it doesn't matter a fig what Curzon did or didn't say... the Mandate was ratified unanimously by all 51 members of the league of nations, some 5 years later.
Sadly for you , I repeat that the language of the Mandate document was unambiguous in calling for the RECONSTITUTION of the Jewish national home in Palestine, on fact, in a mere 23% of it. Unambiguous in that it was only the Jews who ever held sovereignty there, in the shape of two countries for over 1,000 years.
It was also made crystal clear that the Arabs were to enjoy their self-determination in 4 other mandates... do you have a problem with that, or is it just with Jewish self-determination?

"As I said at the outset, it is not clear what you think was the status of
Palestine under the Mandate. The simple and obvious answer, the one you resist, is the correct one – Palestine was a sovereign state temporarily administered by the Great Powers".

The definition of a sovereign state is one which administers its own government, and is not dependent upon, or subject to, another power.

That rather blows your little theory out of the water, doesn't it?
You still cannot name any of the institutions of the so-called Palestinian state that would enable it to be considered a sovereign state.

In any event, this is a pointless discussion..... Israel, is a sovereign state, disappointingly for you, and you can Finkler away playing with words to your heart's content, but nothing will change that.

Truthtriumphs

Celato
April 11th, 2011 5:30pm
Truthtriumphs:

"Peter Sissons seems to have enjoyed a very long, star-studded, lucrative career with the BBC until he was 60 years old. Happy as a lamb in clover he was.
Still no moans about left-wing mindsets ... but mounting bitterness at BBC ageism etc.
Not, perhaps, the most reliable source. Any other bright ideas?"

You cannot counter Sissons arguments and well-founded accusations, so you launch into an ad hominem attack agaist him....familiar tactic of the left, but we can all see through it.

So, what is Trevor Asserson's motive for his damning, ongoing assessment of the BBC bias?
He is a highly regarded and successful lawyer, with no axe to grind, and his reports are academic and taken seriously.
What nasty excuses can you make for the conclusions he comes to?

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
April 12th, 2011 12:18am

Just a footnote to your repetition of your mistakes (or Zionist propaganda tropes):

What Curzon had to say to the British cabinet does have some bearing. He, and they, were finalising the terms of the treaty and clarifying and confirming its correct interpretation, with which Balfour agreed.

And perhaps you should study the legal implications of the League of Nations Covenenant and Mandates and subsequent treaties and court cases beofre declaring by fiat that Palestine was not recognized as a state.

You have yet to tell me what you think the status of Palestine was.

Celato

Adam B, C.Gee, Truthtriumphs:

Your collective responses are a perfect illustration of why the allegations of bias you level at the BBC are almost certainly distorted.

The only "bias" I have expressed (C.Gee) is against the BBC's capitulation to undue pressure from vested-interest lobbies to control the news agenda. I am strongly opposed to the BBC acting as an organ of propaganda - whether for Zionists, or Hamas, or the Hedgehog Protection Fund.

Yet you selectively ignore any comments I make indicating this position (eg, acknowledging the dubious quality of pro-Palestinian research as "self-serving") because all you WANT to see is confirmation of your own perspective. Anything falling short of that is "anti-Israel".

Same goes, I am now increasingly convinced, for the quality of your complaints to the BBC. You watch a news item which gives Israel plenty of opportunity to explain its position - to defend itself against criticism and level criticism against its foes - but notice ONLY those interludes granted to an opposing view. Even if it transpires that Israel is given measurably more space, you will object that the balance is wrong ("terrorists don't deserve ANY"); if a Palestinian attack on civilians is described by the news anchor as a "slaughter" and retaliatory bombing of Gaza as a "strike", you will complain that the words should have been "cold-blooded, mindless slaughter" and "self-defensive strike" - just so the audience can be left in no doubt that Palestinians are always evil aggressors and Israelis are always hallowed martyrs. (God forbid that the moronic masses might see shades of grey in such a black-and-white moral issue...)

You seem to find it extraordinary (anti-Semitic, no less) that those outside the conflict should see events in anything other than the way the directly-engaged combatants on one side (i.e, yours) see it.

Would you seriously expect a reporter in Ivory Coast to place him/herself "in the skin" of fighters there?

Adam: You rather bafflingly tell me I "don't need a source" - just "a mind of my own" - to know that the BBC has "a whole swathe of biases" (against Israel, presumably); yet you refer me repeatedly to Trevor Asserson and seem utterly convinced that the Balen Report reflects your point of view. Why should these sources be of any relevance to me if the "bias" is so patently obvious?

Quite simply, it's because bias is NOT obvious when viewed through partisan blinkers - whether your blinkers or mine. None of us (as you pointed out in a moment of clarity) is capable of complete impartiality; so the best we can do to arrive at empirical confirmation of our "gut feelings" is to employ analytical techniques which leave as little room for doubt as possible.

I've tried to find an example of Asserson's research, but because I don't have access to Pdf files, all I know at the moment is that he claims to be "objective" (which he is not) and that his findings conflict with other findings. Why this should be the case, I can't tell without knowing what his methodology is, but I rather doubt it matches up either to the academic rigor or scope of analysis produced by the Glasgow Media Group to which I've referred you.

If I have a chance later, I'll summarise these findings, but in the meantime you might try googling "Vist: Bad News from Israel Glasgow Media Group". Another report of interest might be one produced by an external panel commissioned by the BBC in the wake of Balen (yes, indeed!) which you can find by searching for the BBC's Independent Panel Report chaired by Sir Quentin Thomas, published April 2006.

Finally, Truthtriumphs: May I suggest that your dedication to truth is not aided by failing to take account of motives, politics, representativeness, etc, etc, when citing the opinions of individuals to pass judgment on a vast and multi-faceted institution's ethos. It just makes you look silly.

J

We have the same sort of deal with 'our" ABC (Australia).

Adam B.

Celato, I quite specifically said that neither you nor I know what the Balen report contains, so your accusations that I think it must necessarily back my own views are withort foundation. I have no idea whether the report points to anti-Israel bias - it may, it may not. Neither do you. My point is that it is wrong that the BBC, as a public body which receives public money, and which keeps pronouncing itself to be "impartial", has reports about this very "impartiality" kept secret from the public - even when challenged to release it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Have you looked at Trevor Asserson's work? You seem to dismiss it, whilst refusing to engage with any substantive points about it.

I have not claimed, and would never claim, that the BBC must mirror my own views. Indeed, it should not be in the pocket of any lobbies - a pity then that it is (and I still regard your claim about "lobbies" as sinister - I note you haven't addressed your previous accusations). But to say that anyone who thinks the BBC is biased must only be of that view becaause the organization does not refelct one's own views is nonsensical - and demonstrates that, when examining the BBC's output, you are of a rather naive disposition. As I pointed out, true impartiality is impossible for any news network, and it is high time this myth of BBC impartiality was dropped.

For what it's worth, I think the BBC is highly selective, manipulative, and downright inaccurate in much of its reporting. I base this view from looking at the BBC's output over several years, and noting a consistency of its stance on a range of topics. One also notices a regular pattern of distortion and selectivity. Also knowing several people who work at the organization - every single one of whom is on the left, (I know one person who got the job specifically because they had the "correct" world view) and anti-American and anti-Israel (and usually rather ignorant of world events and history).

Thomas

Fernando,
It appears we do have to go into detail. I hope the moderator will bear with me as I reply at length.

We all know about Nasser's puzzling recklessness (puzzling because he didn't want a war he knew he couldn't win – although his generals did exaggerate their capability, and the prospect of Israel fighting on several fronts did embolden him to persevere with his bluff)). Few make the effort to view events from his point of view, to try to understand why he blundered.

The answer that isn't mentioned lies in Israel's aggressive behaviour. (Israeli and Western accounts tend to focus on the politics of Arab nationalism.)

In the 1930s, the Zionists perfected a tactic which could be called pre-emptive reprisal. They were taught by the British. Reprisal and pre-emptive reprisal were in essence deliberately disproportionate attacks on military targets (even those not involved) and terror attacks on civilians.

After independence, Israel continued to use the tactic, to evict Palestinians, to deter Palestinian attacks from refugee camps, and to persuade neighbouring states to stop Palestinians from fighting back or trying to return. It also used the tactic to escalate conflict and to persuade its enemies to provide a cause for war. Thus, in 1956, reprisals were the prelude to full-scale invasion of Egypt. The ultimate war aim was territory. Israel still sought territories in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank it considered rightfully belonged to it.

In the mid-60s, Israel was using the tactic on Syria. Syria had started a project to divert water. Israel used the tactic of reprisal to launch attacks on Syria to dissuade it from continuing. By 1966, the project had ground to a halt. Israel continued its attacks, now to dissuade Syria from supporting the PLO.

For those who think Israel at risk of annihilation, Moshe Dayan's account of Israel's aggressive tactics should give pause: “It worked like this: we would send a tractor to plough some place in the DMZ where nothing could grow, and we knew ahead of time that the Syrians would shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to move deeper, until the Syrians got mad and eventually fired on it. And then we would activate artillery and then the air force.”

Syria complained to the UN that Israel's behaviour breached the armistice. The UN agreed. Israel continued.

In 1966-7, Israel launched a concerted campaign of threats by politicians and generals, who warned that Israel sought to topple the regime in Damascus. The threats were not just in public, but in private and through diplomats (including Soviet diplomats). Israel's previous use of reprisal and invasion against Egypt may have contributed, but, for whatever reason, the Syrians took the threat very seriously. They sought help from Egypt, with which Syria had a mutual defence agreement. Syria exaggerated the threat by telling Egypt of a troop build-up on its borders. The Soviets also gave Egypt this false information (presumably to persuade it to help Syria – but the relevant Soviet archives are not yet readily available and its diplomats are only now beginning to publish accounts, which may or may not confirm theories that it sought the destruction of Dimona under cover of war).

Nasser also had reason to fear that Egypt was about to be seriously weakened. Israel was close to completion of its first nuclear weapons. The risk of fallout made Syria and Jordan unlikely targets, which left Egypt. Egypt had also had to rely on the Soviet Union as its superpower sponsor, after the US spurned its overtures (because the US saw Arab nationalism as a threat to its main strategic objective of controlling Middle East oil). As the Soviet proxy opposing what was rapidly becoming what the US perceived as an important asset, Egypt was at increasing risk of receiving the standard treatment the US reserved for the disobedient.

Nasser knew that the Syrian account of a troop build-up was exaggerated (the UN had confirmed that there was no build-up). The question that faced him then was why Israel was ratcheting up the tension without a build-up on the Syrian border. There is evidence (from his conversations with foreign diplomats) that Nasser still believed Israel about to attack Syria. The military power Israel would want to knock out first would clearly be Egypt. Syria could offer no credible threat on its own. Nasser's actions from this point were essentially a reckless bluff to deter Israel from attack.

On the Israeli side, it appears that over the previous years, the IDF had increasingly taken control of the security agenda from the politicians, and was reckless in pursuit of the ultimate territorial objectives shared by both.

There is thus plenty of evidence of an unintentional war precipitated by mistakes on all sides. There is also plenty of evidence, despite the extreme anxiety the train of events naturally caused the Israeli public, and the jitters it caused senior generals and politicians, that Israel was not averse to taking advantage of the crisis. Its decision to strike first was not forced on it by imminent danger. Indeed, Israeli and US intelligence services agreed that Israel would easily defeat all comers.

Israel has pointed to two actions by Egypt that it considered cause for war: the withdrawal of UN forces and the closure of the Straits of Tiran. Neither is as clear-cut as is made out.

Nasser requested the UN withdraw, as Yitzak Rabin reported, “only from the portion of the border from Rafah to Kuntilla, and suggested that the UN soldiers regroup at Gaza and Sham el-Sheikh.” “Unfortunately”, said Rabin, “U Thant made him choose – to keep the international force at all positions or request their total withdrawal.” Nasser said after the event that “U Thant insisted on total withdrawal, so I had to send Egyptian forces to Sharm el-~Sheikh.” Why did Egypt request the withdrawal? Israel said, to start a war against Israel (it would hardly be a surprise attack, then). The UN commander on the ground reported that Egypt gave as its reason that it had to be clearly able to respond if Israel attacked any Arab nation. Why did Egypt persevere when forced to choose between no withdrawal and total withdrawal? No withdrawal would signal it had no intention to act (i.e. would desert its allies). By opting to request a total withdrawal, Nasser mad a big mistake. However, U Thant proposed one final compromise, which Egypt accepted and Israel rejected: to deploy the UN peace-keepers on Israel's side of the armistice line. U Thant wrote afterwards, “If only Israel had agreed, even for a short duration, diplomatic efforts to avert the pending catastrophe might have prevailed.” At the very least, Israel does not appear to have suffered a crippling fear of Egyptian attack.

As for the deployment of Egyptian troops, Rabin again: “I do not believe Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” Rabin said Nasser massed troops in Sinai to deter an Israeli attack on Syria, to appear as “the saviour of Syria and thus win great sympathy in the Arab world.” Rabin said the forces Nasser sent into Sinai on May 20-22 were not planning an offensive against Israel.

On May 19 Israel announced a full military mobilisation. On May 22 Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran, which provided Israel access to its southern port of Eilat. Egypt said its intention was to prevent Israel transporting strategic goods for use in an attack on Syria. Israel said it was “economic strangulation”. But Egypt did not restrict non-Israeli-flag vessels carrying non-strategic materials or Israeli registered vessels chartered to a non-Israeli carrier. In the two years before June 1967, no Israel-flag vessel had used the port of Eilat. Most of Israel's trade used Mediterranean ports. The most significant cargo Israel used Eilat for was oil, which was carried by non-Israeli-flag vessels.

Israel claimed that the partial closure of the Straits gave it a right to use force against Egypt. It said the partial closure was an “armed attack” and a “blockade” which is of course an act of war. From the Egyptian side the partial closure was to stop Israel getting materiel for an attack on Syria.

It is not clear that the closure was a blockade. The navigable channel is only one mile from the Egyptian coast. No state has ever been deemed to have set up a blockade by stopping foreign shipping in its territorial waters.

