Harry’s Place

I just returned from the Green Left unofficial fringe meeting on anti-Zionism from a Jewish perspective. It was truly awful. Fortunately the meeting had hardly any support - from 15 people at the beginning to somewhere between 30 and 40 people at maximum. And of the people there, there was a substantial number of the usual suspects, people not associated with the Green Party but are associated with various Jewish anti-Zionist organisations. The likes of Roland Rance and Debbie Fink were in the audience for example.

Tony Greenstein, as one of the speakers did his usual rant of arguing that it is Zionists who are antisemites and Anti-Zionists can not possible be anti-semitic. Gilad Atzmon was attacked by both Greenstein and Rance. Rance was particularly concerned about videos of him that have appeared on the Internet that he thinks has something to do with Atzmon. As far as Rance was concerned, Atzmon is doing the bidding of the Israeli government. Greenstein also argued that Atzmon is a Zionist and this thesis fits in with his own thesis that it is really the Zionists who are the anti-Semites.

Of course, whilst Greenstein has claimed
“I do not believe that ‘Zionism is like Nazism,’” this is a comparison he makes quites frequently. Tonight was no exception. He spoke approvingly of Moshe Machover, who, according to Greenstein, thinks that Zionism is worse than Apartheid was in South Africa and the Greenstein went on to say that Israel expels Palestinians and that expulsion was a policy of he Nazis. Greenstein reminded us that the Nazis also exterminated people as well as expelled them and informed us that Zionism is also “exterminatory.” Greenstein was of the view that the only reason that the Zionists have not exterminated all the Palestinians is that it would not be politically prudent.

Yes, it is a topsy turvy world with the half dozen Jewish anti-Zionists. They can carry on talking to themselves.

Just how environmentally friendly are Hamas’ Kassam rockets? They must leave a fairly hefty carbon footprint, I would have thought.

How green are the Greens? The U.S. Greens are a gaggle of deranged haters. Their nominee for President, Cynthia McKinney, has no history with Enviromentalism at all. Rather, she is creepy former Atlanta Congresswoman with a record of racist outrages and conspiracy mongering.

what I think was worse, was that some Greens couldn’t see the anti-Jewish racism inherent in the cartoon which advertised that anti-Zionist fringe meeting

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30598467&postID=7723251149117782425&isPopup=true&pli=1

http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/green-left-responds-to-a-motion-on-antisemitism-with-an-anti-zionist-fringe-advertised-with-an-antisemitic-cartoon/

How green are the Greens?

Greens are like watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

“it is Zionists who are antisemites and Anti-Zionists can not possible be anti-semitic”

Anyone who spouts this nonsense is certifiably insane.

The ‘Green’ party has an official policy of boycotting Israel. They are a bunch of degenerate scum.

Israel’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me.

Well, Lucas must think Israel is uniquely evil - apart from aspects of China.

China’s, Saudi’s, Burma and Syria’s policies are often evil and disgusting, yet you won’t hear any major political grouping arguing for a boycotts of these countries (or others)?

strange eh?

Israel’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me.

I think you should boycott the United States. I won’t take it personally.

“Israel’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me.”

OK then.

The Arab states policies promote the market for their dreadful filthy polluting fossil fuels, so let’s boycott the Arabs. And the Iranians. And the Russians, Venezuelans…

But also the Peoples’ Republic of China, where they are promoting a policy of extermination of handicapped babies. Can’t have useless eaters becoming a burden on the state…

North Korea: just generally murdering their citizens and kidnapping foreigners.

Afghanistan: Flooding the world with the scourge of opium, for money.

So do you support boycotting them?

Why are the greens only interested in bashing the west, and the jews, while remaining silent about the islamic states and their rapacious dealings in the world markets of oil, gas, and heroin which surpass all avarice?

Monty,

I think Phillip Hunt/cabalamat was shit stirring, nothing more, best ignored. He’s baiting for a response.

Thanks Modernity, point taken.

But I still reckon the so called greens show their true colours to perfection, when they propose boycotting one of the few states in the world that has no fossil fuels to splash around the world, while remaining silent about OPEC.

That’s why I used to call them “watermelons” - green on the outside, red on the inside.

