Harry's Place

“The vitriol it inspires is downright weird.”

It is mass hysteria that takes over crowds. It’s infected even normally people who are supposed to be dispassionate thoughtful and impartial in their judgment, such as Professors at Universities.

This is all very reminiscent of what happened in the 30’s in Europe except that even some Jew have joined in attacking their own people. Some call it the Stockholm’s syndrome, I call it cowardice.

Perhaps it is that the state of Israel claims to be a progressive state and some may genuinely hope for it to be better at living up to its own publicity. Perhaps its also the inbalance. Its a walking the talk issue, like Guantanamo you can’t defend justice unjustly – really you can’t…
And by way of FYI:
A (jewish) demo in LA:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2693

And a balanced view in the UK
http://nakedentrepreneur.blogspot.com/

Israel must lose.

Can those people be any more out of touch? Israel is not losing. Get over yourselves.

What is Gene’s obsession with Seymour?

What is Gene’s obsession with Seymour?

For that matter, what is Seymour’s obsession with Israel?

Oh come on, the article you’ve cherry picked that quotation from is absolutely barking mad. Ms Wurtzel is of the opinion that any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic,

, I’m not willing to make that false distinction: when there is more than one Jewish state, the world’s hatred of Israel might become no different from its exasperation with any other country, but since Israel is the only homeland, and really it is nothing more than six million Jews living together in an area the size of New Jersey, I can’t pretend that the problem with Israel is that it’s a poorly located country that happens to be at odds with its neighbours and only coincidentally happens to be Jewish. The trouble with Israel is the trouble with Jews.

The poor woman is having some sort of breakdown.

Perhaps it is that the state of Israel claims to be a progressive state and some may genuinely hope for it to be better at living up to its own publicity.

If you actually pay attention to what Israel’s vitriolic enemies are saying (and this time, lest I be accused of an obsession, I won’t mention any names), you’ll know that’s not the case.

The antisemitism that was dangerous to Jews was always popular, and students as well as academics often, especially in Germany, played a big part.

“I think its very important because a) it opens up arguments about solidarity rather then conflict resolution (and makes the difference clear) and b) any who do make that distinction whatever technical position they adopt on the shape of liberation should be involved in a single campaign.

And these numbers are growing.
Johng | 16 Jan, 13:50 | # ”

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-must-lose_16.html

So, Mr Game has discovered that, if you aren’t picky about your members (left, right, fascists, communists etc) and you unite around the lowest common denominator, the one Jewish nation state in the world, you can get get quite a lot of haters out.

Perhaps I should have said:

you unite around the lowest common denominator, negative preoccupation with the one Jewish nation state in the world

SOAS students picket Israeli lecturers:

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/the-campaign-to-boycott-israel-is-now-fighting-for-a-concrete-exclusion-of-israeli-scholars/

One, the only thing downright weird, is Elizabeth Wurtzel.
Two, whine all you want about Guantanamo, but the US has had no terrorist attacks on its soil since 9/11. Can’t say the same for the UK.
Three, those weenies in LA ran away as soon as the cops were called.

Another,

Wurtzel’s observation that Israel ” makes people angry and vehement as nothing else does” is perfectly valid.

Not even the US-UK attack on Iraq brought out the same degree of hatred or violence. There were no calls for allegedly ‘pro-war’ British or American academics to be boycotted by British academics.

why not boycotting the settler states USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?

Wurtzel’s observation that Israel ” makes people angry and vehement as nothing else does” is perfectly valid.

Flaming obvious I’d say. I have never known anything like it. Old friends refuse to talk about it in my presence purely because I question their recieved narrative, so God knows what it is like when two people who actually are partisan about the issue meet.

The comments in that thread are a real cesspool.

Didn’t we all just have this conversation already a couple of days ago?

(That was an intentionally ironic coment on the nature of blogs, btw…)

The fact is, Jews in this country, or anywhere, apart from Israel or America, whether Israeli or not, are a vulnerable target. STWrs did not attack US or British targets. Both states are too powerful. But Jews, Israeli or otherwise, outside Israel or the US, are an easy target. Nor could they possibly hope to defend themselves against John Game’s Single, Unified, Orthdox anti-Zionist crusade. And he knows it. He just plays games of identity that, somehow, this is all a terribly brave and daring thing to do.

The antisemites in 19th century Germany and Europe said exactly the same thing.

I made some contributions to that CiF debate and I was astounded at the antisemitic hate I found there. Some claimed “Just because I criticise Israel you can’t call me an anti-semite”. One worked out a formula or moral equivalences that suggested he had a right to be antisemitic.

Then there was the old “Stick On a Jewish Antidote” trick. “It CAN’T be antisemitic because Gerald Kaufman just said the same thing and he’s Jewish” argument.

That debate is a cesspit.

zkharya, my point was that the article in its entirety is barking mad, you can cherry pick the odd snippet to make it appear lucid if you like – but that would be disingenuous. If you want to make the point that much of the reaction to Israel in general is hypocritical or overwrought then fine, but you won’t do that by quoting someone as deranged as Wurtzel.

Besides, “Wurtzel’s observation that Israel ” makes people angry and vehement as nothing else does” is perfectly valid.” is mistaken. I can think of plenty of things that make people madder than they would get over Israel, but then these are people without strong opinions either way on I/P. What Ms Wurtzel, and presumably you mean, is that people with very strong opinions on I/P get angry and vehement when I/P is discussed. Which is pretty much a tautology.

Zkharya, I’d suggest Eagleton’s comments against the margionally less knobbish Amis come close.

Glenn, being a blog, it does come across like two bald men fighting over a comb.

What Graham said.

I don’t think her article is helpful. She lumps the whole of Europe together as though we are all anti-American and all anti-Semitic. It is isolationist and full of prejudice.

“Wurtzel’s observation that Israel ” makes people angry and vehement as nothing else does” is perfectly valid.

Flaming obvious I’d say. I have never known anything like it.”