Israel said that all states enjoyed a right under customary law to passage through the Straits. Egypt denied such a right. It argued that Israel and Egypt were at a state of war and so Egypt was not required to afford Israel rights it might have been entitled to in peacetime. Israel contended that the armistice terminated the state of war However, an armistice does not end a state of war. The right to exclude a belligerent's shipping, allowable in war, continues after an armistice.

Egypt also argued that the Straits were not in fact a strait and so it did not have to allow shipping through. The majority of the delegates at the conference preparatory to the Geneva Convention disagreed (although the US Secretary of State at the time, John foster Dulles, conceded the “plausibility from the standpoint of international law” of Egypt's position. Even if it is conceded that Israel had a right to pass through the straits, it is not at all obvious that it was allowed to attack Egypt to enforce that right. The closure was not an “armed attack” and there were peaceful mechanisms to seek redress. And even if it is conceded that Israel had a right to attack, it did not have a right to full-scale invasion.

It is worth reminding those with short memories that Israel took the opportunity of war to carry its ethnic cleansing into the West Bank. Just two of many pieces of independent evidence: The US embassy in Jordan reported “IDF Air Force yesterday and today hit many civilian targets on West Bank where there are absolutely no military emplacements.” A UN representative, “persistent reports of acts of intimidation by Israeli armed forces and of Israeli attempts to suggest to the population by loudspeaker that they might be better off on the East Bank.” A quarter of the population was expelled by such methods.

Adam B.

Celato, I quite specifically said that neither you nor I know what the Balen report contains, so your accusations that I think it must necessarily back my own views are withort foundation. I have no idea whether the report points to anti-Israel bias - it may, it may not. Neither do you. My point is that it is wrong that the BBC, as a public body which receives public money, and which keeps pronouncing itself to be "impartial", has reports about this very "impartiality" kept secret from the public - even when challenged to release it. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Have you looked at Trevor Asserson's work? You seem to dismiss it, whilst refusing to engage with any substantive points about it.

I have not claimed, and would never claim, that the BBC must mirror my own views. Indeed, it should not be in the pocket of any lobbies - a pity then that it is (and I still regard your claim about "lobbies" as sinister - I note you haven't addressed your previous accusations). But to say that anyone who thinks the BBC is biased must only be of that view becaause the organization does not refelct one's own views is nonsensical - and demonstrates that, when examining the BBC's output, you are of a rather naive disposition. As I pointed out, true impartiality is impossible for any news network, and it is high time this myth of BBC impartiality was dropped.

For what it's worth, I think the BBC is highly selective, manipulative, and downright inaccurate in much of its reporting. I base this view from looking at the BBC's output over several years, and noting a consistency of its stance on a range of topics. One also notices a regular pattern of distortion and selectivity.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs

"Unambiguous in that it was only the Jews who ever held sovereignty there..."

This is surely another example of your accident-prone relationship with the truth. Until the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire exercised sovereignty over Palestine for some considerable time.

I'm also tempted to quote some more from the paper by Lord Curzon referred to by Herzen. Curzon says wearily that the Zionists will inevitably and deliberately misinterpret the terms of the Mandate to suit themselves.

Ian Miller

Truthtriumphs
April 12th, 2011 12:35am

"So, what is Trevor Asserson's motive for his damning, ongoing assessment of the BBC bias?
He is a highly regarded and successful lawyer, with no axe to grind, and his reports are academic and taken seriously."

He is a Zionist and he now lives in Israel. He was a speaker at a conference on hasbara in Haifa last year. /www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173643>
He clearly has a massive axe to grind.

The two reports of his that I have read compared the BBC's position with his own and unsurprisingly found the BBC's less pro-Israeli.
They were polemic rather than academic.

Tilly

Adam B and other Melanie acolytes -

Roughly 20,000 Jews currently live in the UK (within a total population of some 61 million Brits) and by no means all are Zionists.

You neither represent British Jews nor the British public as a whole in your efforts to control the (British) BBC's coverage of Middle East news. You represent a foreign country whose citizens do not pay the licence fee.

Please bear that in mind when British Jews (such as myself) and others object to the excessively loud noise you make from your tiny-minority roost.

Adam B.

Thomas, it seems that it is you who has a problem with the truth. The Ottoman Empire governed the area, as part of its Empire. It was not sovereign. Prior to the arrival of the Ottomans, it had been part of the Mamluk Empire, and other conquering entities - none of whom ever made the area sovereign or independent. The ONLY time the area was independent was as a Jewish nation state.

Adam B.

Oh dear Tilly, facts aren't your strong point, are they? There are currently around 280,000 Jews in the UK, not 20,000. Most are indeed Zionists, as research for the Centre of Jewish Policy Research will testify.

Does it help you to pigeonhole peple by calling us "acolytes"?

Also interesting (indeed, most revealing about you) is your assumption that I am Jewish, or "represent a foreign country". Indeed, it is racist.

I am not and do not. Sad I know more about your community than you do.

Adam B.

Tilly, when you advocate for the Palestinians and the Arab nations at war with Israel, are you "representing" foreign powers? Or is it just Jews who can have the "dual loyalty" canard thrown at them when they dare to defend the Jewish state?

Celato

Adam B:

Sorry if I've attributed to you the commonly-held view that Balen found systemic bias by the BBC against Israel and his report was "suppressed" for this reason. (Makes a nice change that you're so open-minded, though I rather dread to think what your response would be if it turned out Balen DIDN'T find anti-Israel bias - a "whitewash", perhaps...?)

Have you looked at the BBC's Independent Panel report on its Middle East coverage, by the way? Or the Glasgow Media Group's findings? As I explained previously, I'd be quite willing to read Asserson's detailed work as an alternative view if I could access it. Any guidance would be much appreciated.

On the "lobby" question: The only reason I pre-empted your response was that anyone with a modicum of sense recognises that media institutions are subject to daily pressures from all manner of lobbyists - but only Zionists seem to get furiously hot and bothered and defensively denying when the term "lobby" is applied to them. It's all part of that selective view you guys have: the whole world and its dog is lobbying but it's only poor ol' US that that get noticed. Pure paranoid bullshit!

The one thing we can meet on half-way, I think, is that impartiality is impossible. In my view, however, it is worth aiming for in journalism by being as meticulous as possible in giving an airing to conflicting interpretations, avoiding pejorative language, and so forth. The BBC is one of the very few news institutions in the world able to strive towards this goal by being relatively free from commercial and/or political pressures. Attempts to undermine this remit (or shut it down) through aggressive lobbying for partisanship are not just destructive to the BBC but to any public faith in the potential for delivery of reliable information.

For this reason I'd rather subsidise the Beeb, warts and all, than see corporations and pressure-groups dish out their insidious "PR" unchallenged.

And for this reason, I very much hope and pray your relentless assaults on it fail.

Adam B.

Celato, have a gander at this, then tell me why you disagree with it (as you most certainly will):

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/32/bbc_bias_is_a_national_disgrace_and_a_global_menace

C.Gee

Tilly:

If I were a British Jew, I would resent your appointing yourself my spokesperson.

British Jews do dutifully pay the license fee for the BBC. They help fund the incitement of anti-Israel feeling. But British Jews also pay the price of the BBC’s relentless illegitimating of Israel. Antisemitic incidents spike after BBC coverage of Israel’s (always “disproportionate”) military actions.

By the way, perhaps you are unaware that in 2014, the license fee will largely fund BBC world services. Foreign countries will receive the benefit of the FCO view of Israel at the expense - in both senses - of good British Jews.

You feel resentment that Israelis do not pay the BBC license fee, yet they object to being calumniated by it for free. Had I not been already aware of your emotional virtuosity, I would think this extraordinary: irrational self-abnegation masquerading as patriotism.

Why do you choose to perch and squawk on this minority roost? No-one here purports to speak for any but himself. Except for you. You, apparently, speak for those who have sufficient identity with a beleaguered nation to want publicly to disown it and vilify it. You visit this site under your first name - or a pseudonym - so that you can give Melanie and her “acolytes” a ticking off. But why? Why do you bother ? What is it to you? You are so sensitive. Virtual noise upsets you. You feel physically ill at generalizations. Once again, I beg you not to be a martyr to your morality. For your health’s sake, perch elsewhere.

C.Gee

“The two reports of his [Asserson’s] that I have read compared the BBC's position with his own and unsurprisingly found the BBC's less pro-Israeli.
They were polemic rather than academic.”

No. He compared the BBC’s performance with the BBC’s own standards and those of journalistic norms. You, no doubt, compared his findings with your own prejudices to come up with a wee polemic of your own.

Adam B.

Celato, you know that is utter nonsense. One always hears of the "Israel lobby" or the "Jewish lobby". One never hears of the "Arab lobby" or "Palestinian lobby". When did you last hear the phrase? Cite me a single example. And why dod you indeed use the term so easily? Look at Tilly's remarks. Comfortable with that?

If you like the BBC and its visceral Israel-bashing agenda, fine. You pay for it. It is baffling that you think people should, in this era, be forced to be a customer of something they don't want. But then again, you are happy for public reports to be kept secret.

Guess we see the world differently.

And time and current trnds of choice is not on the BBC's side.

C.Gee

Thomas:

Do you not think it necessary to acknowledge John B. Quigley when writing so earnestly of who was the aggressor in the Six Day War?

Quigley, the lawyer and champion of the Palestinians, is an indefatigable Arab apologist . He, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky are the anti-Zionist A-team. And where would the Palestinian cause be without them?

You obviously put great store by their story that Nasser did not intend war, that everyone, including Israel, knew Israel would win a war, and that Israel was exploiting Nasser’s sabre-rattling-in-defense-of-Syria to thump the Egyptians and the Syrians in an unjustified pre-emptive action. Why? Because the moral of the story is that Israel - Goliath - was aggressively seeking land and to ethnically cleanse Arabs - David - from the West Bank.

As an historian, and an adult with no animus towards any nation, you would have sought for more serious-minded, less comic-strip- villain, reasons for the Israeli strike - wouldn’t you? And you would have tested the validity of those stated super-villain motivations for war against subsequent action by the Israelis (in returning land, for example), wouldn’t you ? Perhaps you looked into the plausibility of what Egypt said it was doing by amassing troops, etc. - both before and after the humiliation. Please tell us why you discarded that research, or chose not to quote it at length here.

Thomas

C.Gee
April 13th, 2011 2:01am
You are of course quite right that I should have given the reference without prompting, as you should in earlier threads with Mr. Grief. It was a lazy way to summarize a position.

I think I said it is worth trying to look at it from the other side rather than merely reciting the Israeli version. This still seems to me worthwhile.

As it happens, I have read and reflected on a range of historians, in addition to standard accounts by US, UK and Israeli mainstream historians. Of those who do try to redress the balance, Segev, Maoz, Shlaim, Finkelstein, and, yes, Quigley, who provided the briefest way to introduce facts and interpretations that otherwise do not get an airing here.

It is foolish to act as if you have rebutted them simply by mentioning their names and calling them anti-Zionist.

On the specific questions, the US intelligence community and Israeli leaders seem to me a reasonable source for Israel's superiority and for their understanding of Nasser's intentions.

I am not clear whether you refer to Sinai, Golan or the West Bank when you talk of land returned as evidence of Israel's peacable intentions.

The Israeli version goes unquestioned here. You conform to type by not attempting any defence of it. Do you really think it so bad to introduce other perspectives?

The general conclusion is that it was an accidental war. I do think there is suficient evidence to suggest that Israel was not averse to confrontation as a means to territory.

Herzen

Adam B.
April 12th, 2011 10:13pm
As I understood it, Turkey surrendered sovereignty in the Treaty of Lausanne.

You will have to explain the notion of sovereignty you are using in your rebuke to Thomas.

Herzen

C.Gee
April 13th, 2011 2:01am
You appear to think you have addressed the argument by identifying its source.

As an historian, and an adult with no animus towards any nation, you would no doubt have sought for more serious-minded, less comic-strip- villains and less implausibly purer than pure heroes.

What are your sources for your implicit belief in the Israeli version of events?

Tilly

Adam B -

1. For sloppy omission of a numeral (let's call it quarter million out of 61 million since estimates vary) - apology.

2. For calling you an acolyte - dictionary def, "faithful follower" - no apology (show me any examples of postings by you which DON'T faithfully support Melanie's views on Israel and I'll reconsider).

3. For your absurd concept of racism - i.e, anyone who criticises you for supporting Israel's stance on Palestine axiomatically hates Jews - no apology. (I am deeply critical of Hamas but don't hate Arabs; I strongly objected to the Iraq invasion but don't hate Brits or Americans. Why do Zionists constantly peddle the anti-Semitic line? Try asking the Orwellian authors of hasbara.)

In your later post to me, you say I "advocate" for Palestinians and Arabs and ask if that doesn't equate to "representing foreign powers" in the same sense I accuse you of doing. Wrong on both counts.

My advocacy is against the ugly and inaccurate demonisation of an entire bloc of people who, in the case of these blogs, just so happen to be Palestinians and Arabs.

To "represent" a particular power involves directly engaging in activity to promote its political and/or military aims. All I do is cast a democratic vote every few years. The way I vote depends in large measure on the quality of information I receive about the world beyond my personal knowledge. If I don't trust the providers of that information - catch them out in lies or omissions - I am at liberty to complain. What I am NOT prepared to do (unlike a "representative") is to hustle for my preferred version of events to be substituted, my messenger placed in charge, my country-right-or-wrong agenda to prevail.

The relentless bashing of the BBC carried out here is not (as C.Gee claims) simply a matter of disparate individuals expressing personal views and tossing out the odd complaint. You work in perfect harmony with Melanie Phillips and parallel websites to promote Israel in the image Israel itself wants the world to see. "How can we help, Melanie?" is an oft-repeated cry. "Here's where to send your complaints," you and Neil Turner helpfully suggest...

Like it or not, Adam, you are part of a lobby. And yes, there are opposing lobbies. But the one thing you all have in common is a wish to control how much, how little, and from what angle I should be informed about the world and consequently cast my votes.

Forgive me if I irk you by resisting the "hasbara news" service (just as I do the "brotherhood news") but I really do prefer to trust non-aligned journalistic institutions despite all their shortcomings.