Nowadays they just form a smallish constituent of the Nexus of Hate - a melange of Nazis, Commies, Islamists, conspiracy wackos and assorted moonbats - all united in antisemitism (although the left will say that it “isn’t antisemitism, as long as you remember to call them Zionists”)

The Greenbats in America have the ultra-loathsome Israel basher Cynthia McKinney as their presidential candidate.

The Canadian federal Green Party apparently doesn’t want any prospective candidates who espouse antisemitic remarks, but claim not to be antisemites because they were “just parroting what a documentary alluded to” to run for their party:

VANCOUVER — The federal election campaign is not even officially under way, but the Green Party has already turfed one of its candidates.

The Party announced today that it is dropping John Shavluk, the Green nominee in the suburban riding of Newton-North Delta, from its list of official candidates over an allegedly anti-Semitic remark in a blog by Mr. Shavluk several years ago.

During an exchange over the Internet with a policeman in Washington, D.C. on the many conspiracy theories floating around about the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Mr. Shavluk wrote: “hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know ‘the 2 towers’ (who has the ring I wonder) better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?…”

In a press release, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said that respect for diversity is a fundamental principle of the party.

The Green Party announced Thursday that it is dropping John Shavluk, the Green nominee in the suburban riding of Newton-North Delta, B.C., from its list of official candidates over an allegedly anti-Semitic remark in a blog by Mr. Shavluk several years ago.

“We condemn anti-Semitism and our members work to encourage respectful dialogue, diversity, peace and co-operation.”

She said she had talked to Mr. Shavluk and explained that his views were not consistent with Green Party philosophy.

“I will not sign his nomination papers and the Green Party will nominate another candidate.”

Mr. Shavluk, 51, who has run previously for the B.C. Marijuana Party, was outraged by the decision and categorically denied his blog posting was anti-Semitic.

He said he was merely parroting what others had been saying about the 9/11 attacks, particularly in a video that dealt with the many conspiracy theories over the deadly assaults.

“I am not anti-Semtic. I am pro-human rights,” he said in an interview.”

Mr. Shavluk, who has been campaigning vigorously for the legalization of marijuana for years, said he is the victim of “an organized assassination attempt. I don’t know what’s going on. This is one blog item out of 5,000 items I’ve done.

“I’m surprised by the cowardice of the Green Party,” he said.

“I didn’t even say this [the controversial remark]. I repeated it because that’s what the documentary alluded to. It just parroted what others were saying.”

However, Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress, said the Green Party did the right thing.

“People have to understand you have to be careful about what you write,” said Mr. Farber. “My experience tells me this is not the guy who’s going to defend our community against anti-Semitism. …I’ve never seen it as an error when someone writes something like this.”

Last year, the Green Party nixed the nomination of Kevin Potvin in Vancouver East over comments he made shortly after the 9/11 attacks, in which he confessed that an inner voice was saying “yeah!” over the collapse of the twin towers.

Mr. Potvin, himself, was critical of those sentiments, but was nevertheless dropped as a candidate.

On a related topic…

“Miss Aziz, 43, told the Telegraph & Argus after the hearing: “They suspended me on October 10, 2001. Then they lifted the suspension on October 17. But I have not been back - I have a sick note for another two months, due to depression.

“All I said was the Arabs don’t like America because of its relationship with Israel, but he (the security guard) claimed I was saying `Up the Taliban’ and then the CPS received a letter saying I’d made an inappropriate remark.”

Strangely the above (from the Bradford Telegraph and Argus I think it was, but don’t quote me) never made it into news reports of the recent award to Ms. Aziz.

I wonder why?

http://www.enoughoccupation.org/?lid=13717

The Green Party was in the “Enough” group which organised the anti-Israel march on 9 June 2007.

‘Friends of the Earth’ was also in the ‘Enough’ group

“Israel’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me”

Then go ahead and boycott every country in the world, prat.

Greenstein also argued that Atzmon is a Zionist and this thesis fits in with his own thesis that it is really the Zionists who are the anti-Semites

What planet are these people from, do they actually believe the crap they come out with one wonders.

http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/a-green-party-autumn-08-conference-fringe-on-antisemitism/

Come and hear David Hirsh at 6pm - 6.50pm tonight: “Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic” - A Green fringe meeting. The Plough function room, 27 Museum St, WC1A 1LH (7 minutes’ walk from SOAS).