But you should. You should know that worse ethnic displacements occurred at the founding of other states, none of whose legitimacy is questioned. That Palestinian and Arab leaderships have been in a de facto state of war with Israel for decades. That Israel is and was entitled to take measures both to defend and preserve herself, like other states.

For most of Christian and Islamic history, European, Arab and Asian Christians and Muslims regarded Jews as displaced ‘Palestinians’.

Now, when that belief, among others, has led to most European, Asian and Arab Jews, in the 19th and 20th centuries, being murdered or displaced, before 1914 mostly to America, after 1914 mostly to Palestine or what became Israel, now, the descendants of those same European, Asian and North African Christians and Muslims now strive to delegitimise, if not subject, dissolve or destroy the largest state of most of those same Jews or their descendants who now comprise Israeli Jews.

The goal of the lecturers who signed the petition in The Guardian today is to ‘correct the injustice’ or the 60+ years of Israel’s very existence.

Just the antisemites of the 19th and 20th centuries directed their hatred at the largest body of Jews in eastern Europe, so their successors direct their hatred at the largest Jewish community in the world today, Israel.

And they are filled with the same sense of self-assurance and righteousness.

What Ms Wurtzel, and presumably you mean, is that people with very strong opinions on I/P get angry and vehement when I/P is discussed. Which is pretty much a tautology.

Yes, but the number of people with very strong opinions on I/P is clearly far greater than the number of people with very strong opinions on virtually any other issue you care to name. And that phenomenon is downright weird.

Another (by the way, are you John Game?):

I’m sorry: I didn’t see people smashing up shops because of their association with America, let alone people, after the demonstrations in 2002.

I didn’t even see editorials in The Guardian about how either Britain or the United States had allegedly left the family of nations.

Dress it up in the affected language of a public school boy if you like: this is the universal appeal of the socialism of fools.

Perhaps I should have said”

this is the perennial appeal of the socialism of fools.

Another (by the way, are you John Game?):

Doubtful – the spelling and grammar is far too good.

But here is what I finally know: with all the troubles in the world, with the terrible things that the Chinese do in Tibet, and do to their own citizens; with the horrors of genocide committed in Darfur by Sudanese Muslims; with all the bad things that Arab governments in the Middle East visit upon their own people – no need for Israel to have a perfectly horrible time – still, the focus is on what the Jews may or may not be doing wrong in Gaza.

This reminds me of what South African Elisabeta van Diet wrote in the Guardian back in 1986:

In the Congo, blacks are enslaving other blacks. In Saudi Arabia they’ve got slaves as well. In the Communist world people are jailed in mass and denied elementary rights. In India, the Untouchables are shunned from the rest of the society.

And it is disgusting that among the nations chastising South Africa we find some of the world’s worst human-rights violators.

She was factually correct.

So let’s do as follows: let’s overthrow the ANC regime in South Africa and reinstate an Afrikaner-led government. It was an INJUSTICE to topple Apartheid when China was, and still is, ocupying Tibet.

“I can think of plenty of things that make people madder than they would get over Israel, but then these are people without strong opinions either way on I/P.”

They don’t smash up shops or people after multi-millennial marches, picket x national academics from their work in the UK, say ‘We are all Y organization dedicated to Z national state’s dissolution’, whose dissolution many if not most of those marchers also seek.

They write blogs like Seymour’s Place where Zionism is repeatedly touted as the new, essential epitome/encapsulation of capitalism which it is every Marxist’s duty to destroy. Just like antisemites said of Jews and capitalism, 100 years ago.

Nothing has this history, nothing has this trajectory like antisemitism and its transmogrification into eliminationist anti-Zionism.

Meanwhile Britain’s academics continue to cover bury themseleves upto their next in their own self righteous shit.

Israel Must Lose, Hamas Must Win

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/gaza-israel-petitions

Israel must lose. It is not enough to call for another ceasefire, …. We call on the British government and the British people to take all feasible steps to oblige Israel to comply with these demands, starting with a programme of boycott, divestment and sanctions.

Well its clear that the signatories at least are “All Hamas Now” so allahuakbar.

Amongst the 100+ signatories are the usual Court “AsaJews”.

Anti-war protests for the Iraq war probably totaled in the millions combined.

When your best defense is that one single dude is a bigger criminal than you, then you are really lost. Weird or not.

necks not next … its not my fault I studied at a British University.

Another “zkharya, my point was that the article in its entirety is barking mad, you can cherry pick the odd snippet to make it appear lucid if you like – but that would be disingenuous.”

“Another” until you are willing post under some sort of “real name” your attacks on Elizabeth Wurtzel are just plain bigoted not to mention moronic.

Wurtzel is an attorney with a prestigious legal firm. What are you?

Calling her deranged or hysterical shows your inability to engage in serious discussion.

What is Gene’s obsession with Seymour?

Its a love/hate thing.

@The Hasbara Buster

No: let’s fight against every form of oppression and exploitation, everywhere!

But you should. You should know that worse ethnic displacements occurred at the founding of other states, none of whose legitimacy is questioned.

But I do know all of this – and am given to chucking such knowledge at Chomsky-bots (however I fail to see what this has to do with the observation that I have never known anything like the levels of self-righteous anger felt amongst British people who consider themselves “of the left.”)

“Meanwhile Britain’s academics continue to cover bury themseleves upto their next in their own self righteous shit.

Israel Must Lose, Hamas Must Win”

Yes, and none of them will go to Gaza to defend Hamas. They are armchair genocide enablers.

I loved her book Prozac Nation. The film wasn’t so great. I didn’t realise it was her at first… What a girl.

“Anti-war protests for the Iraq war probably totaled in the millions combined.”

Yes, Flanker.

But not even after those huge demonstrations in the UK was there the action, aggression or violence in Britain against US or British persons or property that we see against even those most tenuously associated with Israel in this country today.

Smaller numbers, yes. But much more aggressive.