Adam B.

Tilly, what rot. You gleefully engaged in the "dual loyalty" canard which routinely gets thrown at British Jews when they defend Israel against the onslaught of lies and delegitimizing propaganda aimed at it by people like you. It is indeed a racist mindset which resorts to such accusations. You then take great exception when the same charge is made against you when you support the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states ranged against Israel, and indeed, use the same line of reasoning, thus exposing your sheer hypocrisy in all its grim glory. The "as a Jew" argument is rather childish, especially in light of your accusation of "tiny minorities". It is you who is in the tiny minority of British Jews, and again, I refer you to the figures of the Centre of Jewish Policy Research, which shows an overwhelming majority of British Jews support Israel. Your assumptions about others' ethnicity is rather disturbing, and as for "acolyte", well, carry on with infantile name calling if it helps make sense of the world. Labels make things easier.

Adam B.

Herzen, I think I have made it as clear as possible. Whether under Britain, Turkey , the Mamluks etc. the area has never been an independent sovereign state of any description, except as a Jewish one.

Tilly

C.Gee -

Thank you for your concern about my emotional well-being. Please let me assure you that the one thing I don't suffer from is a sense of being eternally hated, vilified and calumniated.

This happy state of mind is, perhaps, explained by the findings of the Glasgow Media Group referred to by Celato, which none of you BBC-bashers seems willing to look at (for fear of losing perpetual martyr status, is it?)

After analysing around 200 news programmes and interviewing over 800 people (including ordinary viewers), the Glasgow University academics found a clear preponderance of perspective given to ... Palestinians... Only kidding - Israel!

Particularly on BBC1, Israelis were interviewed more than twice as often as Palestinians, with US politicians supporting Israel appearing twice as often as politicians from any other country.

Not good enough? Here's some more cheering news:

Israel's actions were almost always contextualised as "retaliating" or "responding" to Palestinian aggression, which, owing to a dearth of historical context, was perceived by viewers to be ... well ... just inexplicably aggressive.

Strong emphasis was placed on Israeli deaths (despite their relative rarity compared to Palestinian ones), with notable language differences applied to them - "atrocity", "savage", "cold-blooded killing", "slaughter" were much favoured. (That should cheer you up a bit, though for some strange reason I doubt it.)

So now for the clincher. Even if the Glasgow Media Group got all their textual analysis skewed (no doubt owing to disgusting left-wing bias), the audience at least was in no doubt about one thing: they were totally baffled, bored and bewildered by the whole bloody conflict.

It was that wee problem of historical context - i.e, lack of. All they could figure was that there was this country (Israel) fighting to hang on to some land which a whole bunch of Arabs appearing out of nowhere claimed some inexplicable right to live next-door to (or thereabouts) and maybe they did have some claim but were so aggressive it wasn't surprising Israel had to retaliate a lot ... or something like that ...

Now funnily enough, that pretty well sums up the way most people talk to me about the Middle East except when I'm reading Spectator blogs. They don't give me a load of anti-Semitic stick for being "associated as a Jew" with that nasty, aggressive, land-grabbing Israel YOU see painted on your telly screen - because they, quite simply, are not seeing the same picture that you see. Just a whole lot of muddle and death and talking heads (mainly from Israel and the USA).

Least said, soonest mended, I reckon from your point of view. By focusing so strongly on the media, you might just find audiences being GIVEN the historical context they're missing and then start taking enough of an interest to notice certain blogs where some rather contentious statements are being made...

Adrian Egan

Bravo, Melanie. Keep up your courageous and honest expose of the disgraceful BBC - The Blatantly Biased Corporation.

C.Gee

“Please let me assure you that the one thing I don't suffer from is a sense of being eternally hated, vilified and calumniated.”

No assurance necessary. That much is clear. Which leaves you free to hate, vilify and calumniate those paranoid whiners who do suffer from such a sense. You will peck some sense into them. Soon have them in the pink of mental health you display.

You pounce upon and crow about a study finding pro-Israel bias in BBC1. Why? because it proves that pro-Israel Jews are paranoid when they claim BBC bias. You make instant and convenient use of the Glasgow study to characterize how you and your friends have been shown Israel through BBC coverage, to prove the point that you and your circle are not paranoid Jews. Yet you go on to supply, facetiously, which puts you in a bit of a pickle, the historical context (Israel, trampler of native rights ) which a “pro-Israel” BBC would leave out. Where do you and your friends get that context from? Or are they naturally occurring suspicions aroused by knowing that Jews are paranoid?

You seem delighted that your circle does not give you a “load of anti-Semitic stick” for being a Jew associated with Israel - even the Israel you and and the Glasgow people say is portrayed by the BBC. What would qualify as a “load of anti-Semitic stick” to you?

Tilly

Adam B -

I'd suggest YOU read the Jewish Policy Research - and not just its "headlines".

But since you seem reluctant to see anything except "racism", "support for Arab states", and "hypocrisy" whenever you and/or Israel are criticised on any issue at all, I'll help you out:

67% (me included, how about you?) favour giving up territory for peace.

78% (me too, ditto you?) favour a two-state solution.

58% (ditto, ditto?) think Israel should negotiate with Hamas.

67% (same again) agree there is too much corruption in Israel's political system.

35% (ditto me; doubtful you'd concur) think Jewish people should "always" feel free to criticise Israel in the British media.

38% (maybe, just maybe, you'd kindly allow this) think criticism of Israel is justified in "some circumstances".

Wow - that's a whole 73 percent of Britain's Jewish community who don't blow a fuse at every single hint of censure. And I'm also not in a minority on quite a few crucial, very basic issues. What a relief!

Thomas

Fernando,
Just in case you want to come back on the question of 1967, even if only to refer me to authoritative scholarship that supports your contentions, I would like to clarify what I said, since I think I have managed to mislead at least one other reader.

I think Egypt, Syria, and Jordan got their come-uppance. They are states like any other, free to mismanage their own affairs (as they have done)and take the consequences.

What I wanted to get across was that the Israeli version, the "official" version, if you want, does not hold up in the light of the evidence, in particular evidence from the Israelis themselves.

I used a particularly schematic version of the critique, which appears to have allowed at least one reader to avoid considering its content.

If you too find the schematic version too easy to dismiss, can I refer you to others, for example, the fervent, but relatively honest and forthright Zionist, Shlomo Ben Ami, who is willing to talk about the evidence that the apologists prefer not to acknowledge.

I would appreciate it if you could refer me to the sources of your convictions on this matter.

Thomas

Adam B.

"It (Turkey) was not sovereign". Well, yes, it was.

You talk of "sovereign" "or" "independent". We were talking about sovereignty - which is all that has any legal relevance. I'm not sure why you introduce "independence" as a criterion. Are you saying that international law is to be disregarded and that it must be demonstrated that Palestine was at some time in the past "independent" before it can be accepted that the League of Nations provisionally recognized it as a state? Why is this criterion of yours to trump the law?

Herzen

C.Gee
April 13th, 2011 5:18pm

?

This is a tortuous and twisted response to a perfectly reasonable comment.

I get the impression you pride yourself on the intellectual quality of your contributions, and yet, every so often, you come unstuck, particularly when you feel the urge come upon you to denounce anti-semitism or totalitarianism, whether the denunciation is appropriate or not (almost invariably not).

Anyone who has watched the BBC over the last 40-50 years will recognize the findings of the Glasgow group. It takes a disciplined selectivity to see things otherwise.

I suspect the problem for Netanyahu/Lieberman style Zionists is that a broadcaster such as the BBC which makes a fetish of "balance" and accuracy cannot avoid describing the assault on the Lebanon in 2006 and on Gaza in 2008 in terms unacceptable to Zionists.

The BBC, like similar outlets, tries to verify its facts and apportion an equal number to each side in its reports on any dispute. But by deciding which stories to run and which facts to mention and what tone to adopt in giving the facts, it still manages to reflect what all right-thinking people in the establishment believe. Thus, its coverage of Georgia's assault on Ossetia was grotesque, but "balanced". Thus its coverage of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been consistently pro-Israeli, but "balanced". What has caused the "balance" to be alarmingly balanced recently has been Israel kicking over the traces. The BBC framed the assault on Gaza in the terms given by Israel - reluctant, measured, and carefully targeted retaliation in self-defence against unprovoked terrorist attack. Yet the only way it could make this seem reasonable would have been to refuse to broadcast any footage other than that from Israel. "Balance" for once got in the way.

The BBC does not pick on Israel. By some mysterious osmosis, it assimilates and regurgitates the establishment line on anything and everything. On Israel, it is supportive of our ally, but frustrated that it does not do a (cosmetic) deal with the PA to allow it to continue to swallow the occupied territories without any hint of illegitimacy - which is what European governments want it to do.

If you want an example of the BBC bending over backwards for Israel (certainly bending over) revisit Jane Corbin's piece on the Turkish flotilla.

This shrill campaign against it is intended to make it judge any deviation from the Netanyahu/Lieberman Zionist line too costly to contemplate.

C.Gee

(2nd go - apologies if published twice)

“You appear to think you have addressed the argument by identifying its source.”
“It is foolish to act as if you have rebutted them simply by mentioning their names and calling them anti-Zionist.”

No. I was not addressing the arguments at all - nor rebutting them. Had I wished to do so, I would have brought in an historian who is not engaged in “redressing the balance” against Israel.

The point of my comment was to note that the story being offered so earnestly for Israel’s aggression in the Six Day War was, in fact, a well-established one. As such, it has not gone unanswered by equally well-established arguments on the other side. I might have chosen to find counter-arguments from pro-Zionists to cite, as I have done in the past, but in this instance I thought that the shallowness of the Quigley argument was its own rebuttal.

There are several assumptions made by those who put forth anti-Zionist history here: (a) that these views are not known and read by Melanie or pro-Israel commenters on this site ; (b) that, therefore, they need to be “aired” here; (c) that upon exposure to these views, the blinkers will fall away and we will all agree that Israel is whatever (uncited) Quigley, Segev, Shlaim, Chomsky, Finkelstein, Pappe etc. paint it to be.

You should disabuse yourselves of these assumptions.

Tilly

Herzen -

Many thanks. I couldn't really make much sense of C.Gee's response and was at a bit of a loss how to reply.

Regarding Jane Corbin's flotilla documentary - have you seen Melanie Phillips' latest blog? Seems Corbin (and the BBC) just can't please all of the people all of the time...

Adam B.

Thomas, Turkey was sovereign. I never claimed it wasn't.

Palestine was not. Sovereignty means self-governance. Palestine had no self-governance.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 12th, 2011 5:28pm
Truthtriumphs

"Unambiguous in that it was only the Jews who ever held sovereignty there..."

"This is surely another example of your accident-prone relationship with the truth. Until the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire exercised sovereignty over Palestine for some considerable time."

Oh, I think not!
Don't act the goat....you know full well that sovereignty does not mean the forced conquest by military might, and subsequent rule of an empire, be it the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire or any other.

"I'm also tempted to quote some more from the paper by Lord Curzon referred to by Herzen. Curzon says wearily that the Zionists will inevitably and deliberately misinterpret the terms of the Mandate to suit themselves."

He would say that, wouldn't he?
After all, he was something of an anti-Zionist, wasn't he, possibly an anti-semite as well?
Fortunately, the 51 members of the league of nations didn't take a blind bit of notice of the opinions of Curzon.

C.Gee

Herzen:

Intellectual quality is in the eye of the beholder. Antisemitism is not. It is an objectively identifiable irrationality. It is never inappropriate to point it out (although I frequently forbear doing so), particularly when it is the only explanation for the avid credulousness with which nonsense about Israel is churned out and sucked up.

I am impressed with - flabbergasted by - your intellectual contortions to defend the BBC’s portrayal of Israel which arises from what you say is actually a sympathy towards it Israel. But then, I have not been subjected to 40 to 50 years of BBC-think, so my receptivity is not sufficiently disciplined to read perpetrator for victim, antagonist for ally.

Do you really think that the BBC - or any outlet - tries to apportion an equal number of facts to each side of a dispute? It would explain the “balance” it achieves. Perhaps this mystical, but exact, process also explains the mysterious osmosis by which the BBC becomes establishment and without shame supports a cosmetic peace so that Israel live its illegitimate life, free from let or hindrance by Arabs, on Arab land. Israel really must learn to distinguish friends from lunatics, and would do so, if it were not so paranoid.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 12th, 2011 4:37pm

"It is worth reminding those with short memories that Israel took the opportunity of war to carry its ethnic cleansing into the West Bank"

Don't be daft!
You don't have a short memory so much as a penchant for dissembling and historical revisionism worthy of David Irving.

When Israel took the West Bank and there was a ceasefire, the Arabs ran away, terrified, thinking that the Jews behave the same way as the Arabs, when victorious.
In fact, Moshe Dayan invited them back, foolishly, as it now turns out, and most returned.
If, as you contend, they were ethnically cleansed, how come there are now some 2.5 million Arabs on the WB, as opposed to the approx. 450,000 in 1967?
Obviously, something the Jews don't excel at, eh Thomas?

And another thing, I repeat there were FIVE clear cassus belli reasons for Israel to go to war....you can wriggle and squirm all you like, but it doesn't change a thing.

"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel".
Abdul Nasser. 22/5/67.

C.Gee

Thomas
April 13th, 2011 10:34pm

“C.Gee
April 13th, 2011 6:34pm
I came upon this. I take it to be a response principally to my efforts on the previous thread. I answer below:”

Yes, my comment was put up on the new thread by my error.

I shall respond to your answer there, here, although I do not dare to hope that it will meet your standards of what will do.

I do not field my A-team of historians on the Six Day War because I assume you know who they are, have read them, but prefer to ignore them and put up your own team.

I can assure you that it takes less energy not to list my A-team or to put up my favourite quotes than it would to list them and type out the quotes. The names and much of their thinking is available on the internet. Decent historians on your team would probably refer to them.

I know that there are no “killer” arguments that will persuade you. You are argument proof. Your “bring it on” bravado is more entertaining than your going quickly through Quigley, or in slow-mo through Shlomo Ben Ami, whom you refer to as “the fervent, but relatively honest and forthright Zionist.”