Watch out Nick Griffin and palls, you’ve got competition. I’m sure you could have a great meeting with the Greens to help form your own Green Agenda for the BNP and then you could give them some lessons in Nazism and Antisemitism - although I see it more of an exchange of ideas in that area.

clean water supplies are cut off, and badly damaged waste systems pollute rivers and streams?

This came up a few months ago when Johann “Shit” Hariri did a piece on the stench of Israel (”I do mean the sewer of the Palestinians). It turns out that several years ago the UN told Hamas that they had to improve their sewage systems otherwise there would be failure and collapse. The UN provided fundi9ng for teh projects. Indeed a sewer did collapse with loss of life and Israel treated some of the victims as wel as providing dredging boats. Of course, Hamas never spent the money on improving the sewers.

Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic. This does a great disservice to the many Jewish people who support the principle of universal human rights, and who oppose the current policies of the Israeli state.

Unbelievable!!! Its the old USA supports Israel crap - hence we hate USA ergo we hate Israel. Oh, and BTW they seem to be able to speak for Jews while supporting Antisemite killers who couldn’t care less if you were a Jewish Antizionist. They kill ANY Jews.

The ‘Green’ party has an official policy of boycotting Israel. They are a bunch of degenerate scum.

Presumably environmentally friendly, biodegradable SCUM.

Re BNP and ‘Greens’: yes, maybe they’ll synergise and self-combust.

“Oh, and BTW they seem to be able to speak for Jews while supporting Antisemite killers who couldn’t care less if you were a Jewish Antizionist. They kill ANY Jews”

And they don’t care if they kill some Arabs too, as long as Jews have died. And some people claim these murderers are not utter psychotics.

Israel’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me.

I agree. To treat Palestinian children in Israeli hospitals is the sort of evil and disgusting thing that Israel should be boycotted for. After all they are probably just surveying for body parts (As the infamous Palestinian TV program once showed).

Philip Hunt, probably a spoof because your first name is surely Mike.

The joke is that Israel is a World leader in Agriculture and has contributed to many projects in deprived countries to improve crop yields and help them to self-sufficiency. The old cliche that they made the desert bloom is nonetheless a tribute to how Israel has applied technology and science to the benefit of mankind.

Israel has also announced a nassive program to develop electric cars http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1705518,00.html

Israel has high Green Credentials and yet these animals still can’t exorcise their “Jew Hate” - ooppsss sorry, its Israel they hate.

Not Israel: they only hate imperialist colonialist running-dog Zionists.

It may be a cliche about making the desert bloom, but it is true: the so-called ‘Greens’ should look at a satellite picture of the Middle East. You can make out the borders of Israel, those supposedly notional and abstract lines, by the difference in colour on both sides. Green on one side, brown on t’other.

Why not call the anti-semitic (virulent anti-zionist) parts of the left what they really are:

THE NAZI-LEFT

They are not fascists. After all, fascists are not necessarily anti-semitic, so what really unifies them is their hatred of jews (or zionists for that matter).

The Green Party are obviously trying to attract higher numbers of the liberal left to their ranks.

Oh, please don’t use ‘liberal’ in the idiotic way that American Republicans use it. If you mean fucking cranks just say fucking cranks.

You just beat me to it, Thermaland!

PS. I think you mean American faux-democrats, faux-liberals.

But her answer to question 5 is:

“My own position is that while I support calls made by Palestinian civil society for an economic and cultural boycott – since diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories has manifestly failed - more thought needs to be given before extending it to an academic boycott. Academic freedom and independence is a long-held fundamental principle, and there is a strong argument that jeopardising it would be both wrong and counter-productive. Some would also make the case that, if we are to look at Israeli society, it is within the academic community that we’ve seen the most progressive pro-peace views, and that therefore this sector should be the last one to be approached.

Boycotts are never the tool of first resort. But after so many years of occupation, I believe it is entirely legitimate to search for other peaceful means of resisting it, including boycotts. We all want to see a genuine push for peace on all sides – the question is how best to help achieve it.”

Hardly unequivical, what?

Islamofascism’s policies are often evil and disgusting, and boycotts of Islamofascist countries that do evil and disgusting things seem entirely reasonable to me.