Prozac nation – ah that’s who she is.

Graham, I don’t understand the point you are making. Maybe I have misunderstood you.

Yes, and none of them will go to Gaza to defend Hamas. They are armchair genocide enablers.

I hope you detect just a touch of irony in your statement. I do worry when folk lose their capacity to detect irony.

Zkharya, north of the border even elected representatives – like that bloke from Runrig – prattle on about the butcher’s apron, Union Flag socks or deny any English connexions.

Not as weird as this, though.

Zhak I am pretty much backing up Wurtzel in saying that the level of anger (amongst many British people who are even slightly leftist anyway) seems rather weird. I’m possibly not making myself clear because I am not generally given to commenting on Israel/Palestine and relying on most people here to know that context. Certainly I remember arguing with a passion about events in former Yugoslavia for nearly ten years and watching the same people’s eyes glaze over with barely concealed boredom.

No blog to write Mackie? You could start another and call it ‘Grendel’s brother’.

“Smaller numbers, yes. But much more aggressive.”

So they should attack themselves???? I mean if Britain invaded and they are British….

Israel is pissing off the world, and the world is looking to punish your leadership like they punished Milosevic. Olmert might never leave Israel now (of course excepting the US).

The rate that comments have been put down on this piece is astounding.

The regular CiFers don’t like it up ‘em!

This leads me onto something I have been meaning to say. What Israel has got a problem with is material reality. For however hard it tries to depict the evil intent of Hamas, the world is still faced with the bloody carnage of Gaza.

From Israel’s perspective, its this fundamental disjuncture that causes it so many problems, not least in the media; I also think this will eventually brutalise Israelis themselves – perhaps an even deeper, darker problem.

Zhak I am pretty much backing up Wurtzel in saying that the level of anger (amongst many British people who are even slightly leftist anyway) seems rather weird.

It’s not just the level of anger though; it’s the level of participation, involvement etc, on both sides. I find it really bizarre, as though there were huge demonstrations in Ecuador over Cambridge losing the boat race or something.

The rate that comments have been put down on this piece is astounding.

The regular CiFers don’t like it up ‘em!

Indeed, most commented now. They are furious. Must have hit a nerve with many.

To me what has been shocking is the level of anger amongst people I know who would probably not even bother going on demos or “getting involved” any more. Certainly one friend who I have never seen animated by anything else at all told me the other day that the conflict was the first thing he thinks of when he gets up in the morning. (I’m not going to reveal what the first thing I think of in the morning generally is.)

But perhaps we now need to live our lives through the suffering of others elsewhere?

Flanker,

feel free to say what you like: I generally ignore you because you seem to have the emotional and intellectual age of an over-grown teenager.

The hatred of British of STWers against the US or UK governments did not lead to calls for boycotts of either country, let alone attacks on certain “guilty” persons or “guilty-by-association” property.

I’d say the anti-Israel demonstrations represent the ‘hard-core’ of the STW demos, who had a strong anti-Israel animus anyway.

It’s just that now they can let their hair down, since they are not trying to persuade anyone, just intimidate.

“Certainly one friend who I have never seen animated by anything else at all told me the other day that the conflict was the first thing he thinks of when he gets up in the morning.”

I agree, Graham.

I saw a young, single, white, probably culturally Christian mum’s saying this was the first demo she’d been on since an anti-Israel one 25 years ago.

OK, it’s anecdotal but, What gives? There were the anti-apartheid demos, anti-Nato bombing demos and, finally, the largest demo in British history, the STW in 2002.

What attracts people to define themselves negatively against the Jewish state of Israel like nothing else, like a moth to a flame, in fact.

John Game has hit on something when he says the one thing to be sought is ‘unity’, regardless of other political affiliations. This is a matter of faith, a crusade around a core quasi-religious belief, cultural Christians and Muslims defining themselves, negatively, against the largest Jewish community in the world.

“But perhaps we now need to live our lives through the suffering of others elsewhere?”

Perhaps instead of whining about other people caring, you should help end the suffering of others so that these people are left with nothing to do? I dunno, try?

“The hatred of British of STWers against the US or UK governments did not lead to calls for boycotts of either country, let alone attacks on certain “guilty” persons or “guilty-by-association” property.”

Or maybe they realized that if they boycott the agressors they would be boycotting themselves? really pay attention to the nuances. They were aware back then through personal expirience that it was the govt who was evil, they cannot internalize the fact that there are a few brave Israelis that are resisting the terrorization done by their govt’s in order to net a few votes.

Invading another nation right before an election? if you neocons really had that cynical anti-govt attitude you patented, you would clearly see right through it, but since you are nothing but blinded nationalists you are what you claim to hate.

*blinded nationalists and projected blinded nationalists, for our british friends.

Tee hee, in The Guardian of all places.

Good stuff. Won’t follow the link, the place (Guardian) makes me feel ill. But can imagine the comments!

MattG

And what’s scary is how comments like these, juxtaposed about each other, is that people are feeling quite free to break the taboo against violence, not against Israelis, but against a substitute.

Reactions on hearing of the destruction the Kensington Starbucks:

My first thought, on reading the title, was: how satisfying to smash something , anything …lacking the physical presence of an Israeli soldier executing the murder of a Palestinian.

The second was: is there a connection between Strbux and Gaza?

The third: No matter: where is the nearest Israeli embassy?

Fourthly: read the post for content: oh, the unfortunate Strbx was near an Israeli embassy…

thus are one’s instincts reinforced.

If there were not a MagnesZionist, I would be cursing the Israelis, and not just the State of Israel.
Margaret | 01.11.09 – 4:37 am | #

Interestingly I saw two young women chanting ‘no more starbucks, no more coke’ and there were many slogans on the demo about the need to raise boycott of companies with investments/connections to Israel. These tended to be most heavily concentrated in those sections of the demo where the politics was shaped by non-socialist slogans. But I thought this strand very progressive (and it recurred again and again).
johng | 01.11.09 – 10:57 am | #

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/search?q=starbucks

Richard Seymour has already begun the task of dehumanizing ‘Zionists’. He’d never directly exort people to violence (neither did most leading antisemites: they just prepared the way), he simply caters for and encourages the advocates of violence on his blog:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-are-people-so-mean-to-poor-little.html

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/extremist-minority-who-should-be.html

zkharya

Another (by the way, are you John Game?):
No.