Certainly, it can do no harm for you to interrupt the “loud unanimity of the hasbara chanting.” You and Tilly seem to find it noisy here, but are determined to be heard. It obviously serves some purpose - therapeutic? missionary? - for you, and several commenters have taken time to respond. From my point of view, your excerpts do not challenge me to refine my arguments - I have read them before. The only response warranted by your summary of the “accidental” Six Day War is: “So, what?”

Please do not have any expectations of my doing “better” or, indeed, anything at all. Your stern schoolmarmishness, while fervent, but relatively honest and forthright, has put me off your classroom. I won’t come to class, I won’t write my lines. You will infer from that what you will.

Writing this whole comment, by the way, took less time and energy than mooning my neighbor with the COEXIST bumper sticker on her Volvo.

Steve

TT

"...If, as you contend, they were ethnically cleansed, how come there are now some 2.5 million Arabs on the WB, as opposed to the approx. 450,000 in 1967?..."

You could also point out to those that moronically accuse Israel of land grabbing that after 60 years of exercising her imagined military superiority to steal sand from the Arabs she has achieved almost nothing by any kind of militaristic standards. It took the Iraqi army a matter of days to capture all of Kuwait, after 60 years and having achieved ‘victory’ in every one of the identifiable mini-wars during the on-going general fight for survival, Israel has captured somewhat less than a third of the area of Kuwait. And not an oil rig in site. It seems that they are as awful at stealing land as they are at ethnic cleansing.

Further, I still have had no takers to my challenge to produce evidence of Israeli ‘apartheid’ (You know signs on public buildings, buses etc. stating ’No Arabs/muslims/Christians, whatever’). It seems that Israel is crap at Apartheid too. Can it do anything right?

Thomas

C.Gee
April 14th, 2011 5:00am
I fear your A-team does indeed comprise all those I have already read, whose strategy is simple: if the Minister of Defence explains how Israeli provocation works, ignore him, and focus on Syrian or Egyptian provocations; if the Israeli government threatens Syria with regime change, simply deny it (Laqueur); if the Israeli chief of staff says Nasser's troop movements were not the preliminary to war, ignore him and insist Israel's enemies were intent on aggression; if the military, the intelligence services, the Americans and the British are all agreed that Israel could wipe the floor with all comers, insist that Israel was threatened with annihilation; if Israeli generals and ministers say Israel chose war, repeat again and again that innocent peace-loving Israel was forced to attack in self-defence...

I have spent a ridiculous amount of time studying how various wars have begun. Invariably the stories told by the combatants are half-truths at best. Each new study of events, whether partisan or syncretic, unearths further causes and consequences, until a hazy consensus emerges (acknowledged to be subject to revision).

As a footnote, Maoz is a Zionist who tries to combine the plausible from each account, and does not say Israel is wholly to blame; Shlaim is a Zionist who considers 1967 a war of self-defence...

You ask why it matters if the consensus is that it was an accidental war - because Israel's supporters insist that it was a genocidal attack on Israel, which somehow makes its subsequent expropriation of the West Bank justifiable. The evidence of history does not support this contention. It would be conducive to a negotiated peace if Israel were to discard this piece of propaganda. (To go off at a tangent, Ben Ami, whom you dismiss out of hand along with all the others, gives a good account from an Israeli point of view, of the myths the Palestinians would do well to discard.)

You tell me to expect no better from you. This is too easy: to announce loftily that I am simply prejudiced and wrong, but decline to provide any counter-argument or evidence that would support or explain your faith in a different interpretation of event.

Herzen

C.Gee
April 14th, 2011 1:29am
It would appear that we have each flabbered the other's gast.

You would be surprised the contortions the BBC goes through to achieve "balance". It is almost as absurd as I describe.

When you say the BBC "without shame supports a cosmetic peace so that Israel live its illegitimate life, free from let or hindrance by Arabs, on Arab land..." I fear you are coming unstuck again.

Your anti-semite detector produces so many false positives it is useless.

Steve

By way of clarification to my last post: by 'captured' of course I refer to the West Bank areas which are currently 'held' for security reasons and will be handed over to any reasonable 'Palestinian' peace partner when the murder stops. 'Captured' was a poor choice of word.

Thomas

Adam B.
April 13th, 2011 11:29pm
Truthtriumphs
April 14th, 2011 1:19am
This is not difficult. When Turkey surrendered sovereignty, the League of Nations provisionally recognized a state of Palestine. A trustee would act in the interests of the population, who would ultimately exercise sovereignty when the trustee condescended to consider them ready.

I have scrolled back. No doubt you read what Herzen helpfully provided for you:

"Pierre Ortis was Chair of the Permanent Mandate Commission. He was the person responsible for ensuring that the system was correctly administered, conforming to the intentions of the League of Nations. He took Article 7 to reflect Palestinian statehood: “the mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”

This is the man charged with seeing that the Mandates were correctly administered. Whether King David or whoever by conquest carved out a kingdom (sorry, sovereign and independent state) 2500 years ago (or whatever) is neither here nor there. The Great Powers bizarrely enough undertook to allow the Zionists to "reconstitute" a "Jewish National Home" "in" Palestine. They did not undertake thereby to negate their recognition of Palestine.

Herzen I believe also helped you with the question of what weight to give Curzon's opinions. The quotes are from cabinet meetings where the British government was finalising the terms of the treaty you so rightly say was agreed by all the member states of the League. Curzon's private opinions are not relevant. His position as the negotiator officially representing HMG is. The quotes reflect the understanding of HMG of the Mandate it drew up and the League agreed with, as the quote from M. Ortis demonstrates.

I suspect Herzen has like me been reading Quigley or Kattan or... and also Grief or Stone or Schwebel or... Does this make the historical documents say anything other than they do? Of course not

Adam B.

Thomas, you're right - this isn't difficult. Whatever was declared by the League of Nations, "Palestine" was never self-governing. Therefore, it was not sovereign. Clear enough?

Furthermore, your dismisive and rather insulting "whatever" regarding the Jewish national homeland is indicative of your mindset - and your motive.

Adam B.

Tilly, a rather selective choice on your part, isn't it? Just missed out that 72% are happy to declare themselves Zionists, whilst 29% decare Israel as "central" to their identity, whilst a remaining 53% say it is "important" but not central. That makes 82% of British Jews who regard Israel as at least important or central to their identity. Are you amongst them? If not, who is in the minority? You know the answer.

The figures which of course you hone in on must be viewed in this context. Context is everything Tilly. So when most Jews accept the two state solution (as does Israel), it is in the context of caring for Israel. In your context, you hate Israel, and consequently your conclusions stem from this hatred.

I really couldn't care less about what personal views you hold - i could go through each of the poll's questions to compare my answers to yours, but this blog is about something more wideranging (and more important) than Tilly's world.

However, it is important to point out something about the argument you used, because it is indicative of a wider phenomenon. In my defending Israel, you leapt to the accusation that I was "representing a foreign country", thus exposing your real agenda. It is an accusation as old as the hills to accuse Jews (and you also assumed I was Jewish at the time you wrote it) of dual loyalty, or placing their own interests above the country in which they live.

It is a display of bigotry.

Thomas

Adam B.
April 14th, 2011 1:41pm
"Thomas, you're right - this isn't difficult. Whatever was declared by the League of Nations, "Palestine" was never self-governing. Therefore, it was not sovereign. Clear enough?"

It is still far from clear what you think follows from what you say. The League of Nations recognized Palestine with sovereignty ultimately vested in its population. What is it you think follows for the Zionists?

"Furthermore, your dismisive and rather insulting "whatever" regarding the Jewish national homeland is indicative of your mindset - and your motive."

"2500 years ago (or whatever)" - it is not clear what you are bridling at. It is even less clear what you think allows you to speculate about my "mindset" or motive.

Just focus on what it is you think follows from the fact that Palestine was not independent before the League recognized it.

Truthtriumphs

Steve
April 14th, 2011 9:39am
TT

Thank you!

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 14th, 2011 1:08pm
Adam B.
April 13th, 2011 11:29pm
Truthtriumphs
April 14th, 2011 1:19am

"This is not difficult. When Turkey surrendered sovereignty, the League of Nations provisionally recognized a state of Palestine."

Again, what was its seat of government?
Who was its head of state?
What were its borders, currency etc?

Either put up or shut up.

Adam B.

Thomas, what is this obsession with the League of Nations?

It appears that the upshot of what you're trying to say through a load of verbiage is that Israel has no right to exist, because the League of Nations, back in the 1920's, said that Palestine, which was then a mandate of Britain (was this before or after Britain carved off 80% of Palestine to establish the exclusively Arab and Judenfrei Transjordan?) should be sovereign.

This is an academic argument. palestine never became sovereign, because self-governance was never established - whether Jewish or Arab. So are you saying that we should go back to the 1920's to find the answer to the current conflict? (and consequently ignore the Un Partition vote which came decades later?)

Cut to the chase Thomas - what is it that you want? I have no time for this silly dance.

Thomas

Adam B.
April 14th, 2011 5:46pm
This is odd. You were very insistent in correcting my simple statement of fact. You were very insistent that Palestine had never been independent and therefore could never be a state(?) Your insistence seemed to indicate that you thought something significant followed for the Zionist cause. Now you appear to be saying that it's too much of a "silly dance" to tell us what it was that followed that made you so insistent. We could have moved on long before now had it not been for this mysterious insistence of yours which you now can't or won't explain.

C.Gee

Thomas:

“The League of Nations recognized Palestine with sovereignty ultimately vested in its population.”

No. Palestine was created with sovereignty vested in the Jewish People, not the gentile inhabitants. It “population” was was to be increased by the immigration of Jews.

I refer you to Howard Grief who discusses and resolves the “problem of ascertaining the locus of sovereignty for territories subject to a mandate, particularly in reference to Palestine, Mesopotamia and Syria.” See Chapter 12, 
Effecting a Transfer of Sovereignty Without A Peace Treaty by Subjugation of Consent after a Simple Cessation of Hostilities, in The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International law.

The legal fraud that “Palestine” is an Arab state is exposed in excruciating detail by Grief.

Your class might be interested to see you take on Grief, point by point: that is taking a point of his and specifically addressing it, with germane authority, of course, not merely waving an entire brief for the defense of Arab Palestine.

Pierre Orts, by the way, provides a strong corroborating voice in Grief’s analysis of the treaties.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Let's hand it to Thomas. He really is impressive. I think he may have convinced me...against all the odds..that..that israel should not exist at all.

Mmm..so, Thomas, what now my friend? A Jonestown for all the Jews? There a 6 million Israelis..That number have a nice ring to it for you? What of Hamas and their fundamentalist brothers who belong to other boys clubs? The Jews will genuflect before them , as their swords swing towards their necks?

I do wish you would girder your loins and come forth with some suggestions - as razor-sharp incisive and compelling as your revisionism - for how to resolve the Zionist"project".

Thomas

C.Gee
April 14th, 2011 7:24pm
As far as I can see, Mr. Grief's argument is that the people who were sovereign were not the inhabitants "the Arab inhabitants of the country at the time" (perish the thought! the inhabitants were surplus to requirements! to be put to manual work or shipped East, not such as have any say in their future!). "World Jewry" was to be sovereign in Palestine. "World Jewry" was "clearly the national beneficiary of the Mandate for Palestine." (Mr. Grief is very liberal with "clearly" when things are anything but clear. And he is fond of introducing the term "national" as if he can by some elision imperceptible to his audience get from "National Home" to "Nation" to "Nation State".) Sovereignty was "held in abeyance for the Jewish People until Palestine could be fully developed as an independent Jewish state." (You can just picture the locals standing round scratching their heads as their land is made ready for its new owners!) Mr. Grief excludes entirely the Palestinian Arab inhabitants. He does so with no support from the relevant documents. The Balfour Declaration itself refers to the whole population. And it says nothing about excluding any part of them. If the work on the League Covenant and the Mandate is consulted, it will be found that the wording was amended precisely to ensure that the documents did not give "World Jewry" a legal claim to Palestine, and did not exclude any one group of inhabitants from the population considered ultimately sovereign. Mr. Grief says sovereignty was held in abeyance until "World Jewry" was ready for it. This is not what the documents say. This interpretation only works if it is already accepted that the Mandate specified "World Jewry" and excluded the current population - which it does not.

Again, Mr. Grief labours mightily to balance his great edifice of rationalisations on what would appear to be no foundation whatsoever.

I am relieved that Mr. Grief and M. Ortis are in agreement. If they are, there would appear to be no fraud in asserting that "the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship.”

I find it odd that you urge me to take Mr. Grief's argument point by point while yourself declining to respond at all to asrguments and evidence put to you earlier.

Adam B.

Thomas - again: "Palestine" was never sovereign, as it never had self-governance, whether Jewish or Arab. Do you accept that?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas:"If the work on the League Covenant and the Mandate is consulted, it will be found that the wording was amended precisely to ensure that the documents did not give "World Jewry" a legal claim to Palestine, and did not exclude any one group of inhabitants from the population considered ultimately sovereign."

Phew..so they have no right to exist, then - the Jews - as a state? You mean, the international community got it all wrong in 1948? Wow, ok...This is the real LAW, right. This is the real International Law we should all refer to in agreeing with the Islamists and the rag tag Leftists and all those pulled under by their wrip?

..and this is the LAW of Hamas and the Islamists, when they blow up a school bus and slit a bay's throat?

This is Thomas's Law. He is the historian, perhaps the lawyer, par excellence. He leads us down the righteous path to the halcyon world of true "rights" to a nation state...

The trouble is with your "great edifice of rationalisations", Thomas, is that it Israel DOES exist, however "mightily" you may keep massaging your pontificating propensities and, more to the point, its population - however disposed to accommodation with some putative state of "palestinians" i.e. even the leftist peacenics - is not going to fall on your shudderingly self righteous sword nor that on your "nation" which heralds - as religious tenet of faith - the killing of civilians.

What now, Thomas? Give us a "mighty" exegesis of your Law and how it sits with the deliberate targeting of civilians hailed as a religious duty by Islamist clerics and parties - like Hamas - oh so democratically voted into power by the great Palestinian "nation".