I’d call it wriggling and mendacious.

That was to Julian.

In the linked Q&A, Ashley Gunstock gets it wrong on Q6 “In my opinion the membership has recently dropped due to the ever more centrist attitude adopted by the Party over the last few years”

Completely backwards. His clue was in Q5, but he missed it. Why are they losing their proper focus? Same problem here in the US. Green/environmental groups have been overloaded with indoctrinated radicals, who (probably in the university) have subscribed to the Palistinan view uncritically. They took the support the movement had built up over years and squandered it for non-environmental causes.

Result: The environmental movement which has done some good in the 70’s and 80’s is off the rails and a useful voice for protecting our environment is marginalized.

“My own position is that while I support calls made by Palestinian civil society for an economic and cultural boycott – since diplomatic pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories has manifestly failed -

A completely warped opinion that is completely false. Its a just a mantra lie used to justify anything at all.

There is NO international pressure for Israel to “withdraw from the occupied territories”. I don’t call a one-side Arab persistent call for this to be “International Pressure”, nor do I label the Palestinians “Internationalists”.

There is The Roadmap that seeks to negotiate a withdrawl based loosely on Res 242 whereby borders are established between Israel and the Palestinians. However, where do we see a boycott of the Palestinians for refusing to follow The Roadmap which brings about this desired withdrawl?

The Roadmap is a SEQUENCE of steps that start with the Palestinians “immediately and unconditionally ceasing violence and incitement” to which Israel responds with supportive measures. The Palestinians NEVERE STARTED the Roadmap - hence Israel has no requirement to follow any subsequent sequences ation predicated on the previous requirement being fulfilled. You should READ the Roadmap document.

What these idiots are calling for is a unilateral withdrawl of Israel with no guarantees that the violence from Gaza won’t be repeated.

Their complete and intentional ignorance of The Rosmap tells me that they are simply a bunch of Antisemites who’s policy is based on a lie that they could easily check.

See also Mira’s report on the Green Left fringe here
http://greensstoptheboycott.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/green-left-conference-fringe-on-anti-zionism-a-jewish-perspective/

There is something peculiar and, one could argue, particularly worrying, about anti-Zionism in the Green Party: it is not the hallmark of Green Left, it crosses over several political traditions. Lucas is definetely not a member, nor a supporter, of Green Left. The proposers of the boycott motion adopted at last conference were mainly Green Left, but they gathered support well beyond their tiny group.

I, and others, have proposed a motion against antisemitism (see excellent post from Eve Garrard on Normblog*) which should be discussed during the following days of this conference. A “wrecking” motion has been submitted too; it does not originate from Green Left either.

Green Party members and activists are not, in their majority, anti-Zionists; they are tired of this. They realize that this is not what the Green Party should (mainly) be about. Some have also realized that something need to be done if the Green Party is to stay a credible antiracist party. It will be interesting to see if our motion is passed by conference.

Raphael

*Eve Garrard post:
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2008/09/green-concerns-by-eve-garrard.html

My take on the Anti-Zionist vs. Anti-Semite definition.

A Zionist is a Jew who wants to have a Jewish state in the historical homeland of Israel.
In the 1940’s they succeeded and got the UN to recognize their state.
About 6 million Jews are citizens there as well as 1.3 million Arabs.

An anti-Zionist opposes this but has no viable plan for where these Jews would go.

An anti-Semite doesn’t like Jews and thinks they are scheming to screw up the world.
They don’t want Jews near them, so they really should be OK with Israel.

Not a rationally overlapping set with the exception of many Arabs in the Middle East.

The conflagration is maintained by a third group, Palestinian revanchists, who have linked up with a fourth group, radical Islamist revanchists, and want to end both Israel and the Jews. They might be OK with Jews leaving greater Palestine Syria/Iran, but only temporarily until the world wide Caliphate is established. Then we are back to the ‘into the sea’ option.

It is a disapprobation of our education system that so many Middle Eastern studies departments are getting away with feeding young minds the pap of Zionist powerful, therefore bad and Palestinian weak, therefore victim/good while failing to teach the history objectively. As others have pointed out in this thread, the first step to some resolution would be the Palestinians backing off terrorist violence, but they won’t because as Camp David showed, they want it all, and are not going to bargain for a compromise.

