The dangerous naivety of the well-intentioned

Mladen Andrijasevic

There are, however, analysts who understand the absurdity of the situation. Barry Rubin is one of them : Drowning in solutions
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659718583&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

ndm

Melanie Phillips writes:

-- The belief that economic improvement is the road to peace is yet another example of the arrogance and ignorance of a west that insists on filtering the Middle East through the prism of western values – and thus persists in catastrophically mis-diagnosing and perpetuating the very problem it so earnestly tries to solve.

So with whose values, if not our own, should those of us who live in the West view the Middle East? It is people like Melanie Phillips, who would have us abandon our own values, who catastrophically mis-diagnose not only the Middle East but the World.

Reg

To ndm:

Economic prosperity is one of the benefits of peace, not (in this case) one of the pre-conditions. Clearly, normal economic activity cannot occur between two peoples at war with eachother.

Prosperity will resume as soon as the Palestinian leadership opts for peace.

Robin

ndm

Which values would we be abandoning? Which values would you have us keep? To which values would you have us change?

ndm

Robin -

I suggest you redirect your questions to Melanie Phillips. It is, after all, she who complains about people who "insists on filtering the Middle East through the prism of western values."

Robin

Ah.. nothing concrete to say, then.

Andrew Halloway

How wonderful to finally hear a British media commentator talking sense on the Palestine/Israel issue. Melanie is to be congratulated on her insight.

John

I suspect that the "values" ndm is reluctant to allow Melanie Phillips to interfere with are those that engender Israel hating, anti-semitism, and other such hallmarks of mature and well-balanced thinking.

Dhimmitude sucks

NDM-

I don't think Melanie suggested we abandon our values, but rather that we cannot try and interpret the psychology of the intifada on the assumption that it is running on our values.

We have to recognise that Islamism has a different value system if we are to understand what it is, and respond to it appropriately.

FinanceDoc

Regrettably, the notion that foreign capital and investment in the Palestinian areas will wean the Arabs from extremism is also advocated by the likely next PM of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. One need only tally the billions of Euros, Pounds and Dollars which end up in the Swiss bank accounts of Palestinian politicians, the paychecks of Hamas rocket crews, or the coffers of Egyptian weapons smugglers to understand the futility of an "economic" solution to the conflict. I recently read that it costs the Pals in the vicinity of $60,000 to manufacture one Kassam. $60,000! Imagine the quantity of food, medicines and vital supplies which could be purchased with this money if the Arabs were not alternatively obsessed with murdering Jews.

Roslyn Pine

The only route to a peaceful Middle East is to stop the vile , poisonous, anti-Jewish indoctrination of the young in Arab countries, which is an essential part of the school curriculum in every one of Israel's neighbours, including the two countries which have a peace treaty with Israel, namely Jordan and Egypt. Indeed this abominable propaganda is inflicted on very young children and continued throughout their education.
That should be the priority of the US, EU and UN, but it won't happen because it requires too much effort and it would inflame the Arab "street".
Far better, from their point of view, to throw ever more money (courtesy of the long-suffering tax payer) at the Palestinian entity, and thus perpetuate the illusion that this will move the "peace process" forward.
The fact that such monies inevitably end up either lining the pockets of corrupt officials or spent on ever more armaments with which to terrorise Israelis, rather than being used to build up the Palestinian infrastructure, never seems to trouble the consciences of our so- called leaders.

Sheron - Australia

NDM
Values are a language. Values are the language of cultures. You understand that the value system of the Japanes, French, and Italians are not necessarily the same as that of the Britsh just as the languages are not same. You would agree with me that trying to negotiate a business deal with the Japanes in English without bothering to see if they know English would be very arrogant. Even if you are certain that they know English, do the words have the same meaning in both languages. For example the statement “ Can I bum a fag”of you means can I have a cigarette in Australian english but in American english it means something different all together. Fanny is a name in English English and a backside in American English.
What Melanie was trying to say with "filtering the arrogance and ignorance of a west that insists on filtering the Middle East through the prism of western values " is just that. We are guilty of arrogance in not bothering to find out about the value system of those we are trying to make peace with. Do they value the plasma television as we do, is their definition of peace the same as that of the "West". Do the realing elite of these cultures value freedom of speech, equality among the genders, equality among all nations.
Historical factors come into play in the developement of any culture’s value system. The West is too arrogant in thinking that "everyone wants to be like us". Are the sheiks of Saudi Arabia willing to distribute their wealth in exchange for educating their population and introducing democracy. Is the average muslim willing to give up his role as king of the home in order to allow the women in his home equal standing with him. NDM Values are just like a language, before you can negotiate or come to common agreement you first have to understand their values and not assume that our values are universal.
I am not making a judgement about their values or our values. I am acknowledging that their value system may not be the same as ours. This does not mean abandoning my value system. All it means is that I understand that values are different. For their to be true understanding of everyone position, we must truly understand what the Palestinian definition of peace is according to their value system and then see if it something that we can live with according to our own value system. From what I have learnt over the years in my dealings with both sides the peace that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world want is not something that Israel can live with and the rest of the Western world should not expect form Israel
What our leaders have taught the Arab worl about our values is that the values of the “West “ are currency that can be traded and bought for the right rhetoric and the right price.