...and, while you're at it, look to the future, rather than ransacking the past - like some rabid sniffer dog - and exercise your towering intellect on the way to achieve peace.

"World Jewry" NEEDS YOU not to mention your country to be (?)

Thomas

Adam B.
April 14th, 2011 11:27pm
I will make one last attempt to move you on to more constructive ground, where (in this instance) you will find C. Gee already at work.

Statehood, independence, and sovereignty are distinct and separate. You may find this difficult. Governments, courts, and scholars have managed to work with it. As is the way with scholars, there have been those who have advocated just about every possible answer to the question where sovereignty vested while the state of Palestine was administered by a trustee.

I see no good reason not to go with Howard Grief in saying that sovereignty was in abeyance but vested in the people. The crucial question is surely whether he is right that the "people" in question referred to "World Jewry", as he put it, and only "World Jewry".

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Good Grief, Thomas! Stop now! Israel has already accepted the Palestinians' 'right" to have a state.

What more do YOU want? Come clean.

Tilly

Adam B -

I did send a detailed reply to your last post but it failed to get through. Might have given it another go, but since you say you "couldn't care less" about my views anyway, I won't bother on this occasion.

Adam B.

Thomas, I'll ask you again - do you accept that there was no self-governance in "Palestine" - whether Jewish or Arab? Do you accept that self-governance is required for a territory to be sovereign? If we can't agree on such a basic premise, then there is littlwe point in continuing.

Herzen

Adam B.
April 15th, 2011 5:25pm
We should perhaps ask Thomas to refer you to some of the distinguished jurists who have wrestled with the question of sovereignty as it applied to mandates. They might be able to persuade you that the question is not quite as simple as you appear to think (although I am not confident).

However, I am intrigued. You clearly believe that a great deal hangs on the answer. Let us say, then, that you are correct, and sovereignty vested in neither Palestinian Arabs nor Palestinian Jews, because neither community governed its own affairs. What is it you think follows? How do you think this advances the cause you support? which is presumably that the Zionists had the right to establish a "Jewish state" in Palestine.

C.Gee

Thomas:

Do you think your parenthetical derision of Grief is a point-by-point answer?

Are your references to the summary of Grief’s treatise (available on-line), or to the treatise itself?

Both Quigley and Grief refer to “Orts”. Who is your source who refers to him as “Ortis”? (Other than Herzen - who probably made a typographical error.)

“Mr. Grief excludes entirely the Palestinian Arab inhabitants. He does so with no support from the relevant documents.” No. This is an absurd characterization of an argument that is developed over the course of hundreds of pages. You do not have to agree with him to show signs that you have read and understood his reading of history and law. You show no such signs. When you say you have spent a “ridiculous” amount of time reading of how wars start, did you mean an odd couple of hours? Or that you read ridiculously?

Thomas

C.Gee
April 15th, 2011 11:12pm
Do I think it a point by point answer? Of course not. Does his argument which unrolls over hundreds of pages depend on the assumption that the interpretation of those who drafted the Balfour Declaration takes precedence over that of those who drafted and ratified the treaties, and that the Balfour interpretation excludes the native population and bestows sovereignty on "World Jewry"? It appears to, although I admit I am still wading through the many hundreds of pages the argument unrolls over. Would I expect a point by point answer from you on anything? No longer. You have certainly given no hint what you think Grief's argument to be, just as you gave no hint what you think the arguments for Israel's propaganda version of the causes of the 1967 War. You sustain your feeling of superiority at very little cost.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

I think we should all stop engaging with thomas, Herzen, Tilly etc until they consult each other and make a collective declarations re their desire for a full and final setlement to the Israel-Arba conflict and how they feel this should be achieved.

Cock-fighting over the 'right" interpretation of the Mandate is all broken eggs and cackling..

Israel exists. It is not going to be argued out of existence or, for that matter, defeated militarily without the cost being to high for all who dream of it. If they want war, then they should say so. If peace, they should have the courage of their convictions and put some pragmatic proposals on the table for discussion.

Scrambled eggs and twaddlemeister...

Thomas

C. Gee,
Can I recommend you read Chapter 12 of Mr. Grief's monograph, 
Effecting a Transfer of Sovereignty Without A Peace Treaty by Subjugation of Consent after a Simple Cessation of Hostilities, in The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International law. It gives a detailed and useful account of one school of thought on the question of the transfer of sovereignty after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and also of the reasons to accept that Palestine was treated by other states as itself a state. That sovereignty was to pass ultimately to "World Jewry" to establish a sovereign Jewish state is not demonstrated in this chapter, however - Mr. Grief relies on his prior arguments on the import of the Balfour Declaration and the various treaties incorporating it, arguments that have been discussed in earlier threads and shown to be highly tendentious, at best.

You say, "Pierre Orts, by the way, provides a strong corroborating voice in Grief’s analysis of the treaties."

PP293-4 "Palestine, too, according to Pierre Orts, chairman of the Permanent Mandate Commission, was provisionally independent, but such independence could only have been realized when Jews constituted a majority of the population of Palestine, an objective which the British, after Balfour's departure as Foreign Secretary in October 1919, worked deviously to subvert and delay."

How much of the excerpt do you take to reflect what Pierre Orts said? I would suggest (particularly in light of the quote given by Herzen, if accurate) only up to "provisionally independent". The rest, I would suggest, is Howard Grief's gloss. He is fond of such sleight of hand.

This excerpt also provides a nice illustration of the accuracy of my criticism that Grief's argument relies entirely on his interpretation of the Balfour Declaration and his contention that the treaties Britain signed were a betrayal of that Declaration - he presumably thinks the Declaration still defines Britain's legal obligations because he thinks a private letter trumps a treaty between states.

Can I take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly for repeating a misprint of Pierre Orts name from the llast place I had read it. This error was clearly sinister and I deeply regret it.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Herzen: "How do you think this advances the cause you support? "

Herzen, what do you think the "cause" to which you refer is?

One thing is for sure: Israel is not a "cause". Israel is a sovereign state and whether you like it or not, will continue to be so. No amount of Marathon Man-type experimenation with history will change the fact.

Why don't you focus your extraordinary intellectual powers and acute moral sensitivity with equal dedication (remember that scene of Oliver with Dustin Hoffman in the dentist's chair?) at finding ways to make peace between the Jew and moslem/arab in the Middle East?

It's ok. You guessed it. That WAS a rhetorical question.

Adam B.

Herzen, it is not complicated, and your attempt to muddy the waters is transparent, as is Thomas' motive. What you are both rather ham fistedly and transparently trying to achieve here is the delegitimization of Israel, based on an obscure piece of information form the League on Nations almost a century ago. I order to do this, you ignore the more relevant declarations of the UN - which personally, I also find irrelevant. Perhaps you can direct me to the legislation which rules that the UK is a legitimate country.

I couldn't care less what the defunct League of Nations thought. It was a different world then, and it is completely irrelevant, except for a purely academic discussion. That is not what is going on here. This is an attempt to further bigotry to delegitimize a country and her people.

In any case, sovereignty is dependent on self-governance. "Palestine" never had self-governance of any description, whether Jewish or Arab. I note that Thomas has not been able to answer a simple question, whilst you reply just be saying "it's complicated. " I'll ask you directly - are you saying that a territory can be sovereign, despite the fact that it has no self-governance? If so, you are simply reinventing the word "sovereignty". I suggest consulting the OED.

And so what about legal opinion? One jurist says one thing, another says something else. None of it is binding in any sense.

Fernando

"The general conclusion is that it was an accidental war. I do think there is suficient evidence to suggest that Israel was not averse to confrontation as a means to territory."

Thomas, I think it is fair to say that the above quote sums up your position. I wanted to let you know that I do want to come back to you on this, and the more general question of Who Has Been the Aggressor in Each and Every Single One of the Arab-Israeli Wars Without Exception.

But it seems to me you have not addressed the objection already made to this line of argument: So what?

Even conceding that the Six Day War was accidental and the demonstrably false assertion that Israel was not averse to confrontation (both these claims are fallacies, as are many other claims you have made) - but even conceding those points, that would not change the fact that it was Egypt with Syria and Jordan the ones who started the aggression. For the same reason, the soviets' intrigues to make Syria and Egypt believe imaginary threats, for example, do not change one iota their leaders' responsability for their actions.

I think you might agree that it doesn't take a scholar to make such a simple logic call, either.

Celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

On previous threads, there have been periodic calls to Melanie (and those broadly supporting her) to describe the "ideal" Arab-Israel settlement and suggest how this might be achieved.

From my recollection there was a single response (from C.Gee, I think - apologies if it wasn't). I certainly can't remember anything from you, John.

Now here you are, asking the impossible - a "collective" statement after "consulting" each other (how, exactly?) - just so that you can issue another predictable sneer from your limited bag of insults.

You seem to think that the people you name have a shared view that Israel shouldn't exist and might be prepared to set out a war plan. It will clearly surprise you to know that I for one (I can't speak "collectively" for the rest) have never once advocated Israel's non-existence and many of my posts have been derided as the scrambled twaddlings of a naive pacifist.

(Come to think of it, that sounds just like the sort of thing YOU say, so no surprise, then ... except, of course, if you never actually read my comments but simply picked out a few "key words" and rattled out an ill-typed formulaic response.)

By all means "stop engaging". I very much doubt you'll get much support, though, and can't even see you personally holding out for long. What on earth will you find to keep your self-righteous fires burning if the only "engagement" you get is a daily menu of mutual back-slapping?

Thomas

Fernando,
We went round the block a few times after you left.

I did attempt to answer the perfectly reasonable question "So what?" -

"You ask why it matters if the consensus is that it was an accidental war - because Israel's supporters insist that it was a genocidal attack on Israel, which somehow makes its subsequent expropriation of the West Bank justifiable. The evidence of history does not support this contention. It would be conducive to a negotiated peace if Israel were to discard this piece of propaganda. (To go off at a tangent, Ben Ami, whom you dismiss out of hand along with all the others, gives a good account from an Israeli point of view, of the myths the Palestinians would do well to discard.)"

And I also commented on the (again perfectly reasonable) point that the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan are to be held responisble for their actions. -

"Just in case you want to come back on the question of 1967, even if only to refer me to authoritative scholarship that supports your contentions, I would like to clarify what I said, since I think I have managed to mislead at least one other reader.

I think Egypt, Syria, and Jordan got their come-uppance. They are states like any other, free to mismanage their own affairs (as they have done)and take the consequences.

What I wanted to get across was that the Israeli version, the "official" version, if you want, does not hold up in the light of the evidence, in particular evidence from the Israelis themselves."

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Celato: what a wonderful response. Thanks for that. Serious food for thought.

I, on numerous occasions on this thread, have set out what I think needs to be done to achieve a meaningful peace...but it would be out of character, I suspect, for you to acknowledge that, not to mention "engage" with what I have proposed.

Anyway, still seems you and the other lot have desisted from any recommendations for peace whatsoever , let alone pragmatic ones. You are more intent in proving Israel is nothing but an Imperialist bunch of blood thirsty Jew conspirators. All very helpful, I know, but not when it comes to living with a state that just wont go away not matter how much you weep or apologise for Crimes Against Humanity.

Why do you all run so scared from discussion of practical peace solutions, I wonder...

Imraky

The BBC is profoundly mediocre and Britain, to my mind, is no longer an 'enlightened country'. Although I suppose it's better than Syria, credit for that.

Herzen

Adam B.
April 16th, 2011 7:15pm
You have spent too long over past months, and no doubt years, insisting that everyone accept a particular interpretation of the Mandate and the UN partition plan to turn round now and say it is all irrelevant.

As an aside, you are either forgetful or disingenuous if you think you can refer to the UN partition in support of your prejudices: you departed abruptly (pressure of business, no doubt) from a discussion in a previous thread where it was shown quite clearly why the goings on at the UN in 1947-8 did not bestow legitimacy or authorisation on the Zionists' declaration of independence. You have also been told that the UN, as successor to the League, could not disregard the Mandate.

But all this, in any case, you now say is irrelevant. If it were, why would Israeli propagandists and their fellow-travellers, including those here, make such a noise about the legitimacy bestowed by the Mandate and by the UN (as well as by morality, and the Bible, and the mysterious rights the Zionists exercised as self-appointed representatives of a Nation, and whatever else they think will add weight to their claims)? - because the manner in which Israel acquired its territory continues to have a bearing on the legal rights of those it dispossessed. A more honest understanding of the past would encourage a greater willingness to negotiate now in good faith with those whose claim on the land is certainly no less than theirs.

On sovereignty, I suggest you read the monograph recommended by C. Gee. Its author, Howard Grief, has amassed a treasure of historical and legal detail on this question as on many others.

To return finally to the mystery of why you thought it so important for Thomas to acknowledge that because Palestine had never been independent it could never be sovereign: Let us say, then, that you are correct, and sovereignty vested in neither Palestinian Arabs nor Palestinian Jews, because neither community governed its own affairs. What is it you think follows? How do you think this advances the cause you support? which is presumably that the Zionists had the right to establish a "Jewish state" in Palestine.

It is a frequent trick, and none the less tiresome for that, to cry foul whenever anyone delves too deeply into the history of Israel's founding - it "deligitimizes" Israel, you say. It is difficult to defend such an insistence that we take the history as read (it is usually the winners who insist). Nothing unearthed in investigating the history can make Israel any less of a sovereign state now. I have not seen anyone here suggest that Israel is other than a state like all the rest - its citizens have the same rights, and it has the same obligations.

C.Gee

Thomas:

“How much of the excerpt do you take to reflect what Pierre Orts said? I would suggest (particularly in light of the quote given by Herzen, if accurate) only up to "provisionally independent". The rest, I would suggest, is Howard Grief's gloss. He is fond of such sleight of hand.”

There is no “sleight of hand”. The grammar of the sentence would not permit imputation of anything to Orts other than the idea of the provisional independence of Palestine. In addition, Grief had already given the full quote from Orts on page 273. He assumes the reader will recall it.

I think you are showing a little too much of your superiority - even though it is more expensive than mine.