I’m sorry: I didn’t see people smashing up shops because of their association with America, let alone people, after the demonstrations in 2002.

I didn’t even see editorials in The Guardian about how either Britain or the United States had allegedly left the family of nations.

What has this got to do with anything? I’m just pointing out that not everybody cares passionately about I/P. There are people around the world grubbing around in the dirt to maintain a subsistence living who will riot over the price of bread. You are making grand sweeping statements about the reaction amongst a minority population and applying it to the whole world, or at least those parts that you don’t perceive as agreeing with you. I think what you mean to argue that sections of the demonstratedly active self-declared left have an irrational problem Israel. Of course, not many people here would dispute that.

Dress it up in the affected language of a public school boy if you like: this is the universal appeal of the socialism of fools

I’m state educated and this sentence is a meaningless response, I have not made any political argument here. I just pointed out the Wurtzel’s article is deranged and criticised people for cherry picking the more lucid bits. Just because she is on your ’side’, does not mean she is talking any sense.

No: let’s fight against every form of oppression and exploitation, everywhere!

But then you agree that it was injust for the world to single out South Africa for criticism back in the time of Apartheid?

Perhaps instead of whining about other people caring, you should help end the suffering of others so that these people are left with nothing to do? I dunno, try?

After you.

*UNJUST*

“Or maybe they realized that if they boycott the agressors they would be boycotting themselves? ”

So boycotts of rogue-states are ok only as long as it is not your state?

This article was like the curate’s egg.

And as for most of the replies – better examples of the Livingstone Formulation I have never seen.

Another,

if I misunderstood you, I apologise.

“You are making grand sweeping statements about the reaction amongst a minority population and applying it to the whole world, or at least those parts that you don’t perceive as agreeing with you.”

well, it did try to correct “‘universal’ appeal of the socialism of fools” to the “‘perennial’ appeal of the socialism of fools”.

Once again, my apologies.

.Just because she is on your ’side’, does not mean she is talking any sense.

Exhibit one, the desire to put people into one of only two boxes. Tick them off as “on the other side” and then go into pre-conceived condemning narrative (as if bought from IKEA.)

Utter lunacy.

Flanker has lost it:

“Perhaps instead of whining about other people caring, you should help end the suffering of others so that these people are left with nothing to do?”

Yea, like sit back and let rockets from Gaza obliterate your country.

Asking Jews to die instead of fighting back has always been a favorite response of self styled “friends of the Jews.”

Why anyone still reads flanker is beyond me. I want be responding to his shallow hateful nonsense any more.

“I did try to correct”

Hasbara Buster: of course South Africa popped up.

To clear the point: what was really appalling about the old white RSA was that it legally and formally separated its population along colour lines. This reminded people too much of the Nazi race laws. Israel has no such system. If it’s brutal, it’s no more so than most countries that fight a war.

The Hasbara Buster: “But then you agree that it was injust for the world to single out South Africa for criticism back in the time of Apartheid?”

That was never done. At the time people were also singling out repression in the Soviet Union, in Poland, in Argentina, and elsewhere.

Speaking of Argentina HB aka Yusuf should start singling out injustice in his own country first.

Tell about the pogrom against Jews in Buenos Aires, you hypocrite.

I’m totally with Another on the Wurtzel issue. I’m uncomfortable with having her on ‘my’ side.

I don’t think that for the most part it is anti-semitism.

But the pertinent questions remain:
(1) why do people feel so much more strongly about I/P than about conflicts with casualty figures several orders of magnitude higher – while those same people of course make constant reference to the numbers killed
(2) why do those same people feel comfortable marching with and/or cheering people who obviously are racist anti-semites when they would not share any kind of platform with other racists

Flanker, I’d like to ask you for your reaction to a post on Elizabeth Wurtzel’s thread which I quote in part below. The poster makes fair points.

“… The following is a partial list of how Hamas has spent its much of its donor funds since Israels unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005:

“1. Qassam Rockets: The most common rocket launched out of Gaza is the Qassam. Made of a simple steel casing and a number of easy-to-find household items, these projectiles have wreaked havoc in Southern Israel, forcing civilians to scramble for cover. On one December day alone, Hamas fired 60 Qassams into Israeli territory. At roughly $200 a piece, these rockets can be built with virtually no limitations.

“2. Tunnels: Underground tunnels connecting Gaza to Egypts Sinai Peninsula are the lifeline of both the Hamas economy. They also ensure that Hamas maintains its military capabilities. Published reports estimate that there were close to 1,000 operational tunnels before Israel destroyed untold numbers of them as part of Operation Cast lead. The cost of construction of a standard 1500 square foot passageway ranges between $60,000 and $90,000. Larger tunnels with more elaborate designs can run as high as $150,000 to complete. Once built, Hamas also profits by taxing the owners of the tunnels.

“3. Salaries of Fighters: An October 2007 Reuters report revealed that Hamas pays the salaries of 10,000 security officials and 10,000 civil servants in cash. By paying them in cash, the idea of accountability to the international community is eliminated. It also reduces the waiting for Hamas fighters. I received my salary from a suitcase, we did not have to stand in line at banks, said one Hamas fighter. Published reports put the monthly payroll of the organization at roughly $9 million.

“4. Financial support for family members of terrorists: Through a network of charities, the family members of martyrs- suicide bombers, rocket launchers and snipers- all receive support from Hamas. The Israeli government believes that each family gets a one-time gift of between $500 and $5,000. After that, they get monthly stipends of $100. In total, these checks can add up to about $30 million annually. Thus the EU, the UN and various charities are supporting the suicide murder of Israeli civilians whether they are aware of it or not.