That should have been ‘rationally overlapping sets’.

Tasteless and unfunny joke:

http://decentpedia.blogspot.com/2008/02/serious.html

“It is a disapprobation of our education system that so many Middle Eastern studies departments are getting away with feeding young minds the pap of Zionist powerful, therefore bad and Palestinian weak, therefore victim/good while failing to teach the history objectivel”

Which Middle East studies departments are they then? (are there any ‘western studies departments’ in the middle east: sort of what they are and how to fight them sort of things?).

jdwill, a personal opinion is always right - to the person holding the opinion. However your definition misses one classical and major fact.

Here is where you went wrong IMHO

A Zionist is a Jew who wants to have a Jewish state in the historical homeland of Israel.

No! A Zionists is ANYONE who believes in a Jewish National Home in Israel with Jerusalem as its capital. Zionists include:- MLK, Tony Blair, Obama, McCain, Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi. Not a Jew amongst them!!

But this statement is flawed too:-

A Zionist is a Jew who wants to have a Jewish state in the historical homeland of Israel.
In the 1940’s they succeeded and got the UN to recognize their state

Actually, they succeeded in 1922 when the Mandate For Palestine described The Jewish National home. In fact that territory was present day Israel + West Bank + Gaza. In a sense Israel was forced to come about in boundaries that do NOT reflect those of ancient Israel. Israel is the maximum territory that could be defended from Arab agression. Independence came in 1948 after they defeated the Arab attackers. I realise your understanding of the history is sketchy because you would have said “1948″ and not “1940’s”.

An anti-Semite doesn’t like Jews and thinks they are scheming to screw up the world.
They don’t want Jews near them, so they really should be OK with Israel.

I feel you haven’t grasped this. An Antisemitie hates Jews whether they are in Israel or Scotland. What they hate is not individual Jews but some synthesis they make of who/what Jews are about. Since they see Jews as a group who want to manipulate the World for greed and dominance over non-Jews then they believe that all Jews are in some secret cabal who are constatntly planning how to take control.

In this sense Israel is a manifestation of Jewish Control and their so-called treatment of Palestinians is a manifestation of how Jews are supposed to treat non-Jews with disdain. The USA ONLY supports Israel, according to the Antisemite, because the International Jew has a throat grip on the USA.

Traditional Antisemitism initially arose from teh concept of Jews as “Christ Killers” and Islamic Antisemitism arises out of Jew rejecting Mohammed and Islam.

David T & Mark - do I get a Gold Star (or our traditional yellow one?)

Easy enough

Bernard Lewis (a real scholar and an original founder of MESA) founded a rival organization, Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, asserting the MESA “has been politicized to a degree without precedent.

This lot then, OK?

Instead of founding a “western studies” they came here to found an organization, that in their eyes, is competing with AIPAC. In my eyes, they are disingenuous propagandists of the vilest sort.

An excellent article telling it like it is. Perhaps the greens should read it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nonie-darwish/the-gaza-prison-camp_b_91800.html

Maven,

I detect satire on ‘Zionist Tony Blair’. Literally he would be a Zionist sympathizer not a Zionist.

I said the 40’s because many events in the 40’s culminated in 1948. The holocaust was the prime mover. Massive displacements of populations was another. Obviously earlier events and movements led up to Israel forming. 1922, 18xx - Herzl, whatever. I am not trying to write a full history here.

I said “should be OK”, not “are”. My underlying point is that conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not rational in the main.
I, could say, hate Klingons, but am unlikely to be excised daily since there aren’t many around.

The USA ONLY supports Israel, according to the Antisemite, because the International Jew has a throat grip on the USA.

I don’t disagree with this (that the anti-semite believes this).

And, I maintain that there would be less anti-semitic activity if there were not an organized political movement to disestablish Israel. We in the US have had a long, harmonious coexistence with Jews in spite of some bigoted religion based slurs. Now, however, we are seeing a new phenomenon and it is of foreign origin. And the ones propagandizing are identified by the signature conflation of anti-semitism and anti-Zionism.

The Israeli haters should read this written by Nonie Darwish, an exile from Gaza

So Bernard Lewis is a real scholar and all the others are fraudulent? Who makes this judgement? Ah yes ‘campus watch’. Are they accredited middle east scholars? No they tend to be politico’s. But they are not of course propagandists. oh no. Like Fox news they’re complete unspun. Its all terribly confusing.