Terry

Two states is not and will never be a solution. The whole Palestinian project, the invention of a people to liberate in a land where they didn't belong and was Jewish land anyway, is intended to destroy Israel, not to create an arab state. If the purpose of the pretend palestinians and their arab and islamonazi backers is merely to destroy Israel, then giving them a state isn't going to bring peace. It may bring Israel closer to destruction, it may cause the ME war to end all ME wars, but peace it will not bring. Not now. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

Roy

Hope you gave them a few 'home truths' while you were over there Melanie. Like you consistently put the hard word on us lot.

patricia

What about the illegal settlements?

What about the way the settlers victimise Palestinian civilians?

What did the conference say about that?

Or did the Weidenfeld ensure that such concerns were brushed under the carpet as delighted delegates like Mel tucked into their lobster salads?

Arthur

NDM
What Melanie is asking us to do is stop thinking Israel is like leafy Surrey and treat the problem for what it is (a Middle East problem) and not what we would like it to be.

logdon

This the same old same old Hamasteria. The fact is that Israel was planning a massive incursion into Gaza to rid it of rocket firing and suicidal terrorists. They know who they are and they know where they live. Suddenly we see this placatory measure, designed to take the heat off but it's a classic Hudna. Filtering through a prism of the west is spot on. They abide by the nefarious rule of 'war is deceit' formulated by Mohammed himself. Whilst in a position of weakness it is permitted to make and honour treaties. Once that breathing space has allowed a retrenchment and marshaling of sufficient military power it's as if the treaty did not exist. We should read more on the history and formulation of Islam. This is nothing to do with poverty but the Islamic rule of once Islamic always so. They will argue till the cows come home about the (non) legitimacy of Israel because of that edict, quite ignoring that Jews were there for thousands of years before. In a similar manner Spain is in the sights also. They long for a return of El Andalus. Spains removal of troops from Iraq after the Madrid bombing was seen as a first step. I wonder if the Spanish would cede land in the same way Israel is being bullied into?

GNO

A two state solution is not new. India opted for a three state one and it still had to go to three wars, and has to deal with multitude of terrorist attacks virtually on daily basis to maintain what it was left by the British.

So a two state solution is not going to give Israel the peace that it so desperately covets anymore than it did India. To live next door to belligerent people whose sole purpose in life is to destroy you ain't fun.

Shaun

Israel as a Jewish state? According to http://www.cbs.gov.il/ts/ - that’s the Israeli government own website accessed today – there are a little under 2 million non-Jews in Israel (7,254.400 – total pop; 5,481.200 – Jews), how do they fit into the Jewish state you keep on about?

Elizabeth

Actually the Serbs were and are our frontline against islamic terror and look what we did to them. Bombed them 'back to the stone age' for 78 days and nights, handed the might of NATO to the advantage of an islamic fundamentalist terror group the KLA and have just illegally supported the robbing of Serbia of 15% of its country the historic basis of their entire nation and religion, Kosovo.
If thats what we do to nations who try to defend themselves from islamic terror no wonder the islamics themselves regard Europe. and Britain in particular. soft and ripe for conquest and part of the new worldwide caliphate.
If we haven't the wit to recognise islamic terror, murder and expansionism when we see it, God help us and protect people like the Serbs from illegal NATO attack.
No wonder the Russians are less than happy watching NATO creeping ever closer - again against the understanding the West made with Russia.
I didn't notice Israel saying much as Belgrade went up in flames each night.

A Chaffey

So Melanie opposes any two state solution. That seems to leave only a one state solution. Fine, but what kind of state?

I can conceive of three scenarios.

The first scenario is of a multi-ethnic state in which all the current inhabitants of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza (and ideally Palestinians of the diaspora who wished to return) enjoyed wholly equal rights. There is much that would be attractive in this. The difficulty, at least for Zionist aspirations, is that such a state would have a very significant Arab/muslim minority and it would not have the clearly Jewish character of the Zionist dream. Frankly I can't see Melanie going for this.

To retain the Jewish character of the new state, one option would be to expel (or transfer if you prefer) all, or at least a significant proportion, of non-Jews. This is the second scenario.

A second option to retain the Jewish nature of the state would be to accord differential citizen rights as between Jews and non-Jews, so that non-Jews had in effect a second class citizenship. This is the third scenario. The model for it would be apartheid.

So which is it Melanie? Do you prefer ethnic cleansing or apartheid?

Or do you simply prefer the continuation of the status quo: low level violence, creeping colonisation of the West Bank.

Adam B.

Patricia, Melanie is not very likely to be tucking into a lobster salad - think about it. You really are clueless - and insensitive.

Adam B.

patricia, the settlements aren't illegal. We have gone over and over this on this blog. And what about the Jews and other minorities (the Bahai come to mind) who are murdered in Islamic countries, let alone victimized? You're like a broken record.

David Lindsay

I am very pleased if there really is to be a Hamas ceasefire. But watch out for the people who aren't. They won't be on the Islamist side, nor will most of them be Israeli.

With this and with the Obama candidacy, we have the double opportunity to insist that the tiny little tail that is a (not terribly grateful) minority even within the extremely small country in question, itself the most militarised on earth and with hundreds of nuclear weapons, will no longer be permitted to wag the dog that is at least two, and increasingly three, permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

Adam B.