“5. More Advanced Rockets: While the primitive, first generation Qassams are more than adequate to terrorize Israeli towns in the area known as the Gaza Belt, more sophisticated rockets, capable of reaching farther into Israel and able to cause more serious damage, are on the way. Recent attacks using more sophisticated rockets on the port city of Ashkelon have raised the stakes. With a population of over 100,000, a petroleum pipeline and other important infrastructure projects, the rockets raining on Ashkelon now pose a more serious threat. According to one rocketeer interviewed in the Christian Science Monitor, the cost of the new rockets capable of hitting Ashkelon rocket was $900. How many such rockets now exist is unknown.

“So while aid is desperately needed for the people of Gaza, money rarely gets to those who need it most. Furthermore, between misappropriated humanitarian funds and the money sent with the specific purpose of funding jihad, such unregulated cash has certainly done more harm than good for those Palestinians eager to live a better life…”

Note that the poster said that s/he had given a partial list. Even from that, we can see that Hamas is stealing the bread from the mouths of its people and their poverty is down to its misappropriation of aid and charitable funds to make war on Israel rather than working towards its people’s betterment. Why don’t you speak out against that?

“Tee hee, in The Guardian of all places.”

Yes that same guardian that publishes Dershowitz disgusting bile. You would be right at home.

“So boycotts of rogue-states are ok only as long as it is not your state?”

No silly, just that they get it, here they don’t. Evil people are the ones responsible, not the entire population.

“Israel has no such system.”

Of course they do, you are just too blind to see it.

Citizenship laws that reward one religion/ethnic group and punishes another.

Severe treatment of Palestinians, including denying them the right to vote (in Israeli elections), the right to travel, trade. Yet they have to live under occupation, pay taxes (that are sometimes witheld) and no borders or airspace.

That was never done. At the time people were also singling out repression in the Soviet Union, in Poland, in Argentina, and elsewhere.

Nope.

Sanctions were imposed on South Africa over Apartheid, but NOT on Argentina over the desaparecidos.

Therefore, South Africa was subjected to an unfair treatment by the international community. Now what could the reason have been? Do you think it had to do with anti-Afrikaner racism?

Are we all reading the same article? Because the Wurtzel one in front of me says quite clearly:

It’s impossible not to feel sorry for the plight of the Palestinians, and it’s even more impossible to imagine how any Palestinian could feel anything for Israel but animosity. I can see the problem.

But I think it is this very fact – my attempt to understand both sides – that disturbs me the most.

Israel has no such system. If it’s brutal, it’s no more so than most countries that fight a war.

I think one has to distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories. In Israel, there may be a problem with racism, although this is perhaps not so unusual. In the occupied territories, whilst describing it as South African style apartheid is not an exact fit, it seems closer to the mark.

“Citizenship laws that reward one religion/ethnic group and punishes another.”

Unlike those of er, Germany. Contemporary Germany.

Flanker, as a general rule, you may do yourself some good by extending your grip on facts.

Yes, but the number of people with very strong opinions on I/P is clearly far greater than the number of people with very strong opinions on virtually any other issue you care to name. And that phenomenon is downright weird.

It’s an interesting question. Basically a lot of people see Israel as a racist colonial settler state with huge western elite backing – backing that the Sudanese government and other rogue regimes do not get – therefore is a legitimate target for intense criticism. Many people are obsessed with what America does in Iraq when that war is really hot, like during the initial invasion and during the Falluja operation, but because Iraq is an ongoing thing, and Israel’s wars are sporadic, there’s obviously a lot of energy directed toward Israel whenever they launch one of these military operations, followed by relative quiet.

However conversely, the length are Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land contributes to the growth in opposition to it – if America were still carrying out Falluja operation in Iraq in other 40 years, this would be hugely controversial as well.

Ironically, it’s the anti racist culture that sprang out of WW2 which is in large part why Zionism is seen as so unacceptable to so many western people. If WW2 had never happened and Britain still held onto much of her empire, it’s doubtful that many people would have a problem with the concept of Israel and it’s wars against part of the native population with western made weapons.

<i<In the Congo, blacks are enslaving other blacks. In Saudi Arabia they’ve got slaves as well. In the Communist world people are jailed in mass and denied elementary rights. In India, the Untouchables are shunned from the rest of the society.

YET the only country in the world that has had sanctions imposed on it is South Africa

It was an INJUSTICE to topple Apartheid when China was, and still is, ocupying Tibet.

Never has anyone here suggested that we couldn’t defeat Hamas AND put an end to slavery in Saudi Arabia at one and the same time.

You’re confused when it comes to drawing analogies, dear.

Mike says ‘the length are Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land contributes to the growth in opposition to it’.

Quite the reverse. Israel’s international position has grown worse while it was relinquishing control of land – in the Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza.

This is not an argument for Israel’s keeping the territories. It’s an argument for minimizing expectations from giving them up.

One could ask: why are so many people obsessed with defending Israel? Aren’t there many more worthy cases of people that need defending around the world?

It’s back to that chicken or egg thing.

“Unlike those of er, Germany. Contemporary Germany.”

Where does Germany give converted Christians a free path to citizenship? At best they give those of German ancestry a free pass, but a few things:

Yes it is racist

It is not racist AND Religious

They do not discriminate against a particular group (ie germans free pass, rest of the world some work, turks no way jose)

it’s the anti racist culture that sprang out of WW2 which is in large part why Zionism is seen as so unacceptable to so many western people.

I can see what you are getting at, but it has to be pointed out that until comparatively recently, at least until the mid to late 1970s, support for Israel was seen as a characteristic position of the Left, not the Right.

Quite the reverse. Israel’s international position has grown worse while it was relinquishing control of land – in the Sinai, Lebanon and Gaza.