But Maven this is a new one on me:

“a Jewish National Home in Israel with Jerusalem as its capital”

Is this a post-1967 development for everyone or just for raving chauvinists like yourself?

Perhaps there ought to be a special kind of Zionism(lite) just for bloggers.

But seriously I think they should have western studies departments in the middle east. all this fundementalist madrasa stuff really isn’t very effective. there ought to be think tanks, conferences, and a stream of books with titles like ‘the west: a threat to world peace?’ etc. It would be great.

So Bernard Lewis is a real scholar and all the others are fraudulent?

I didn’t say that, though I guess that for example, given Juan Cole (at my alma mater), I would agree. I merely meant that Lewis was a scholar of an older and less politicized order. Today’s academic tends to consider politicization a virtue, not a defect. I trust them less as a result.

As to Campus Watch - just because you don’t like the dog that is barking, doesn’t mean there isn’t a burglar.

Caroline Lucas says:

Financial and moral support from the United States means that Israel has been able to act with relative immunity, hiding behind its incendiary claim that all who criticise its policies are anti Semitic.

Really? “All” critics? Has Lucas even tried to substantiate this extraordinary statement?

“a Jewish National Home in Israel with Jerusalem as its capital”

“Is this a post-1967 development for everyone or just for raving chauvinists like yourself?”

MMmm… johng, everybody knows that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital since 1949…

Coming into discussion late (and after, as often, it has descended into sloganeering), may I be allowed to address myself to the contents of Ms Lucas’s pronouncements?

To me they sound more misguided than evil.

The kernel of the boycott movement are individuals and groups that wish to delegitimise Israel. They are not opposed to specific policies – they are using specific Israeli policies (many of which are indefensible) as an excuse to stigmatise the existence of Israel. Of course, they talk about Israeli misdeeds (typically exaggerating them in a grotesque manner) but they will not accept Israel with any policies, within any borders. (Will you, JohnG?)

However, reading Caroline Lucas, she supports economic and cultural (although not academic, apparently) boycott as a means of changing Israeli policy. This is different in kind although, I would say, completely misguided according to its own criteria of “encouraging” Israel to change its policies.

Whoever knows the situation (not really difficult, by the way), bothers to talk with real people (on both sides of this conflict), will realise that the motor driving this conflict is not some evil design of one or other side (which is not to deny the existence of some fairly unpleasant individuals and organisations on both sides). The motor is fear, hurt, humiliation and mistrust. Each side fears the other, each side mistrusts the other and its intentions, each side listens to the other side and self-servingly hears only what it wants to hear: the threats, the curses, the hate… In this situation just about the worst policy is to stigmatise one of the sides, to impose childish boycotts, to stir even more alienation and hate and mistrust. If Caroline Lucas is sincere (and I have no reason to doubt this, within sincerity limitations of politicians), she should really make the effort to understand that her cherished policy is bound to achieve the exact opposite of her intentions.

Monty: So do you support boycotting them?

In principle, countries that conquer territory by force then annex that territory, often involving ethnic cleansing of the inhabitants and/or planting settlers on that territory.

E.g. Israel, or Russia, or China.

Thought realistically there’s not going to be any sanctions agaisnt China, since the West makes far too much money trading with it. And the Americans need to borrow money from them. Though one could quite imagine a cold war between the West and China in a decade or so…

Not that these are the only countries that abuse human rights, of course.

Some people seem to disagree with me when I characterise Israel’s policies as “often evil and disgusting”. I would like to ask these people a question:

Is conquering land by military force, ethnically cleansing the inhabitants from it, annexing it, and planting it with colonists/settlers?

(a) morally right
(b) morally wrong
(c) morally wrong, except when Israel does it

I bet none of you will have the guts to seriously consider the question.

Philip Hunt wrote:

“In principle, countries that conquer territory by force then annex that territory, often involving ethnic cleansing of the inhabitants and/or planting settlers on that territory.”

well, Mr. Hunt, are you really, so sincere in your wish?

let’s suppose you are,

then start with England, which annexed chunks of Ireland, Scotland, that’s not forgetting Canada, the US and NZ

on your own criteria, the English would come out as one of the worst and should be boycotted.

not forgetting India, chunks of Africa, a bit of South America

oh and all of those other colonial endeavours?

so are you and the Greens proposing that the world boycott the English? probably not.

why’s that? wrong type of boycott? or too close to home?