A Chaffey, you can only conceive of three options because you lack imagination. The percentage of non-Jews living in Israel has not changed that much in 60 years. Some demographers were stating years ago that by the end of the 20th century, the writing would be on the wall and Israel would no longer have a Jewish majority. Well, it hasn't happened yet. Another possibility to your three scenarios would be to redraw the boundaries between Israel and the so-called west bank(which are in fact merely cease fire lines, not borders). Thus Jewish settlemets could be included in Israel, and areas of an Arab majority which are currently in Israel (Umm-el Fahm) could be included in an Arab entity ("Palestine" or Jordan). Your conclusion that it can either be apartheid or ethnic cleansing is absurd, and loaded. Neither have happened despite the Arab onslaught on Israel for sixty years. I don't think the same could be said for most countries in a similar situation. And furthermore, if you were really concerned about apartheid, you would look at the treatment of minorities in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and if you were concerned about ethnic cleansing, you'd look at Sudan.

Adam B.

A Chaffey, what about Egypt and Jordan taking possession of territories, instead of the establishment of a dysfunctional "Palestine" (a preview of which is seen in Hamas' coup in Gaza)?

Brian Gould

A Chaffey asks:

"Or do you simply prefer the continuation of the status quo: low level violence, creeping colonisation of the West Bank."

In an ideal world, this wouldn't be anybody's first choice. In practice, however, it's probably the best outlook anybody can realistically hope for.

The alternative -- the two-state solution with full recognition by "Palestine" of the Israeli state -- isn't going to happen, simply because a majority of Palestinians don't want it. To this day, they stubbornly refuse to admit that Israel won its War of Independence in 1948.

As I mentioned on another thread a few days ago, this revanchist policy means, in effect, that there can be no meaningful negotiations. The two sides go through the motions of holding talks, but their only real purpose is to provide diplomatic cover for what A. Chaffey rightly calls "the continuation of the status quo".

ndm

Adam B -

It doesn't matter how many times
you go "over and over this on this blog" - but the Israeli "settlement" of the Occupied Palestinian Territory is not only illegal it is a war crime.

The ideas that Israel is not occupying the Palestinian Territories and that the "settlements" are not illegal infests the same moral plane as Holocaust denial.

Elizabeth

'options because you lack imagination. The percentage of non-Jews living in Israel has not changed that much in 60 years.'
WHY?????????
How strange this is when all other western countries have been almost overwhelmed by third world refugees.
Why hasn't Israel taken its share?.
Why has Israel kept the right not to be turned into one of the failing multiracial states.
Surely it should be made to open its borders to the teeming masses trying to enter Europe, take a quota and do its bit not remaining a privileged state above the rest of us.
It can't possibly be poverty. I understand Israelis have the highest per capita income of any state.
Obviously in a position to pay benefits and provide homes for, for instance, tens of thousands of the Iraqis they have done so much to displace.
As Britain, Hong Kong and Holland are, I understand, the most densely populated areas of the planet, Israel clearly has romm for a million or so without encroaching on Palestine.
Come on Israel join the rest of the world particularly as it is well known that Jewish groups are in the forefront of pro immigrant thought elsewhere.
What is good for the English goose forced to build 6 new towns largely for immigrants should be good enough for the Israeli gander.
Perhaps if the new building on Palestinian land was to house Afghan refugees looked after by Israel as should be regarded their duty, we do it, the Palestinians might not object quite so strongly.
Try it.

Brian Gould

Adam B., at the Camp David negotiations in 1978 Begin wanted to hand over the Gaza Strip to Egypt along with the Sinai Peninsula. Sadat refused.

Robin

Patricia & NDM

The old saw about the "illegal" settlements can be dealt with quite effectively if you go www.palestinefacts.org/pf_current_settlements.php and read a bit.

logdon

Try this for the reality of expectation

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/4722/

Adam B.

Elizabeth, Israel is currently taking refugees from Darfur, Muslim refugees (from the genocide committed by the janjaweed and Sudanese government) who risk their lives to get into Israel. Israel also took Vietnamese boat people 9when no neighbouring country would). In fact, Isreal has the highest immigrant population per capita in the world. How many immigrants have Eastern European nations taken of late? (Don't see many immigrants in Poland and Hungary, do you?) Are you as worked up about that?

Adam B.

ndm, disagreeing that the settlemets are illegal is equivalent morally to denying the industrial murder of millions of people? I see you have a real sense of perspective.

ndm

Robin -

Regardless of how many occupation denial websites you direct our attention to the Israeli "settlement" of the Occupied Palestinian Territory remains illegal and a war crime.

EVERY relevant international body considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court explcitly decreees civilian settlement to be a war crime. You can deny the fact that the Israeli settlements are a war crime but your denial does not make it an unfact - no matter how often you repeat your denial.

ndm

Adam B -

You are not "disagreeing" that the settlements are illegal - you are denying the fact that they are illegal. As I pointed out it does not and never will matter how many denials you make or how many attempts you make to opfuscate the truth the settlements will remain illegal and a war crime.