I think that’s more to do with less tolerance being shown toward Israel as we move further away from imperialism and memories of the holocaust. The US is more unpopular than it has ever been as well.

OK, then Germany, an EU member, is racist. Now have a look at another EU applicant, Estonia.

Are you going to demonstrate against them?

Are they comparable to the old RSA (which was your original argument)?

Israel may have pulled out of Gaza but it did reduce much of its infrastructure to rubble and undermined the PA before it pulled out, which promptly saw the election of Hamas, so it did squander a lot of brownie points on that front. However if Israel were to go back to the 67 borders in all of its territory, I personally think it would have a hell of a lot more support today.

Ian Baruma gets it just about right:

“Ian Buruma has argued that even though there is social discrimination against Arabs in Israel and that “the ideal of a Jewish state smacks of racism”, the analogy [with apartheid] is “intellectually lazy, morally questionable and possibly even mendacious”, as “[n]on-Jews, mostly Arab Muslims, make up 20% of the Israeli population, and they enjoy full citizen’s rights” and “[i]nside the state of Israel, there is no apartheid”" Wikipedia.

That’s about correct in terms of Israel proper (although there are still some questions about aspects of the law). However, as regards the occupied territories, its a different ball game.

‘Israel may have pulled out of Gaza but it did reduce much of its infrastructure to rubble and undermined the PA before it pulled out, which promptly saw the election of Hamas, so it did squander a lot of brownie points on that front. However if Israel were to go back to the 67 borders in all of its territory, I personally think it would have a hell of a lot more support today’.

We sure would have a lot more rockets flying in. If it’s no rockets or no support, I opt for the second. (But I repeat that I am on principle for giving up the post 1967 extensions – on different grounds altogether).

I don’t think we demolished Gaza’s infrastructure when we pulled out. We demolished the Jewish settlements. We were within our rights here, I think.

I remember there being a lot of focus on the Serbs back in the 1990s.

Benjamin, I’m surprised that I have to agree with you, generally speaking. Israel within the internationally recognized is a functioning democracy, and worst than most. Outside these borders, the settlements were surely a mistake. But I remind you that the current leadership both stated and demonstrated its willingness to pull them down, given conditions.

However, most of the vitriol now being poured on us has nothing to do with all this. They hate us for who we are not for what we do.

Mike, were Serb shops vandalised? Was there a proposed ban on Serb academics?

The hysterical tone of Israel bashing makes it difficult to criticise Israel when it actually deserves it.

They hate us for who we are not for what we do.

In the sense that you are seen as part of the west, I would agree with that. Many people, particularly on the far left, basically see Israel as an extention of the US in the middle east and oppose it out of anti Americanism.

Spank the Moneky, there was certainly a lot of anti Serb feeling. If the Balkan wars had continued I suspect there would have been academic boycotts. Indeed, I believe that we did put sanctions on them if I recall correctly.

Mike,

“Basically a lot of people see Israel as a racist colonial settler state with huge western elite backing – backing that the Sudanese government and other rogue regimes do not get – therefore is a legitimate target for intense criticism.”

For me, the single most justifying fact in Israel’s fact is that, as I have said time after time, for most of Christian and Islamic history, Jews have been regarded as Palestinians dispossessed. Which fact, among others, led to most Jews being murdered or displaced, before 1914 mostly to America, after mostly to Palestine or what became Israel.

But, as more people lose touch with European Christian cultural memory, or choose to ‘forget’ it, and as more people chose not to remember or become acquainted with traditional Islamic views and narratives of Jews, the more this single most justifying fact for Israel’s existence is obliterated.

It is an obliteration of memory that is not the same as holocaust denial, but neither is it wholly unrelated, either.

People choose to ‘forget’, justifying such ‘forgetting’ as an act of secularization. Which it is, in a sense. It is just that it is an evasion of confronting moral responsibility for its consequences, too, even as holocaust denial is tantamount to complicity with it, after the fact.

Exhibit one, the desire to put people into one of only two boxes. Tick them off as “on the other side” and then go into pre-conceived condemning narrative (as if bought from IKEA.)

Well I did put it in quotation marks to indicate that it was a position I wasn’t presenting as my own. Apologies to zkahyra if their political ideology is more sophisticated than I assumed. But Graham, there has been no pre-conceived condemning narrative from me. In fact I even closed my comment with the remark about sides, that particular assumption is yours alone.
Wurtzel sees any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic, this is absurd and very obviously so (and falsifiable – David Milliband criticised Israel – David Milliband is not an anti-semite therefore not all criticism of Israel is anti-semitic). You cannot quote passages from absurdities in support of rational argument. My point.

ck=another btw, sorry about that, not sock-pupetting.

An extension of the west? In the sense of US ally or in the sense of open-market hi-tec democracy? If the first, I’d expect to Saudi Arabia (etc.) treated similarly, which it isn’t. If in the sense of democracy, then something is essentially wrong with the US and European left.

However, I suspect that at least one of the sources is a very long word starting with an A. Sometimes the most vulgar explanation is the correct one.

“Citizenship laws that reward one religion/ethnic group and punishes another.”

Unlike those of er, Germany. Contemporary Germany.

Wrong analogy. In the first place, Germany doesn’t discriminate against ethnic groups that were present in Germany when the country was founded.

Also, Germany is somewhat discriminatory when it comes to acquiring citizenship, but not so when it comes to passing it on. Once you become a German citizen you have exactly the same rights as all other German citizens.

In Israel, however, an Arab citizen who goes to live abroad doesn’t have the same rights regarding the transmission of his citizenship to his offspring as a Jewish citizen.

Also, an Arab born in Jerusalem must apply for citizenship. A Jew born there is automatically granted it. Again, we’re not talking about immigrants, but about the descendants of Arabs were already there when the State of Israel was born.

It is the denial of rights to people whose presence in the territory predates the State that makes Israeli legislation so outrageous.