Surely you mean that Bernard Lewis had different politics not that he was less politicized. My understanding is that he left Britain because he got a bit fed up with not having been knighted. In the US he promptly set up an alternative network of scholars to the existing ones. In 1966. That doesn’t suggest to me that he was apolitical. Well Fabian its not been recognised as the capital by most other countries. Its still officially disputed. Presumably its possible to imagine a liberal Israeli who would prefer Tel Aviv to be the capital. Would they not count as a Zionist?

Muffin argues from consequences. The difficulty is that for many of us, the complete absence of any international pressure on Israel has led to the current impasse. This absence of pressure has had consequences. How else do you explain the continued expansion of settlements and the pursuit of a policy explicitly designed to sabotage the peace process (I’m thinking here of the triumphant statements about how the unilateral evacuation and subsequent blockade of Gaza would freeze the process forever, a statement made by the then Prime Minister’s key aid)? The notion that there is no pressure on Israel, that this was proceeded by a concerted campaign to smash up the PA, and that this has largely led us to where we are is not an eccentric take by a few misguided individuals. Its what a very large number of people who follow the situation closely believe. And its got almost nothing to do with ordinary people, none of these policies being decided by them. And given the fact that these threads are full of people who are pleased and confident about this situation, I don’t see your take on this as particularly convincing. At some point rather then the ‘feelings’ of ordinary Palestinians, one might actually listen to what they say. It is simply untrue that ‘anyone’ familiar with both sides think in the way you advocate. Most don’t.

“the complete absence of any international pressure on Israel has led to the current impasse. This absence of pressure has had consequences.”

so the SWP are now into geo-politics?

has the complete absence of any international pressure on Russia led to the current impasse? did that absence of pressure have consequences ?

or closer to the SWP’s heart, has the complete absence of any international pressure on Hezbollah led to them becoming emboldened and flexing their muscle in Lebanon?

I doubt the SWP dim wits will be able to see the parallels?

The difficulty is that for many of us, the complete absence of any international pressure on Israel has led to the current impasse.

This is just one-sided and weak-minded. If Israelis were thugs on the order of the Russians under Putin, there would be no Hamas in Gaza prancing around the streets with AK’s after shooting rockets into Israel.

I posit that it is not only international opinion among the Western nations that restrains Israel, but the character of the Israeli’s themselves. What other nation in the face of decades of murder and provocation would show such restraint?

I am not saying all is pure, and that there has not been encroachment, but it seems you want to hold them to some impossible high standard while you seem to apply no standard other than ‘feelings’ to the Palestinians.

Its what a very large number of people who follow the situation closely believe.

And you are arguing from the crowd - which may or may not truly exist.

Modernity: then start with England, which annexed chunks of Ireland, Scotland, that’s not forgetting Canada, the US and NZ […] so are you and the Greens proposing that the world boycott the English? probably not. why’s that? wrong type of boycott? or too close to home?

This is the sort of crap that supporters like Modernity — who unlike me hides behind a pseudonym — have to come up with. You see if you’re an uncritical supporter of Israel you end up backing yourself into a corner defending indefensible positions because some of Israel’s actions are indefensible (unless you’re some sort of extreme nationalist).

Anyway, to answer Modernity’s silly pseudo-question, obviously if you go back far enough in history, everyone who’s had any power has used it to shit all over their neighbours, and you cannot in all practicality right the wrongs of thousands of years of history without creating more wrongs.

Oh, and Israel belongs to the Neanderthals. They were there first. So does Europe, for that matter.

I didn’t know that was philip hunts real name, thought it was rhyming slang.
Why did Israel originally belong to the neanderthals?
the neanderthals were a uniquely european species and never went near the middle east.

So, can you please make it clear, JohnG: Let us suppose that Israel dismantles all settlements beyond the Green Line and, as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians, withdraws from Occupied Territories. Will you then accept the right of Israel to exist?

Because if not, your opinions about Israeli deeds or misdeeds carry zero weight.