Dave M

Elizabeth, it always struck me as strange there is no strategic alliance between Russia and Israel which is a pity. Russia under Putin took a very strong line against Islamic terrorism and seems to have dramatically reduced major terrorist attacks on Russian territory. Despite being urged by the U.S. to "negotiate" with terrorists and fundamentalists, Russia took the military option. Both the Moscow Theatre crisis and Beslan proved the warnings Putin had issued years before (about radical Islamic Jihad in Europe) were based on accurate calculations. Putin has stated before "Russia destroys terrorists" so it's easy to see why Russians (Gorbachev included) admire this politician so much. He comes across essentially as "strong" and unwavering. The U.S. by contrast may well supply Israel with arms and weapons but seems too focused on its own economic interests in the Gulf as opposed to Israel's. It was the U.S. that pushed Israel into giving up settlements for peace, causing Israel to appear "weak" in the eyes of radical Islamic factions. Then you have Condi Rice urging Israel to "negotiate" just as Clinton basically urged Yeltsin to cave in to the Chechnyan groups. Yes, there is always a need to negotiate but not at the expense of appearing weakened or cowed into submission! Also, the point that has already been made is Serbia was betrayed by the U.S. so Bush could court favour with the Arab States after the Iraq war debacle. The only surprise is Serbia didn't immediately muddy the waters and ally with Russia while rejecting the E.U. but Serb voters seem to have chosen otherwise. It's strange, though. Russia has a huge Jewish population and has had many Jewish politcal leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky. Both Russia and Israel face threats from Jihadist radicals on their borders. For some strange reason, however, anti semitism within Russia has always been a barrier in the past to any alliance. For sure, though, if rockets were being fired into Russian territory on a daily basis as it is in Israel, the response would be pretty swift and uncompromising.

381

Elizabeth seems to fall for the dangerous pro serb anti israeli lobby of Chomsky fame. This does the serbs no favours either. it pops up all to often.

I bought a blank canvas from an irishman the other day
So he gave me the big picture for free
But Mr Brown has written a blank cheque to the caliphate
I just wish that the Her Majesty the Queen would say No

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0010:0041:EN:PDF

15 of 32

(c) preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security, in accordance with
the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, with the principles of the
Helsinki Final Act and with the aims of the Charter of Paris, including those relating to
external borders;

(h) promote an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good
global governance.

17 of 32

(c) strengthening systematic cooperation between Member States in the conduct of policy.’.

we may already see this forshadowed in closer co-operation between France Britain and Germany via prime ministers and foreign secretaries intent upon enforcing Kosova Solution in place of Kosovo

Milliband Brown Sarkozy Kouchner etc

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0042:0133:EN:PDF

11 of 92

(c) the right to enjoy, in the territory of a third country in which the Member State of
which they are nationals is not represented, the protection of the diplomatic and
consular authorities of any Member State on the same conditions as the nationals of
that State;

in other words should bosnia get in and the first step has been made all other states must safeguard the rights of bosnians including possibly islamist war criminals in all other european union states.........a superb route for the caliphate to abuse human rights in the furtherance of their cause.......dominating us and making us pay for them

19 of 92

1. The Union shall develop a policy with a view to:
(a) ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing
internal borders;
(b) carrying out checks on persons and efficient monitoring of the crossing of external
borders;
(c) the gradual introduction of an integrated management system for external borders.

perfect for the caliphate absolutely perfect complete freedom of movement within the union and all member states told to homogenize their borders into one big state

20 of 92

(b) the definition of the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State,
including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in other
Member States;

21 of 92

(d) combating trafficking in persons, in particular women and children.

so how does this work in Kosovo or Bosnia?

The UN in its various guises has co-operated withe KLA to enable trafficking throughout Europa and Britain of said women and children.
The serbs do not go in for this kind of thing.
Yet Serbia must give Kosovo to the traffickers of women children and drugs in order to gain entry to the Union and would then be beholden to the human rights version of terrorism Europa style.

Dont you just love the Irish
All those years the IRA spent trying to blow up Parliament
They neednt have bothered
Brown has given it away
Its not really that funny
But the Irish got the picture alright

As for general michael Jackson and his gong
Did he earn it by killing innocent civilians on bloody sunday in order to drum up support for the IRA for an 18 year war
Airey Neave had another plan to undermine the IRA from within
Someone betrayed him, the IRA got him and Thatcher was devastated
Maybe the Irish have voted agianst Jacksons Europe Kouchners Europe Wesley Clarkes Europe Hashim Thaci's Europe Agim Ceku's Europe
the grinning architects of Chaos

Elizabeth

'options because you lack imagination. The percentage of non-Jews living in Israel has not changed that much in 60 years.'

So Adam Israel is taking in all those refugees.
If so it somewhat contradicts your statement as above.
Surely if Israel was taking in so many persons the ratio above would have altered or does Israel give priority to Jewish refugees.
I don't think your post explained that original quote of yours.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate further.
You only have to look at the change in our society to see what impact refugeees have on demographics and religious affiliation.
To think Israel has retained such a ratio for 60 years doesn't seem to exactly add up to a multicultural and multifaith intake of the world's needy.

Ron

The Palestinians can’t rule themselves and a viable Palestinian state has no chance of happening. There are enough facts to prove this and none to contradict it. The world doesn’t need another failed nation, there are enough. Israel failed to hand the Gaza strip to Egypt as part of returning Sinai and failed to return the west bank to Jordan through the London agreement. More than anything, time has proved this is the only solution.

FinanceDoc

Oh my. To get an acute picture of how reflexively stupid the anti-Israel crowd is, one need only glance at ndms posts which accuse everyone under the sun of precisely that which he/she/it demonstrates in spades: the belief that repeating a lie enough times will make it true.