Wurtzel sees any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic

I think you will find she dismisses this early on (to wit:) Which is to say, if you are looking for antisemitism, you can find it anywhere She also comes very close to criticising Israel herself and makes plain her sympathies with the palestinians so I don’t see where you are getting the idea above.

People are not making rational arguments because the times resist rationalisation and that I would suggest is much Wurtzel’s point than “any criticism of Israel is antisemitic.”

But I remind you that the current leadership both stated and demonstrated its willingness to pull them down, given conditions.

The current leadership approved the first civilian settlement in ten years in Maskiyot (the Jordan Valley). What willingness are you talking about?

However, most of the vitriol now being poured on us has nothing to do with all this. They hate us for who we are not for what we do.

When the UN imposed sanctions on South Africa, and only on South Africa, was it an instance of the world hating the Afrikaners for who they were?

Ironically, it’s the anti racist culture that sprang out of WW2 which is in large part why Zionism is seen as so unacceptable to so many western people.

Well, possibly, but what baffles me is why so many people – mainly white, secular people on the other side of the planet; people who having no personal stake in any of it – think it’s ANY OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS, when they don’t care anywhere near as much about all manner of other, in many case much worse things.

But why are so many people obsessed with defending Israel? Aren’t there many more worthy cases of people that need defending around the world that they could care about instead?

As I said, these other regimes don’t usually have the backing that we give to Israel so the comparison is not quite right.

I think that the South Africa issue has been exhausted on this thread. There’s little I can add.

As to discriminating in favour of a certain ethnic group, that’s common practice in many countries (also shown before). It does not involve a specific law AGAINST anyone.

The current leadership and settlements: Olmert was elected on a platform of settlement evacuation, and right after the pulling down of the Gaza settlements. I don’t know what other proof you’d want.

But your main claim, and the only attempt I have seen so far of explaining the special treatment Israel receives from some segments of public opinion is:’It is the denial of rights to people whose presence in the territory predates the State that makes Israeli legislation so outrageous’.

What you are actually saying is that Arabs should be favoured because they are ‘natives’ whereas the Jews are not. First, this is clearly imprecise, as there was a constant Jewish presence in Palestine throughout the ages. Second, if you did not know, the discrimination goes both ways – it is illegal to sell land to Jews (not Israelis, Jews), in the Palestinian authority and Jordan. If your argument is constant, it should cut both ways. Third, since the 1930s, there were constant attempts to settle the citizenship question on parity grounds – two states. The Arabs rejected it again and again, and there is no reason why the Jews should pay the price for this. Fourth, and I’m really sorry to have use this argument, is, if Jews are not natives of Palestine, which country are they natives of? In other words, if the Jews do not have a right to national determination and personal safety in Israel, what would you do with them?

Well, possibly, but what baffles me …

As I posted earlier, the fact is that the international Left supported the establishment of Israel in 1948 (including the USSR). Left support for Israel continued right through to the 1970s. So to imagine that opposition to Israel is rooted in the post-WW2 shifting of opinion against racism and colonialism must be incorrect. The ubiquitous left-wing opposition to Israel nowadays must stem from shifts in attitude that occured decades after WW2.

… these other regimes don’t usually have the backing that we give to Israel …

Mike, with respect to Britain and the rest of Europe, what special treatment does Israel enjoy that other nations don’t?

Israel-Palestine is a fad among the faddish classes. Like Hungary was in the 1840s and Spain in the 1930s.

Mike, how many non-Jews are preoccupied with defending Israel, not counting the apoccalytpic protestant sects?

The ubiquitous left-wing opposition to Israel nowadays must stem from shifts in attitude that occured decades after WW2.

My bet would be that they occured around the time that both Palestinian leaders and European students started reading Frantz Fanon.

“When the UN imposed sanctions on South Africa, and only on South Africa, was it an instance of the world hating the Afrikaners for who they were?”

And suppose the analogy holds, which it does not, did anybody loot Afrikaner businesses? Did they deface signs in Afrikaans? Did anyone heckle Afrikaner performers on stage?

I do remember there was a song around that went “I’ve never met a nice South African.” And South Africans were always being harangued at social events.

Second, if you did not know, the discrimination goes both ways – it is illegal to sell land to Jews (not Israelis, Jews), in the Palestinian authority and Jordan.

From a US official site:

“The Government recognizes Judaism as a religion; however there are reportedly no Jordanian citizens who are Jewish. The Government does not impose restrictions on Jews, and they are permitted to own property and conduct business in the country.”

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71424.htm

But then who is the US State Department to contradict what you were brainwashed to believe.

I do remember there was a song around that went “I’ve never met a nice South African.”

Brett is going to kill us:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=v439zTOJVho

I’m glad that you accept US government as an authority.

Of course there are no Jordan citizens who are Jewish. The Jews who were caught by the (British-trained and commanded) Transjordanian army in 1948 were butchered.

Graham and KBP, good. But the clip and comments seem to contextualize the song as a sort of intra-anglophone family feud, like Aussie and Kiwi jokes. Nothing of the kind that’s directed currently against Israel and the Jews.

Fourth, and I’m really sorry to have use this argument, is, if Jews are not natives of Palestine, which country are they natives of? In other words, if the Jews do not have a right to national determination and personal safety in Israel, what would you do with them?

I know quite a lot of Argentinian Jews.

Is it possible that they are natives of… ehm… Argentina?

As for national determination, well, unfortunately this is not possible for all peoples. The Jews chose to emigrate from their lands 2,000 years ago; the fact that a tiny minority remained in Palestine is precisely evidence that the majority’s exile was voluntary. Like the Gypsies, the Bedouin, the Travelers, the Eskimo and so many other scattered peoples, the Jews became a nation without a territory.

60 years ago they returned and imposed their rule on an existing Arab population that was not consulted. Well, that’s an irreversible fact on the ground. Four generations have been born in Israel and they are not guilty of what their ancestors did. No one is calling for their expulsion.