C.Gee

Herzen:

“A more honest understanding of the past would encourage a greater willingness to negotiate now in good faith with those whose claim on the land is certainly no less than theirs.”

You have mentioned this idea before. Does it bear scrutiny? Why would a more “honest” understanding of the past - particularly if it is your understanding - encourage a willingness to negotiate at all ?

Why would you think that the dishonest understanding of the past has meant that the Israelis have not negotiated in good faith?

Are you not assuming that the honest understanding of the past is that the Arab claim on the land is “certainly no less” than the Jews’?

Are you not assuming that recognition of Arab claims (which Israel has recognized provisionally on condition of Palestinian recognition of Israeli rights as part of the peace settlement), must be acknowledged by relinquishment of control of the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority?

Please elaborate on your thesis.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Herzen: "Nothing unearthed in investigating the history can make Israel any less of a sovereign state now. I have not seen anyone here suggest that Israel is other than a state like all the rest - its citizens have the same rights, and it has the same obligations."

I owe you and apology...and Thomas:

"And I also commented on the (again perfectly reasonable) point that the leaders of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan are to be held responisble for their actions."

..I am ashamed at what I was convinced you thought be about these countries ...

Allora, Avanti! What are your recommendations, lads?

1) Israel, of course, like Alan Dershowitz (a fav' of yours I'm sure) says, evacuates the West Bank...

..and then? Jerusalem?

What of the refugee Question?

What of the Islamists who would hang guys like you - oh, sorry, not Hamas, the other lot (there are so many) like they did the hapless Italian who so fervently supported them and their cause?

Please..I know you have the insights and the moral fibre to find not only a pragmatic approach to accommodation with the state you both recognise (again, I do apologise to you both)...especially if you can guide that state and bestow on it the benefits of your honesty and vision.

I am really sorry...I just dont know what to say...sorry, sorry...

Truthtriumphs

Thomas and Herzen.

Just a quick question.... do you apply the same criteria for the legallity and sovereignty to the Mandates for Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq and lebanon, that you do so obsessively to the one for the Jewish state?
If you do, why have we seen no evidence of it?
If not, we may conclude that your posts are driven by nothing more than anti-semitism according to the EU directive, which says that the singling out of Israel for treatment not applied to others, is anti semitic.

Adam B.

Herzen, this is surreal. It is the Herzens and Thomases of this world who care about the League of Nations and the UN. I couldn't care less - and I certainly don't base Israel's legitimacy on either of these two ridiculous institutions. It is clear that you rely on these in order to further your agenda of delegitimization of the Jewish state. That is what you want, yet you aren't up front about your true intentions. Try a little honesty. And it is also amazing how both you and Thomas have ducked the question of "sovereignty", obfuscating in every direction except a straight answer. Moral relativism and navel gazing don't interest me.

Only Israel constantly has its right to exist questioned. Disgusting.

Truthtriumphs

Adam B.
April 17th, 2011 10:55am

"Herzen, this is surreal. It is the Herzens and Thomases of this world who care about the League of Nations and the UN. I couldn't care less - and I certainly don't base Israel's legitimacy on either of these two ridiculous institutions".

Correct, but the fact that according to international law Israel's legitimacy IS unambiguously enshrined in the document the league ratified in 1922, subsequently incorporated into Article 80 of the UN charter, is what enrages people like Herzen and Thomas, and what drives them to comb through the literature to try to negate the will of these two international bodies, to delegitimise the sovereignty of Israel, treatment they reserve exclusively for the Jewish state.

Celato

JOHN ROOSEVELT:

First, an apology. You have, indeed, set out a proposal for peace settlement in this thread.

Second, a rebuke. One of the reasons I didn't notice it was that I'd grown so used to (destructively) retaliatory posts from you that I'm afraid I rarely bothered to read any of them after a while.

Air cleared, I'm now prepared to "engage"...

I am not familiar enough with either the historical twists and turns of the Middle East or the arcane complexities of international law to contribute anything concrete along these lines, so forgive me if I leave precise details on these matters to others.

All I can contribute are some broad principles and suggest a few routes taken in other conflicts which seem to have helped towards resolution and might usefully be adopted to resolve this one.

1. There has to be acceptance by the parties on both sides of each others' right to exist and that a two-state solution is possible through negotiation.

2. All those participating in negotiation need to make clear statements that peaceful coexistence is the ONLY worthwhile objective; any actions which sabotage this aim are consistently condemned as unacceptable.

3. "Sabotage" includes not just the use or threat of violence to force political change, but inflammatory rhetoric designed to incite violence and/or exploit feelings of alienation and resentment.

4. Those sabotaging the peace process are marginalised. Their statements are publicly disowned and any crimes they commit are properly investigated, tried, and punished.

5. Clear commitment is given by both sides that no extra-judicial action against those sabotaging the peace process is ever acceptable. (Assassination, for example, is recognised as an illegal act and never sanctioned; suspects must always be tried in open court - justice must be seen to be done; innocent citizens are never "sacrificed" in the interests of pursuing and punishing the guilty.)

6. No political party, faction, or individual which accepts these ground rules is excluded from participating in the peace process - whatever positions they may have taken in the past, up to and including illegal activities. (Lessons should be learned on this from Northern Ireland and South Africa where many of the key figures involved in securing settlement had been hitherto regarded as "terrorists" or "oppressors".)

7. Once talks begin, a clear agenda is laid down to establish internationally-recognised borders of the two independent states. No hindrance is placed on the eventual declaration of these borders by allowing further territory expansions, and assurances are given that any past expansions beyond the remit will be surrendered.(Timetables and the handling of "sticking points", etc, could again benefit from lessons learned in Ireland and SA.)

8. Both sides should then (or simultaneously) address the healing of wounds. There has to be an acceptance that people will always be willing to kill and die if they believe they have been wronged - whether robbed, impoverished, deprived of loved ones, or in any way unjustly treated. (SA's "Truth and Reconciliation" programme might be considered here.)

9. Future stability should be addressed on the basis that people will always be willing to kill or die if their lives are not worth living. Poverty and its attendant miseries of ill-health, slum residences and an inability to achieve betterment owing to lack of education needs to be eradicated as far as possible. (The Marshall Plan for Germany might be one good starting point in this exercise; consideration, too, of future trading/economic partnership blocs...)

10. In all these matters, Israel should be prepared to take the position of "magnanimous victor" in the conflict thus far. It should expect to make more "reparations" and face higher bills than those vanquished for the simple reason that it has resources to do so while the defeated do not. There is, of course, room to spread such costs by enlisting the aid of Israel's western allies and wealthy Arab states in the building of a sovereign and thriving Palestinian state, but that's perhaps another chapter...

Hope some of this is helpful. If there are flaws and gaps, I certainly don't mind having them pointed out. What would piss me off no end, however, is if the only response I get is a barrage of abuse with no alternative PROPOSALS offered by way of reply.

Cheers,
Celato

Thomas

Adam B.
April 17th, 2011 10:55am
It is simply dishonest to proclaim the Mandate and UN partition (as you have in teh past) only to say they are irrelevant when your interpretation of them is questioned. At least Truthtriumphs can claim to be consistent (if not very bright) in keeping faith with his propaganda even when it is refuted.

Your problem with sovereignty is puzzling. I have lost track of who has said what, but either Herzen, or me, or C. Gee has pointed you to the answer that sovereignty vested in the people, but their exercise of sovereignty was powtponed until the Great Powers in their wisdom or condescension decided to allow them to exercise it.

You should now tell us all why you thought your question so important (if you can still remember).

Israel had the misfortune to declare its independence at a time when military conquest was no longer a legally acceptable way to acquire territory. Hence the frantic efforts to press gang the League and the UN to Israel's cause in defiance of the historical record.

Your righteous indignation adds nothing to your case.

Adam B.

Truthtriumphs, I agree. Even by their own benchmarks, (which mean nothing to me personally), Thomas and Herzen fail to delegitimize Israel, despite their best efforts.

Thomas

C.Gee
April 17th, 2011 1:01am
When you asserted that "Pierre Orts provides a strong corroborating voice in Grief’s analysis of the treaties" I took you to mean that M. Orts agreed with Mr. Grief about something other than what is not in dispute. Otherwise, the great fanfare and the "strong corroborating voice" advance the discussion not at all. It is not clear then what you thought you were doing when you informed me that M. Orts in fact agreed with Mr. Grief (and, we may infer, did not agree with me or those I was relying on). I am sure you did not mean to mislead.

We still do not have from you any grounds for taking those whom M. Orts called the "Palestinians" to refer to "World Jewry". We are left with Mr. Grief's attempt to argue that HMG and the other parties to the relevant treaties were not free to agree between them what they meant by the terms of the treaties they had the authority to draft and ratify.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas
April 17th, 2011 7:15pm

Adam B.
April 17th, 2011 10:55am

"It is simply dishonest to proclaim the Mandate and UN partition (as you have in teh past) only to say they are irrelevant when your interpretation of them is questioned".

Adam, I have come to the conclusion that it is a complete waste of time arguing with the likes of Thomas as to what the league of nations did or did not intend with regard to Jewish self determination and the Mandate for Palestine document.
Of course, the meaning is crystal clear, as the league was prescient in its anticipation of future "doubting Thomases".
Do you notice that when Thomas, Herzen et al were pressed to answer whether they apply the same rigorous rules of interpretation to the league's intentions regarding the other four mandates, as to the Jewish one, the question was met with a deafening silence?

Fortunately, they are merely furious and frustrated powerless individuals, whose opinions count for nowt.
Israel's success as a sovereign state is an ongoing thorn in their flesh, so it's best just to ignore them.

Truthtriumphs

Thomas.

"Your problem with sovereignty is puzzling. I have lost track of who has said what, but either Herzen, or me...."

Shouldn't it be Herzen or I?
Your grasp of grammar is as lamentably wanting as is your grasp of historical facts.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

April 17th, 2011 1:30pm
JOHN ROOSEVELT:
“First, an apology. You have, indeed, set out a proposal for peace settlement in this thread.”
..and many others…I suggest you try and revisit those, since your thoughts, below, would imply either you haven’t, or disagree with them. At least make clear which. If the latter, tell us why.
“Second, a rebuke. One of the reasons I didn't notice it was that I'd grown so used to (destructively) retaliatory posts from you that I'm afraid I rarely bothered to read any of them after a while.”

Ah well, better than having your throat slit, I suppose.

“Air cleared, I'm now prepared to "engage"...
I am not familiar enough with either the historical twists and turns of the Middle East or the arcane complexities of international law to contribute anything concrete along these lines, so forgive me if I leave precise details on these matters to others.”

This should come as a relief to me, but I fear it wont…

“All I can contribute are some broad principles and suggest a few routes taken in other conflicts which seem to have helped towards resolution and might usefully be adopted to resolve this one.”

I am nervous already…for many reasons…

“1. There has to be acceptance by the parties on both sides of each others' right to exist and that a two-state solution is possible through negotiation.”

Well, you were right. You are not “familiar enough with..the historical twists and turns of the Middle East…”. Israel has accepted the Palestinian right to statehood and Res. 242. The Palestinians absolutuely refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, however. Hamas, is formally sworn to its annihilation. Not a good start…

“2. All those participating in negotiation need to make clear statements that peaceful coexistence is the ONLY worthwhile objective; any actions which sabotage this aim are consistently condemned as unacceptable.”

Couldn’t agree more.

“3. "Sabotage" includes not just the use or threat of violence to force political change, but inflammatory rhetoric designed to incite violence and/or exploit feelings of alienation and resentment.”

Couldn’t agree more and perhaps you could add to that the members of the Arab League, in particular, should enforce the same on their own members and the UN should perhaps adopt a Resolutions condemning and proscribing all anti-Semitic rhetoric and incitement to genocide against the Jews and Israel by any member state as precondition for the commencement of negotiations.

“4. Those sabotaging the peace process are marginalised. Their statements are publicly disowned and any crimes they commit are properly investigated, tried, and punished.”

Would be great, but when you think that Hamas’s explicit, unequivocal and repeated Crimes Against Humanity go not only unpunished but also without serious rebuke by any state or institution like the UN, I fear this is a pipe dream. The big problem is that the glorification of murdering innocent Jews has become a tenet of faith amongst many radical moslems and their leaders, and too many so-called upholders of International Law are too prepared to turn a blind eye..This fact alone, as far as I am concerned, makes a mockery of any optimism re achieving a meaningful peace.

“5. Clear commitment is given by both sides that no extra-judicial action against those sabotaging the peace process is ever acceptable. (Assassination, for example, is recognised as an illegal act and never sanctioned; suspects must always be tried in open court - justice must be seen to be done; innocent citizens are never "sacrificed" in the interests of pursuing and punishing the guilty.)”

I think this is also a pipe dream. Israel, in particular, has to find ways of impeding the killing of its civilians. Everyone seems zealous in their condemnation of “disproportionality”. Israel cannot fight a conventional war without massive negative reaction from the world. Israel has few other viable ways to stop these killers, therefore, but by hitting them wherever they can in a "targeted" fashion, and thereby trying to minimize so-called “collateral damage”. The pontificating anti-Zionists cannot have it both ways. In any event, NATO and the US are involved in extra juridical killings all the time..as are many, many other state and non state actors. Seems many states find this method a reasonable way of counteracting the violence of their enemies.

“6. No political party, faction, or individual which accepts these ground rules is excluded from participating in the peace process - whatever positions they may have taken in the past, up to and including illegal activities. (Lessons should be learned on this from Northern Ireland and South Africa where many of the key figures involved in securing settlement had been hitherto regarded as "terrorists" or "oppressors".)”

Clearly, for example, if Hamas changed its Charter to exclude a call for genocide of the Jews in the Middle East and recognized Israel as a Jewish state - renouncing violence - Israel would be hard pressed to preclude it from negotiations. It wont happen. They’re Islamists. It’s not in their blood, as they say…but, hey, The Holy Land has witnessed a miracle or two in its time, so…

“7. Once talks begin, a clear agenda is laid down to establish internationally-recognised borders of the two independent states. No hindrance is placed on the eventual declaration of these borders by allowing further territory expansions, and assurances are given that any past expansions beyond the remit will be surrendered.(Timetables and the handling of "sticking points", etc, could again benefit from lessons learned in Ireland and SA.)”