As I posted a few days ago for the benefit of another badly misinformed partisan:

Lawrence's arguments hinge on a single massive misconception fed by the British media and various other anti-semitic actors: that Jewish settlements are illegal. Has he ever wondered why despite the occasional grunt of indignation about settlements being "unhelpful", there has never been a concerted effort by the international community to block or reverse Jewish settlements in the disputed territories? It is because they are entirely legal by international law.

The Balfour Declaration called for "close settlement of the land" by the Jews in their ancestral homeland of Palestine. It did not limit this settlement to the current sliver of land known as Israel -- an area by the way, never recognized by the Arabs as a Jewish sovereign.

The Balfour declaration was adopted into law by the League of Nations and subsequently grandfathered across with all other League of Nation resolutions to the United Nations -- the body which is today, so openly hostile to Israel.

Although Churchill gave 76% of the Mandate away to the Hashemite Arabs as a reward for good behavior during the war and the UN subsequently attempted to hand half of what remained to the Arabs living in Palestine, a Jewish sovereign on just 12% of the land originally reserved for Jewish settlement was flatly rejected by the Arabs who immediately attacked Israel with the stated goal of eradicating the nation and murdering its Jewish inhabitants. The Arabs lost that war -- and the subsequent three wars – along with the last unassigned 12% of territory now alternatively referred to as the West Bank or Judea and Samaria, depending on whose narrative you adopt.

Those are the facts and they are recognized by all who know history – despite the sound and fury fueled by relentless counter-factual propaganda issued by the Arabs and the BBC.

Like Lawrence, ndm is confusing this propaganda with genuine international law. If the UNSC were to upend Jewish settlement rights in the territories, EVERY United Nations resolution ever adopted – including, by the way, those that demarcate the borders of the Arab countries – would be subject to similar reversal. In other words, member states could simply gang up and decide to politically obliterate a nation. I suspect that no one – even the Arab League – would support that kind of precedent.

ndm

The United Nations considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

The United Nations Security Council considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

The United Nations International Court of Justice considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

The United States considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

The European Union considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

Britain considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

Amnesty International considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

Human Rights Watch considers the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel.

It is an unassailable fact that the Palestinian Territories are occupied by Israel. And even then, FinanceDoc insists on denying reality. I guess the useful idiot will always find a purpose.

Elizabeth

381
I am falling for nothing but the facts when it comes to Serbia.
Facts that are a very inconvenient truth indeed for the neocon and the neoliberal lobbies.
The attack on Serbia by NATO was illegal. It was illegal under international law, the UN charter and the NATO charter itself.
It was based on lies - for instance the mass graves in Kosovo - there were NONE, mass killings by Serbs, there were NONE and a dozen other lies and distortions. It was the exact formula for the illagal attack on Iraq formulated and circulated by exactly the same people.
Serbia was made an example of because Slobodan Milosevic and his people refused to toe the NWO line and they dared to stand up agaiinst the darlings of the Neocons such as Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook etc etc etc - for some reason all Jewish and all neocon - the KLA.
Designated a terrorist organization - quite rightly until the neocons wanted to advance islamic terror and criminality into the balkans - Bosnia, Albania and Kosovo - all come into that category. Why they have chosen to set up islamic jihadist bases to threaten all Europe and its people defys all logic.
We know thata they wanted to detach Kosovo from the Serbs because it is an important component of the drugs trade from Afghanistan into the west.
Sadly as most posters here realize our media no longer prints the facts or news. It prints what they want us to know.
When it comes to Serbia - the truth is certainly out there but not in your newspapers. Try the internet.
How many people reading this know of the claims made in her recent book, by Carla Del Ponte of how Serbs were kidnapped by the hundred and imprisoned in Albania and murdered on demand for their organs which were then traded on the international market.
How many of you know that the Hague has refused to look at it but that at the insistance of Russia, Europe is.
The war crimes, brutality including widespread rital islamic murder and beheadings of innocent Serb civilans was widespread and many pictures are available with very little research.
There is no justification or legality in taking 15% of the Serb's nation, namely Kosovo and handing it moreover to Thaci - an indicted war criminal and the person named as being chiefly involved in the murder for organs war crime from which he reputably profited personally very handsomely.
If ever a people have been treated unfairly and illegally and brutally it is the much maligned and long suffering people of Serbia.
Dying by the hundred thousand for the allied cause in world war 2 and then cruelly betrayed by the western nations they sacrificed so much to help.
Both Croatia and Albania were Nazi collaborators I may add.
If you want to see how demographics work - a lesson to each and every Brit - take a look at the demographics of Kosovo. How a Serbian state was stolen by the double whammy of mass islamic immigration and a massive islamic birthrate some 12 times that of the Serbians it is alleged.
Suddenly the Serbs became a notional minority in their own state.
Think on Britain and Europe.
Kosovo is Serbia - by every international law.
Lying, bombing defenceless civilians for 78 days and nights changes nothing. Jackson signing an agreement to protect the Kosovo Serbs and then standing back next day and watching the pogroms against the same serbs. 250,000 were forced out, losing everything whilst Jackson and his Nato troops watched the burning, looting, raping and even murdering.
That was the real ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and we Brits are covered in shame.
Kosovo is still Serbia - like it or lump it.
Fortunately international law and resolution 1244 still prevails.

FinanceDoc

There you go; when confronted with the facts and proven wrong, simply reconstitute your argument.

ndm intially makes the assertion that Jewish settlements in the territories are "illegal" and a "war crime". After the international law governing the territories is cited and it is demonstrated that there is nothing remotely illegal about Jewish settlements, ndm downshifts to listing the actors who use the term "occupied" to describe the present status of the territories.

One can call a territory "occupied" until one is blue in the face; it does not make possession of that territory illegal under international law. It also does not assign ownership of that territory to the Palestinian Arabs.

But hey, keep spinning ndm; you’ll eventually get to Timbuktu.

Adam B.

ndm, you seem to believe that force of numbers proves a case. FinanceDoc, you put it perfectly.

ndm

FinanceDoc -

I did not "reconstitute my argument." Cognizant of the fact that you seem unable to absorb more than the simplest of arguments I split my argument in two.

In the first part I pointed out, having previously verified, that the UN, the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, the US, the EU, Britain, AI and HRW all consider the Palestinian Territories to be occupied by Israel. This is an unassailable fact. You are, of course, free to deny the occupation but you would be lying in the face of universally held fact.

It is a fact that the Palestinian Territories are occupied by Israel and Israel is the legally-recognized occupying power. Consequently, the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories constitute a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court which states:

-- The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

The transfer of Israeli civilians into the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a war crime and the so-called settlers are war criminals. Indeed they are so many settlers that almost five per cent of the Israeli population are now war criminals who,in a just world, would be facing criminal sanction.

So, FinanceDoc, you can huff and puff until you are blue in the face but the Occupied Palestinian Territories will remain occupied until such time as the Inernational community considers them no longer occupied by Israel. And the Israeli citizens who have been transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories will remain war criminals as long as they continue to live there. As to the people who deny the occupation - well they remain useful idiots for some cause - but it is certainly not a cause either Israelis or the Jewish diaspora should have any truck with.

Rome Statute
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm

FinanceDoc

ndm

There have been Jewish families living in Judea and Samaria for the last 3,000 years; are they "war criminals" as well? You are citing a statute that has no standing in the case of Jews living in the area; i.e., Israel has not "transferred" any of its civilian population into the territories and as I've demonstrated, the last and to-date unchanged, unchallenged international law governing the territories grants Jews the right to settle anywhere therein.

And please stop embarrassing yourself by appealing to the authority of Human Rights Watch.

ndm

FinanceDoc -

Those Jewish families who have lived in "Judea and Samaria for the last 3,000 years" and were living there at the time of the 1967 war ARE NOT war criminals.

The 250,000 people Israel transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories since the 1967 war ARE war criminals. This means that about 3% of the Israeli population are war criminals

FinanceDoc

Cut the crap ndm. There were 200,000 Jews living in and proximate to Jerusalem before the 1967 war; by your own (arbitrary) criteria, they are not war criminals.

Similarly, I know dozens of Jewish families formerly living in Europe and America who purchased land from Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews in Judea and Samaria and reside there today. They have not been "transferred" by the Israeli government; they have never even lived in Israel. Do they meet the ndm acid test as war criminals?

Do you live in the British Isles? If so, you are squatting on land which in all likelihood used to belong to Celts or the French and was taken by force at some point. You don't even have the benefit of international law, i.e., a UN resolution, protecting your property rights. Be careful, HRW may come for your flat one day.

ndm

Any Israeli citizen who has moved into the Occupied Palestinian Territories since the 1967 war has done so with the consent and support of Israel, the Occupying Power. They are war criminals regardless of whether or not they "purchased" the land. In fact, Peace Now found that "private Palestinian land accounts for 40% of land used for settlements" In other words, the settlements are built on land looted from the Palestinians. (http://tinyurl.com/5qlwj5)

And, FinanceDoc, you are really clutching for straws when you try to justify the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories on the history of the British Isles. The invasions and occupations of the British Isles occurred hundreds and thousands of years ago - certainly a long time before laws of war became codifed in the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international law. They certainly occurred before the Nuremberg war crimes trials - a point in history past which we should not be going in search of moral justification.

The British colonization of much of the world and the depradation visited upon much of the world by that colonization is a stain on British history. Thankfully, Britain, along with nearly every other country, now exists in a post-colonial world. The most significant exception is Israel whhich continues to colonize the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Those Israelis who participate in that colonization deserve prosecution as war criminals while those who advocate for this colonization deserve our contempt.

FinanceDoc

The Peace Now study was demonstrated bogus: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1240 and you may notice that this European funded anti-Israel group never reports on illegal Arab building in the territories – numbering in the thousands of units -- much of which has been built on land owned by the Jewish National Fund. What a surprise.

One does not have to "justify" Jewish settlement in the territories based on Britain's history of colonization. The Jews were in Judea and Samaria 3,000 years ago – 1,700 years before the Arabs invaded from the peninsula and built their mosque on the ruins of the second Jewish Temple. And as I’ve already demonstrated ad nauseam, the Jews have settlement rights across the territories via international law as embedded in UN resolutions. Thus, the Jews have both ancestral and modern claims to the land. This is why there are no “war crimes” prosecutions for Jews who reside there. I understand this disappoints you.