This is not new and does seem very reasonable to me but the quid pro quo has to be a commitment from the Palestinians – Hamas and their even more extreme cohorts –to do so as part of a final settlement of the conflict, not merely a hudna.

“8. Both sides should then (or simultaneously) address the healing of wounds. There has to be an acceptance that people will always be willing to kill and die if they believe they have been wronged - whether robbed, impoverished, deprived of loved ones, or in any way unjustly treated. (SA's "Truth and Reconciliation" program might be considered here.)”

You go that right, if you mean that perception/ feeling is on both sides and has been for a very long time. Do you mean that?

“9. Future stability should be addressed on the basis that people will always be willing to kill or die if their lives are not worth living.”

..and for many other reasons, of course, which also need to be addressed if you want the peace process to succeed.

“Poverty and its attendant miseries of ill-health, slum residences and an inability to achieve betterment owing to lack of education needs to be eradicated as far as possible. (The Marshall Plan for Germany might be one good starting point in this exercise; consideration, too, of future trading/economic partnership blocs...)”

Of course, as Israel has endeavored to do with regard to the West bank. However, you ignore the effect of Islamism and its nature on the prospects of success of any putative peace process. Fundamentalism is not caused uniquely by poverty, however difficult that idea may be for leftism and the class warriors to accept. The left-liberal lovelies and the flotilla flotsam just don’t get it, it seems. That’s why you see these useful idiots working for the likes of Press TV and cozying up to those who would hang them quicker than you can say “Lauren Booth is a loon”.

“10. In all these matters, Israel should be prepared to take the position of "magnanimous victor" in the conflict thus far. It should expect to make more "reparations" and face higher bills than those vanquished for the simple reason that it has resources to do so while the defeated do not. “

This is silly nonsense. Israel will never feel obliged to pay penance for defending itself, though I expect there is more chance that Israel might be magnanimous if the trust begins to build between the two sides than many other state in a similar position (though that may take a particularly fertile imagination to figure). It’s an almighty big “if”, however…

“There is, of course, room to spread such costs by enlisting the aid of Israel's western allies and wealthy Arab states in the building of a sovereign and thriving Palestinian state, but that's perhaps another chapter...”

Perhaps Iran could subsidize the process…after all, they supply arms to the Islamists to mukill Jews. If the Islamists want peace, I think Iran should lead this swords into ploughshares phenomenon.....I am certainly proud of the BBC for making a Panorama program on the peaceful intentions of the Ayatollahs, particularly towards their own people. Roll on Press Tv, I say!

“Hope some of this is helpful. If there are flaws and gaps, I certainly don't mind having them pointed out. What would piss me off no end, however, is if the only response I get is a barrage of abuse with no alternative PROPOSALS offered by way of reply.”

Hopefully you feel uplifted by my attempts to placate you, Celato. You have set an extraordinary example. I have faith yours will be followed by Thomas, Herzen, Tilly etc…but I also believe that Islam will never accommodate a Jewish state in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter, and the Palestinians will continue to be victimized by those who would murder 3 month old babies in the name of their God.
“Cheers,
Celato”

Bless you, too, Celato.

C.Gee

Thomas:

I’ll leave it to you to decide what Orts corroborates or does not corroborate in Grief’s argument. He is referred to eight times. Easy to check.

“We still do not have from you any grounds for taking those whom M. Orts called the "Palestinians" to refer to "World Jewry".” For heaven’s sake, that Palestine was intended to be a separate state for the Jewish People is the whole thrust of Grief’s book. He provides hectares of grounds for taking “Palestinians” to refer to the Jewish People and not the Arabs, of which Orts is an acre (in his understanding that Palestine was a separate state from the Arab states - not a separately created Arab state - and that Arab states were therefore “foreign powers” under the Mandate and barred by its terms from intervening in Palestinian affairs.)

Grief does not attempt to argue that British politicians were not “free” to agree to their interpretations of treaties and to write and ratify anything they liked: he argues that they were wrong in their legal grounds for doing so. He exposes their speciousness and perfidy. He does not deny that policies were implemented on such grounds. He does not deny that power was used - he shows how it was abused.

I know that your legal theory rests on the claims to sovereignty of the Arab population of the territory of Palestine. I know that you think that Palestine is the state for the Arab majority and that therefore they are Palestinians. That is why I recommended that you read Grief, who shows this to be an error. Please do not tell me that he does not explain why. It brings out cheap superiority in me.

If you think he has overlooked an argument - that would be interesting. But what he has not overlooked is his central thesis: Palestine was created to be a sovereign, independent state for the Jewish People - not the Arabs. How the Arabs acquired states in Jordan, Syria and Iraq and will now declare a state of “Palestine” on the West Bank and Gaza and sections of Jerusalem, is an extraordinary story of the workings of international law.

Adam B.

Thomas, that's your problem - you haven't refuted it at all.

Truthtriumphs has set out the hollowness of your accusations.

But more than all of this, let's be honest here. We are not having a genuine debate about this or that declaration. You have an agenda of delegitimizing the Jewish state. You do this because you ultimately wish to see it destroyed. You hate Israel and her people. This is nothing short of bigotry - as you demand something of Israel (i.e. to "prove" that this country and her people have a right to mere existence) that you don't demand of any other country on earth. Israel exists, and is internationally recognized - indeed, came about through legal means that most countries did not. Get over it.

We are not having a discussion in good faith, and I refuse to indulge this bigotry any longer.

Herzen

C. Gee
You decline to explain or defend your opinions; you insist I explain and defend mine.

"Please elaborate on your thesis."

I think not.

Richard

Two comments on Howard Grief.

The definition of citizens of Palestine was "Turkish citizens habitually resident in teh territory", was it not (with procedures for the naturalisation of Jewish immigrants.

Grief says that sovereignty was in abeyance until Palestine was allowed its independence - "such independence could only have been realized when Jews constituted a majority of the population of Palestine" It is odd that the Zionist immigrants and native Jews together have never constituted a majority in Palestine from the late nineteenth century until today. The only way Israel has created a majority in its "Jewish" democracy has been by explusion of large swathes of the population, and now by its cynical version of the two-state proposal, whereby the majority population are allowed to set up a confederation of discrete ghettoes, or exile.

Adam B.

Richard, there was no mass expulsion, so your thesis is garbage. Proponents of the "ethnic cleansing" argument can never explain away the presence of 1.2 million Arabs in Israel, 20% of the country. Yet they are invariably tongue tied when it comes to the complete ethnic cleansing (a real ethnic cleansing) of Jews from the Arab world.

Thomas

C. Gee
You know Grief's book much better than I do.

Could you do me a favour (especially as mine was a borrowed copy, since returned). -

Could you quote me the para. where Grief shows that Orts agrees with him, presumably that "World Jewry" was to be sovereign in Palestine.

And are you suggesting that Britain and the other Great Powers ratified treaties that were in some way illegal because they did not endorse the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration that Grief favours?

I have read through the book and can find the fundamental proposition only asserted: that Balfour, Weizman and Lloyd George interpreted the Declaration in such and such a way, therefore the treaties that incorporate the Declaration must interpret it the same way. - Again, could you help me out by referring me to where he actually argues for this contention rather than simply accumulating (admittedly fascinating and extremely useful) information about who said what to whom and how the law about this and that stood at the time). A few quotes would be appreciated as I am currently without the text.

Thomas

Adam B.
April 18th, 2011 10:02am
It was kind of you to attempt to explain to me my motivation. Unfortunately, you got it completely wrong.

You say that Israel came about through legal means (i.e you assert what you were meant to prove but declined to discuss).

You are on firmer ground when you say what everyone here has agreed, that Israel exists as an internationally recognized state.

I will remind you that it is its supporters here, including the blogger herself, who routinely demand that everyone accept that the Mandate and UN General Assembly Resolution give Israel its legal basis and its justification for its current actions. I have simply pointed out that they do no such thing.

I agree with those who said earlier that, if Israel stopped wrapping itself in the righteous victimhood of a false account of history and acknowledged that the Palestinians Arabs have at least as good a claim on the land as they do, then it might be possible to persuade them to compromise instead of pretending to negotiate while taking ever more of the territory and resources.

As a footnote: after making such a fuss over your little, little question about sovereignty and independence it is woefully inadequate simply to refuse to say why you thought it important.

Adam B.

Thomas - a question you still haven't answered. May I expect one?

It isn't Israel holding up peace - it is the Palestinian and wider Arab desire to destroy Israel, rather than establish a new state, which is the problem. But I'm glad you agree that this whole debate is nothing more than an academic exercise, of no relevance to today's problem, and that you unequivocally agree that Israel should exist as a Jewish state, and doesn't need to apologise for existing.

Thomas

Truthtriumphs
I'm not clear what your point is about the other mandates. They all had the same legal foundations and served the purposes of the Great Powers. The problem with the mandate for Palestine is in the Zionists' mistaken interpretation of it and what they took it to justify.

Thomas

C. Gee
Mr. Grief has summarised his case in several articles. They all suffer the same flaw - reliance on what the Zionist Congress and Balfour understood by the codewords "National Home".

While they are certainly free to agree between themselves what private meaning they wish to attach to the words, and the cabinet in time of war can nod it through, it is surely another question whether they can take a similarly cavalier approach in international treaties legally constrained by the League of Nations Covenant (which is perhaps why Mr. Grief is at such pains to insist on the inherently implausible assertion that the Palestinian Arabs were not among the "inhabitants of the former Ottoman Empire").

It is an indication how wedded to the Jewish National Home the cabinet were when they endorsed Balfour's Declaration that they were at precisely the same time offering Turkey continued sovereignty over Palestine as one of the bribes to abandon the Central Powers and come over to the Allied side.

Thomas

Adam B.
April 18th, 2011 3:45pm
Not entirely coherent and blatant in putting words in my mouth - so, par for the course, I suppose. But don't worry, I have given up expecting you to explain yourself (or believing that you could).

Adam B.

So Thomas, you don't think Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, and doesn't need to apologise for existing?

Here's an idea - why don't you lay your cards on the table and say what you do think? You are a master of muddied waters.

And still waiting for your answer to my question. May I expect one?

Thomas

Adam B.

"And still waiting for your answer to my question. May I expect one?"

I know this is your favourite tactic for keeping yourself in countenance, but what question in particular do you feel you need an answer to?

C.Gee

Thomas:

“...(which is perhaps why Mr. Grief is at such pains to insist on the inherently implausible assertion that the Palestinian Arabs were not among the "inhabitants of the former Ottoman Empire").”

Rubbish. You are insinuating that he is denying the presence of Arabs. He makes no such assertion. He talks about the legal significance of “inhabitants” in the instruments granting sovereignty to the Jewish People. Finding the legal significance of terms is fundamental to the work. Ignore that, and you might as well not bother to read the book. Use it as a foot stool.

I have already told you to satisfy yourself as to which part of Grief’s argument Orts is brought in to corroborate. I have also summed it up for you. It is only your self-defensive and quarrelsome misreading of one of my comments that makes you childishly insist that I establish Orts (a fairly minor character in the great drama) as the authority for the bald statement “Palestinians” = “World Jewry”, which Grief explains with subtlety and depth, bringing in corroborating evidence from many sources for each part of the argument.

“And are you suggesting that Britain and the other Great Powers ratified treaties that were in some way illegal because they did not endorse the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration that Grief favours?”

Thomas. Old Chinese saying: When finger point at moon, idiot look at finger. It is Grief who “suggests” (argues, carefully and with scrupulous attention to counter-arguments) that certain erroneous interpretations by Britain politicians of legal instruments - including ratified treaties - permitted them to act illegally under the powers granted to them by legal instruments with respect to Palestine. I am suggesting you read the book. Borrow it again. Burrow in it for quotes.

C.Gee

“I agree with those who said earlier that, if Israel stopped wrapping itself in the righteous victimhood of a false account of history and acknowledged that the Palestinians Arabs have at least as good a claim on the land as they do, then it might be possible to persuade them to compromise instead of pretending to negotiate while taking ever more of the territory and resources.”

Herzen will not elaborate on this idea. Would you?

How would Israel’s acknowledgement that they are not righteous victims and have deluded themselves with a false account of history -
a) establish the Palestinians claim as being as “good” as Israel’s? (!)
b) lead to a possibility that Israel will compromise?
c) cause Israel to drop the pretense they are negotiating?
d) stop Israel taking ever more of the territory and resources?

If Israel’s claims are as good as the Palestinians, and Israel controls the land, then why should Israel defer to Palestinian claims? Upon the well-known international legal principle of Equal Shares? Enforced by whom?

If Israel acknowledges Zionism’s evil intent to steal Arab land, upon what basis does it negotiate at all? Upon the legal principle of Fess Up and You’ll be Forgiven, and Allowed to Keep the Swag? (See Celato’s Truth and Reconciliation proposal for really getting serious about peace ).

If Israel acknowledges that they are the aggressors and their state is illegitimate, why should that result in their negotiating to handing back their ill-gotten gains? Survival - even as an illegitimate state - would be paramount. Upon the well-known international legal principle of Bully’s Remorse (or Victor’s Magnanimity - see Celato’s proposals)?

If Israel acknowledges that it stole the land, why would it that make current governments amenable to giving it back? Why would Israel not keep everything it can, and wait for the Arabs to try to take it back - again? How would its leaders be persuaded that theirs is the historic administration to restore the Jewish People‘s moral standing - achieved briefly after the Holocaust for the short time the world loved itself for its retrospective pity for Jews - at the expense of their land and state, if not actual lives? And on what principle is a people’s or a nation’s moral standing restored after a confession of crime? ( Especially for Jews who have so long been accused of crimes they have not committed? )

No, I just do not see how getting Israel to plead guilty to being a criminal state will “lead to a possibility” that it will negotiate for its own capital punishment or even life imprisonment. Like other rogue states, it would rather live life on the lam.