And by the way, though you have an obvious fetish for referring to the territories as the "Occupied Palestinian Territories" (as though that reference alone were enough to assign sovereignty to the Arabs), you should remember that until 1948, it was the Jews living in the Mandate who were typically referred to as “Palestinians”. Semantics – even when they are lifted from your beloved AI and HRW websites – will not win you this argument.

phil

ndm is it not obvious by now that the people here are not interested in your "view" ? nor do they believe it (inc me) or perhaps this is an episode of obsessive compulsive disorder which can be treated ,perhaps by a visit to Israel where you may actually see the truth of the situation in the Me.,but sadly as you have said to finance doc,it is more likely to be " I guess the useful idiot will always find a purpose"

Can you possibly post on another subject as it is becoming very boring ,particularly as you never answer questions but just make silly statements-I never even got that when I posed you perhaps some difficult ones 13/6 on the thread"this blog",but dont worry I quite understand ,you are not here to debate ,just to annoy.Perhaps we can keep you busy by telling us all what you believe Germany and Japan were after the second world war-you know were they occupied by the allies ? and were we also war criminals-Maybe you also think we should not have defended ourselves after their attacks-I am sure you would like to tell us and it will freshen your "debate "

I think you would be better employed speaking about Mugabe ,now he really is slaughtring innocents and we have not heard a word about him from you .We will all look forward to hearing from you on all the above matters .

Adam B.

ndm, throwing words like "war criminal" around willy nilly simply devalues the word. How ridiculous.

Adam B.

ndm, are the Jewish children who live in Judea and Samaria "war criminals" as well, or do they technically become war criminals on the stroke of midnight when they become 18? Grow up.

ndm

Phil -

Like bugs, extremist views fester in places where there is no effective opposition. Given the views of the "hostess" and many of the commenters here I can understand why someone espousing post-enlightenment western values may be deemed unwanted. Bugs, also, probably don't appreciate any opposition either.

I haven't seen any comments from you on Clive Davis's blog on The Spectator - a blog which is far more intellectually stimulating than that of Melanie Phillips.

ndm

Adam B -

No one devalues the phrase "war crime" like the person supporting it. The law is:

occupation + settlement = war crime

When you have enough morality to understand this simple moral and legal equation then perhaps you will have something of value to add to the conversation.

phil

ndm once again you have stated the truth "Like bugs, extremist views fester in places where there is no effective opposition" I cannot argue with that !you obviously flit from thread to thread with your message and the fact that nobody agrees with you does not deter your mission -questions are never answered only more nonsense spouted ,so enjoy my boy .we will laugh .

Adam B.

ndm, so a Jew living in Hebron, where they have lived for longer than your descendants have in the UK (are you sure you're not a war criminal? They seem to be everywhere!) constitutes a "war crime". Does an Arab living in Israel constitute a "war crime"? After all, the Arabs came with the Arab conquests and then brought in their own population(look in a history book). The whole of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Poles in western Poland, French in Alsace, Czechs in the Sudetenland, all must be war criminals! Do you realize how absurd you sound?

Adam B.

ndm, if you find it hard to reduce your massive brain to reading Melanie Phillips (and I must say you seem to have impressed everyone(!), why come here?

Roslyn Pine

ndm.

Do you not know that the West Bank (ie. Judea and Samaria), was attacked by Trans-Jordan in 1948 and illegally annexed by that country in 1950 to create
Jordan? THAT was an illegal occupation, but you seem to be remarkably untroubled by it.
I suggest you refer to the ruling by Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the ICJ in The Hague, to see who has the greater right to that area, The Palestinian Arabs or the (Palestinian) Jews, now Israeli citizens.

There are many genuinely "illegal occupations" around the globe, such as China's occupatiopn of Tibet or Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara, to which your misplaced outrage, reserved solely for Israel, would be better directed.
Or how about the obscene, de facto occupation of Lebanon by the thugs of Hezbollah, who hold that country to ransom having contrived the illusion that there is still a democratically elected government running the country?

Furthermore, as has been written many times before on these threads, The League of Nations, in a unanimous ratification by all 33 member states in September 1922, declared in its "Mandate for Palestine", that all the land west of the Jordan be for "close settlement" by the Jewish People, for their self-determination in their own homeland.
This was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter and remains legally binding today.
Of course, the world's 57 Islamic states will deny it, as will the many nations for whom oil and the Arab marketplace are more important than truth and principles, as well as people such as yourself, who cannot stomach the idea of Jewish ownership of even the tiniest sliver of land.

Apart from all that, every schoolchild knows and understands that when a country/state launches an unprovoked attack on another, and then loses, the natural order of events is that it will then lose some of its real estate---permanently.
That is how borders change, and indeed is why, for example, Germany lost chunks of territory to Poland and why Japan lost the Kurile Isles to Russia.
Perhaps you should study the history of warfare, and then you may enlighten us with your insights.

A Chaffey

One or two suggestions in response to my question if no two state solution then what – which seemed to come down to a choice between apartheid and ethnic cleansing.

Adam B suggest first redrawing of the borders of the West Bank. This seems to amount to only a restating of the two state solution to which MP is opposed He then suggests that Gaza be incorporated into Egypt and the West Bank into Jordan. I'm not sure this isn't also just a variant on the two state solution.

Brian Gould prefers not to look for any solution. He prefers the status quo. I suspect that is also Israel's policy and the position MP prefers. It's a choice however, and a strategic one. A choice for war and gradual colonisation of the West Bank.

ndm

In yet another demonstration of illiteracy Adam B writes:

-- ndm, so a Jew living in Hebron, where they have lived for longer than your descendants have in the UK (are you sure you're not a war criminal? They seem to be everywhere!) constitutes a "war crime".

If Adam B had bothered to read the thread he could have read, and perhaps understood, my earlier response to FinanceDoc:

-- Those Jewish families who have lived in "Judea and Samaria for the last 3,000 years" and were living there at the time of the 1967 war ARE NOT war criminals.

-- The 250,000 people Israel transferred into the Occupied Palestinian Territories since the 1967 war ARE war criminals. This means that about 3% of the Israeli population are war criminals

The other curiosity in Adam B's post was his assertion that Jews have been living in Hebron longer than my "descendants" (I assume he meant ancestors) have been living in the UK. I would love to see his proof of that assertion. I always assumed my ancestors came to what we now call the UK shortly after the end of the last ice age which would be a few thousand years before the descendants of Adam ended up East of Eden in the Land of Nod.

The ocupation denial and the accompanying war crimes denial that is so prevalent on this blog is no more than a desperate attempt to excuse moral failure.

ndm

Roslyn Pine writes:

-- There are many genuinely "illegal occupations" around the globe, such as China's occupation of Tibet or Morocco's occupation of the Western Sahara, to which your misplaced outrage, reserved solely for Israel, would be better directed.

The difference among the occupations perpetrated by Israel, China and Morocco is that only the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories is openly supported by public intellectuals in the west. Any westerner advocating the Chinese occupation of Tibet would be condemned outright. Indeed, I would have no hesitation in condemning anyone who supports such an occupation - without favour to friend or foe.

If Roslyn Pine really wants to use the Mandate for Palestine as the foundation of the modern state of Israel I suggest she reads the text of the mandate because it advocates what we would today call a single state solution. Some have indeed advocated such a solution recently, Tony Judt for one. But unless Israel initiates a genuine search for a peaceful solution to the conflict it may find that the Palestinians start bringing up the Mandate for Palestine just as Roslyn Pine does.

Frankly, and thankfully, we do not run the world on the basis of what "every schoolchild knows." I do recognize, however, the juvenile nature of most of the arguments put forward in support of continued Israeli colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories so I understand the attraction of the "every schoolchild knows" argument.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

On the subject of ndm's ancestry, were he to obtain an analysis of his DNA he might be terribly shocked by the result.

On his obsession with the "war crimes" of those wicked Jews, he might obtain some relief from it by taking the trouble to read up on the genuine, nickel-plated, copper-bottomed war crimes that his own people have committed and got away with. Remember that late and unlamented Empire on which it was supposed the sun would never set!

phil

Roslyn Pine -you waste your undoubted scholarship on a buffoon who never answers questions posed to him -he only makes ludicrous statements that do not warrant our attention -my suggestion is that we ignore him as his agenda is so obvious .Perhaps he will befriend Paul and Patricia and go on holiday together .maybe even to bladon graveyard where paul lives .I will donate a crate of newcastle browns to help them on their way .

Roslyn Pine

Phil.

The reason that I take the time to rebut the "arguments" of people such as ndm, is so that the many people who read these comments, both here and across the continents, should not be misled or confused as to the truth regarding the absolute legitimacy of Israel's position.
Those people with warped agendas, like ndm, should not be allowed to hijack the argument, which they then use as a fig leaf to spread the oldest hatred.

To read and understand the League of Nations' "Mandate for Palestine", as I have often done, does not require superior comprehension skills, as that document was deliberately written in such a way that there should be absolutely no doubt as to its intention.
In essence it says that Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Syria should be created for Arab self determination, at the same time as a country (name to be determined) in the land west of the Jordan be for Jewish self determination, all five to be carved out of the vanquished Ottoman Empire.
To further emphasise the point, it stresses that the non- Jews living within the future Jewish state should be granted religious and civil rights, but not political rights.
All the problems arose because the Arabs would never countenance ANY Jewish self-determination in the region and that still remains true today.

ndm should explain to us all why it is that all the vast Arab/Moslem states surrounding Israel are Judenrein today, and why even a "moderate" country like Jordan does not allow Jewish settlement.
Even he cannot deny that Jews who had lived in Arab countries for over 1000 years were brutally expelled in 1948, (except those in Syria who were not allowed to leave!)and were given sanctuary by Israel, which, unlike her neighbours, did not force permanent refugee status upon them to be then used cynically as a political tool.
Indeed, it is nonsense to talk about a "two state solution" or even a "one state solution", since the situation that obtains today is a 23 state solution, with just a single one of those being a Jewish state.

Adam B.

ndm, you answered the question very well. You have shown that you have no idea when your ancestors came to the UK; consequently, you may well be a war criminal without knowing it! Best that you leave, just in case.

phil

Thanks Roslyn-I understand your motivation and of course you are right to emphasise your points but sadly the ones like ndm and paul hill do not want to know them -they are not here to debate rather to debase .I have tried on numerous occasions to pose questions to them but they never answer them, only state more nonsense -the willing are "listening" but these people are not .I and many others will continue to read your posts with great interest and no doubt support -my best regards phil

Adam B.

ndm, in your absurd universe I take it that you also regard all Poles living in western Poland to be war criminals?