Thomas

C.Gee
April 18th, 2011 6:04pm
No, Grief pretends that the Palestinian Arabs, although "inhabitants of the former Ottoman empire" and therefore citizens of Palestine were not to have any say in their future because of the incorporation in the Mandate of words he misinterprets (against all the evidence) to mean sovereignty was bestowed on "World Jewry" alone.

And, no, you did not sum anything up as relates to the Orts. If you recall, you told me that Grief explains why "Palestinians" referred to "World Jewry" and you informed me that Orts provided corroboration of some part or other of this explanation. Well, Grief merely asserts. Orts as far as I can see does not corroborate anything other than what we all agree, and you decline to show me where he does support Grief's more contentious claims (it should presumably be easy for you to do so).

And, again, no - you were not merely pointing at Grief's accusation that Britain acted illegally, you were agreeing with him. For the accusation to stick, we have to believe that the treaties Britain and its co-signatories misunderstood or abused were the ones they had drafted and ratified and the fulfilment of whose terms the Permanent Mandate Commission oversaw. So, if the British delegation agrees with the French and Italian that clause x means "x" and ratify the treaty with clause x and act on it on the understanding that x means "x" then either the treaty is illegal or their understanding of it is wrong because years earlier a fringe group agreed with a now former foreign secretary that clause x means "y". This is Mr. Grief's case. All the rest of the "subtlety" and "depth" and "finding (fabricating) the legal significance of terms" - while full of interest - nevertheless leaves his case utterly unconvincing. Like any good advocate, he has made the best of his client's case - but, if this is the best, no wonder military coercion and endless propaganda were required.

Adam B.

Thomas, your tactic is to delegitimize Israel in a roundabout way.

You don't say what you really stand for. It isn't honest.

And the question, a third time is: do you accept that Palestine was never sovereign, given that it never had any self-governance, whether Jewish or Arab? Can a territory be sovereign without self-governance?

Thomas

Adam B.
April 18th, 2011 11:53pm
This is very odd. You have been given the answer more than once by more than one person. You have been referred to one of the most detailed Zionist accounts of the matter. The League of Nations provisionally recognized the state of Palestine. Sovereignty vested in the people of Palestine. Their exercise of sovereignty was held in abeyance by the imperial powers, who nevertheless recognized the people of Palestine as sovereign and did not claim sovereignty for themselves.

The mystery remains, and you seem very coy about it - why do you think your question so important? Why do you not tell us what follows from any particular answer to it?

As with other contributors faced with your attempted debate-stopper, "deligitimization" (?) is neither here nor there - a decent peace settlement requires Israel to stop claiming its God-given and international-community given right to this that and the other regardless of others and to stop denying the historical fact that there are two communities living in Palestine that both deserve a decent life.

C.Gee

Adam B:

Thomas says:

“As with other contributors faced with your attempted debate-stopper, "deligitimization" (?) is neither here nor there - a decent peace settlement requires Israel to stop claiming its God-given and international-community given right to this that and the other regardless of others and to stop denying the historical fact that there are two communities living in Palestine that both deserve a decent life.”

I really do not think there could be a more succinct expression to illustrate anti-Zionism’s legal, moral, historical, emotional and political confusion. It is a vial of poison, nice and hot, straight from the cauldron.

Who knew that communities deserve a decent life? Not just life. But a decent life. Is this desert a right? It is not God-given, nor international-community given - nor even, one might infer, given by national civil laws. Whence cometh it? Is it applied anywhere else on the planet? Or does it emanate exclusively from Arab presence on the soil that was not controlled by Israel prior to 1967, and that was controlled by Israel at its declaration of statehood? And would the Arab community’s owning that land result in a decent life for it?

A decent life deserved by all: the new international human imperative (so much stronger, so much more creatively needing, than a “right”), custom-made for the Arab Palestinians. What ho. Jolly good. I think that fairly stops the debate, doesn’t it?

A decent life. A decent life for two communities. I'll be hollering that in my shower...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Thomas: "a decent peace settlement requires Israel to stop claiming its God-given and international-community given right to this that and the other regardless of others and to stop denying the historical fact that there are two communities living in Palestine that both deserve a decent life."

Well, well, Thomas. That was a bit of an outburst, no?

A 'decent settlement"...mmm...now there's the rub.

What you got in mind? Hope it precludes the deliberate murdering of civilians..sliiting the throats or 3 month old babies...or not?

Herzen

C.Gee
April 19th, 2011 6:37pm
Oh, dear! C. Gee's spells of relative lucidity always prove temporary.

Adam B.

Thomas, what do YOU think? Why don't you lay your cards on the table? And what do YOU think follows from the answer, as it was you who brought the whole issue up in the first place? This is a transparent little game, Thomas - made all the more ironic because it is utterly meaningless.

It is hard for there to be a just settlement for two people when one is trying to commit genocide on the other.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Very limp, Herzen..Very limp indeed...

Thomas

Adam B.
April 19th, 2011 10:48pm
I said what I think. I said what I think follows. You appear incapable of either - in which case there is nothing more to be said.

Thomas

C. Gee

"anti-Zionism’s legal, moral, historical, emotional and political confusion"

- if you can at last do what you have so far assiduously avoided and substantiate any one of these, then I would conclude, with some relief that you are finally engaging in debate, that Herzen's diagonosis may on this occasion be premature.

Herzen

We have had "I think your argument refuted, but I can't be bothered telling you how and by whom."

We have had "Howard Grief provides the argument that proves you wrong, but I'm not going to tell you where."

Also, "Your crude summary of Howard Grief's position ignores the depth and subtlety of his argument, but I'm not going to tell you etc."

Also "Orts corroborates Grief, but I'm not going to give you the evidence."

Also "Well, Orts is a minor character anyway" (the chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission - and this in a discussion of the Mandates!)

We now have "It is a vial of poison, nice and hot, straight from the cauldron" - but no hint as to how so - can't be bothered - rhetoric, not reason (always a dangerous symptom).

What we do not have yet is "I am a goatherd" (unless "I holler in the shower" counts).

Nor have we had "totalitarianism!" or "anti-semitism!"

So we have had most of the repetoire of avoidance, but not the final symptoms that clinch it.

I accept that my diagnosis may therefore be premature, but I am condfident it will prove correct.

Adam B.

er...no you haven't.

Ian Miller

JOHN ROOSEVELT
"What you got in mind?"

I realise that this question wasn't actually addressed to me, but I hope you don't mind my answering.

Rather than quote the precise details, I would like to describe a peace deal in terms of how it will be seen.

I would expect that only a very small proportion of people, mostly peace activist on either side who can appreciate the other side's pain as clearly as their own will think that the deal is fair. The overwhelming majority of both populations will see the deal as unfair to very unfair, but will accept it, or at least won't violently oppose it. For the deal to be minimally acceptable to either side, it will have to seen as unfair by the other side.
The important point is that if a deal is going to last it must be acceptable to the vast majority on both sides; it being considered fair is a luxury that I don't think is available.

Finally on both sides there will be a minority who consider the deal totally unacceptable and who will oppose it violently. There will be such people on both sides, because any deal that is minimally acceptable to either side will be unacceptable to the other side's extremists.

"Hope it precludes the deliberate murdering of civilians..sliiting the throats or 3 month old babies...or not?"

In principle, of course. However in practice, I would expect any feasible deal to provoke atrocities as the extremists on both sides do their damnedest to derail it.

Such violence will take place and if any deal is to have any chance of holding, it will necessary to continue in the face of it. If that will to continue is lacking, then the extremists are being given a veto on peace. If you give the extremists such veto, you can absolutely certain that they will exercise it.

I don't have any illusions about how difficult this would be, which is why I am not optimistic.

Herzen

Adam B.
April 20th, 2011 7:20pm
This is beyond my skill as a diagnostician.

I will give what help I can:

"The League of Nations provisionally recognized the state of Palestine. Sovereignty vested in the people of Palestine. Their exercise of sovereignty was held in abeyance by the imperial powers, who nevertheless recognized the people of Palestine as sovereign and did not claim sovereignty for themselves."

"... there are two communities living in Palestine that both deserve a decent life."

This last comment has prompted a comic spasm of indignation from the diehards. I do not know why. You are probably better placed to delve into that particular swamp.

You have finally run through your bag of tricks. It is time to produce your own answers, - unless you have none, and were merely making trouble, creating a distraction, trying to drown out arguments you can't respond to? It wouldn't be the first time, and I'm sure will not be the last.

Adam B.

Herzen, here is my answer. It is utterly meaningless and irrelevant to anything today, save as an academic hypothesis. This is a sorry excuse for delegitimization of the Jewish state. What Thomas and you are saying (without being too explicit as you couldn't be too up front about what you think) is that Israel really has no basis to exist, because the League of Nations recognized in principle that a state of Palestine (whether Jewish or Arab remains undetermined - and unexplored by you) should exist. The fact that it never existed, and that sovereignty of any description was never attained, is ignored, because it gets in the way of your delegitimization fantasy.

Neither you nor Thomas offer anything constructive to the future - merely a ham fisted attempt to pave the way to Israel's destruction through an incessant process of drip drip delegitimization - and having to go back 90 years to a defunct and error prone body to try and achieve it.

That really is sad.

Herzen

Adam B.
April 21st, 2011 12:09am
So, there we have it. You did know that Thomas had answered your questions (despite your loud repeated demands that he ANSWER). You apparently cannot understand his answers (I infer from your misguided remarks. And you have no answers of your own. Why so much evasion and bluffing, when you could have admitted as much long since?

Herzen

Adam B.
April 21st, 2011 12:09am
You may also want to take issue with your fellow apologists, including Truthtriumphs, C. Gee, Melanie Phillips etc. etc. who repeatedly require us to recognize that the Mandate gave the Zionists the legal right to establish a "Jewish" state in Palestine.

Thomas is responding to their propaganda. If you object to discussion of the Mandate, take it up with them. Thomas has tried to show, as have I, that the Mandate did no such thing. The consequence of the Mandate is that there are two communities in Palestine, neither of whom has a right to prosper at the expense of the other, as Israelis do at the expense of Palestinians.

This is no confusion on Thomas's part. These are the facts. Your apologists are expert at denial, but have yet to provide a positive case for thinking otherwise.

As for you, can I suggest that it never makes sense to pretend that the history of a conflict is irrelevant.

C.Gee

Ian Miller:

Permit me to step in.

“The overwhelming majority of both populations will see the deal as unfair to very unfair, but will accept it, or at least won't violently oppose it. For the deal to be minimally acceptable to either side, it will have to seen as unfair by the other side.”

This is interesting. Not seen this before. In effect you are proposing opinion polls as a metric for the acceptability of a peace deal, but based on creative counter-logic.

The deal is (optimally) acceptable to both sides if: an “overwhelming majority of both populations will see the deal as unfair”. How about setting a 90% “unfair” threshold?

The deal is (minimally) acceptable to Israel if : a majority of Palestinians think that the deal is unfair to them. How about setting a 51% “unfair” threshold?

The deal is (minimally) acceptable to Arabs if: a majority of Israelis think that the deal is unfair to them. Same 51% threshold.

The deal is acceptable to both sides if a majority of peace activists (“on either side” - how to distinguish “peace activists” from “militants” would have to be decided first, of course ) think that the deal is fair.

Turning to what we know of opinions on the Arab Peace Initiative, at least 57% of Israelis in 2008 did not support the plan - presumably because it was unfair. That means that the plan is acceptable to the Arabs. But only 28% of Palestinians (living in the West Bank and Gaza - already under Hamas - but not in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria) did not support the plan. So the plan is not acceptable to the Israelis, who must wait for at least another 23% of Palestinians to turn against the plan before it can become acceptable the them. Perhaps this may be resolved by the results of the peace activist poll. I am pretty sure that “peace activists” would favor the API. In fact, many people would support the acceptability of the peace plan purely on the peace activists opinion that it is fair.

So now the question is: assuming that polls are taken, and we arrive at an acceptability threshold, who imposes the deal? The Israeli government explains to the Israelis - who voted for them - that the deal must be accepted because the Palestinians know that over 51% of Israelis think it is unfair. The electorate agrees. The PLO leadership explains to the negotiating committee (no need to explain anything to the people, the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, despite the fact that a whole bunch of them voted for Hamas who turned down the API) that this is an acceptable deal because the Israelis hate it. Does the negotiating committee accept? Hmm.

As you so rightly anticipate, violence will continue. But that is a sign of the acceptability of the deal. “Such violence will take place and if any deal is to have any chance of holding, it will necessary to continue in the face of it. If that will to continue is lacking, then the extremists are being given a veto on peace. If you give the extremists such veto, you can absolutely certain that they will exercise it.” So peace, though it looks like war, will actually be peace for the majority of the populations who are subjected to the peace because they see it as unfair.

I am pretty sure that conditions are ready for a minimally acceptable peace deal right now. I am sure that 51% of Israelis think the API is unfair, and 51% of peace activists think it fair. Let the deal be done. Peace in our time. A decent life for all communities.

Handshakes in the Rose Garden! Bring on the oompah band and send in the clowns.

C.Gee

Adam B:

“Neither you nor Thomas offer anything constructive to the future - merely a ham fisted attempt to pave the way to Israel's destruction through an incessant process of drip drip delegitimization - and having to go back 90 years to a defunct and error prone body to try and achieve it.”

Herzen’s and Thomas’ efforts here are for the purpose of getting Israel-supporters on these pages, as proxies for the Israeli government, to admit that Israel has no legal basis for its existence as sovereign state, because if Israel is “honest” about the past, it will - for reasons they do not give - sign up to the API and the Palestinians and Israelis will lead decent lives. Voila! Jewish problem solved.

Admission by Israel of its guilt is the philosopher’s stone: it will turn war into golden peace. So, in fairness, they do offer something constructive to the future: political alchemy.

Adam B.

Herzen.

No. He has not answered.

Neither have you.

But it is clear where your little silly game is trying, in vain, to go.

It really is a desperate clutch at straws.

caged vole

Everyone who's had enough, be like Cato, and finish every post with:
Delenda est BBC.

How can there be truth and righteousness while its warped agenda is promoted 24/7?

David Long

Melanie, Israel has a true friend in you. Unfortunately, the obverse is that Hamas has a true friend in the BBC.