But the fact is, the Palestinian Arabs are still there, and imposing a Jewish state on them now is just as unfair as it was in 1948. Gerrymandering the territory so as to dump the largest possible amount of Arabs into the smallest possible slice of land will not do the trick; there’ll always be conflict. Better to have a State within natural borders, such as the Jordan river and the sea.

A single binational, secular state is the only solution.

But why are so many people obsessed with defending Israel?

Why are so many people obsessed with Israel is the question. Why has it become the issue around which so many people coalesce to shout about imperialism, resistance, terrorism, and other tremendously boring abstract nouns? Why is it the focus of so many column inches and so many campaigns, for and against, but mainly against, by dull students and mediocre academics? Why hasn’t SOAS been burned down? And so on.

Well, possibly, but what baffles me is why so many people – mainly white, secular people on the other side of the planet; people who having no personal stake in any of it – think it’s ANY OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS, when they don’t care anywhere near as much about all manner of other, in many case much worse things.

I agree, Wardy. I care about the I/P conflict in as much as it affects this country – the shameful increase in antisemitism, the islamist galvinisation, the BNP pissing themselves laughing etc. But there seems to be a moral imperative that you must be exercised by what’s happening in one particular nation state among the many that there are in the world.

My bet would be that they occured around the time that both Palestinian leaders and European students started reading Frantz Fanon.

I’m not sure. Perhaps it was the Iranian Islamic revolution that marked a turning point. After all, it challenged the “three pillars” of Western foreign policy in the Middle East, and it seemed like the closest thing happening in the region to the full-blooded social transformation that the radical left argues for. I seem to recall that certain members of the International Marxist Group were present in Tehran at the time and joined in with the masses chanting of “Allahu Akhbar”. That was surely a first. They also argued that Khomeini’s regime was progressive as it set about nationalising much of the banking sector (entirely in the interest of capitalist efficiency, of course, but you know how the Trots get priapetic over that kind of thing)

Well, ordo, the culture of the Anglophone world needs an obviously, goes-without-saying Bad Nation as a yardstick. It used to be South Africa, so you could imitate South Efricans, generally take the piss etc without being accused of xenophobia. After the dismantling of apartheid another Bad Nation was needed and Israel filled the gap.

Also, I don’t think there was this trope of South African control of the press, banking systems, the whole of America etc, so yes, I suppose there is a large percentage of classic antisemitism in making Israel the Big Bad Guy in the world.

There was also I recall a song or perhaps an album called: “We Hate You White South African Bastards” by Microdisney (might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.)

Perhaps it was the Iranian Islamic revolution that marked a turning point.

Hmm well going on my limited experiences of the SWP in the seventies I’d say that the “Kibbutz as progressive socialism” meme had long gone by the time Johnny Rotten got into the charts. When I joined as a 14 year old in 76 I was met firstly by a man in Palestinian scarf and the idea of Israel as aggresive colonial power was already pretty much fully formed amongst the Brixton branch at least. Of course having Cliff as leader stopped most of the outright anti-semitism that you can sniff these days but I don’t think Khomenei changed much.

Yeah, scrap my South African out, Israel in remark. The Palestine cause was well established in the 80s. You suffered eye blindness from the chequered scarves. It might have originated from the South African – Israel connection – supplying nuclear technology for instance. And the USA-Israel alliance well established then?

Russian imperialism’s killed more in Chechnya and there’s the ongoing horror of the D.R.Congo; there is indeed something weird about the focus on Israel. However the frothing apologists for IDF barbarity here and liberal airheads at the Guardian who really think that Chinese repression in Tibet, shite as it is, is in the same league as the latter can fuck off too.

Never mind Israel and Palestine. What I think is the ultimate wonder with the radical euro left is their backing the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s. Could they have been that stupid? Yes they could.

War crimes attract criticism.

Stop being so amazed about this.

Lenin’s Tomb? Dear lord, the craziest of the crazies to start with. Well almost. You have to put Glenn Greenwald at the top of that list.

Glenn Greenwald is pro-Israel. His argument is that war crimes will make Israel and endanger its future.

Judging by the outrage HP is so disingeniously chronicling aren’t any of you starting to think that he might be onto something? That perhaps laying off of the white phospherous a little might be wise?

*make Israel unpopular

James, we have been trying peace and pullout for the previous decade. Didn’t make us any more ‘popular’ with that particular crowd. And it did make us a lot more vulnerable to suicide bombers and missiles.

There hasn’t been a suicide bombing in years!

And as aforementioned, the rockets from Hamas stopped during the ceasefire. The Israeli government says as much. The Salafists et al kept it up, but if you remove the democratically elected Hamas from government guess who’s most likely to come to power…?

That’s about correct in terms of Israel proper (although there are still some questions about aspects of the law). However, as regards the occupied territories, its a different ball game.

everyone who isn’t an idiot or a liar admits that there would be no occupation now if there was no terrorism.

the problems in the territories are entirely self-imposed by the Palestinians – the moment they really end their war on Israel, Israel can leave them alone.

everyone who isn’t an idiot or a liar admits that there would be no occupation now if there was no terrorism.

An idiot, a liar or a settler.

the problems in the territories are entirely self-imposed by the Palestinians – the moment they really end their war on Israel, Israel can leave them alone.

Yes, an occupation is entirely self-imposed. Evidently.

The Salafists et al kept it up, but if you remove the democratically elected Hamas from government guess who’s most likely to come to power…?

James, I think it is highly unlikely that ordinary Palestinians in Gaza are going to draw the conclusion from the Israeli assault that their leaders should have been even more aggressive in attacking Israel. Quite the opposite.

the problems in the territories are entirely self-imposed by the Palestinians

Do you mean that when a settler brutally clubs an elderly Palestinian shepherd it’s a self-imposed Palestinian problem?

Or that when, year after year after year, the settlers burn the Palestinians’ trees and harvests, that’s a problem the Palis inflicted on themselves?

This is an upside down world we’re living in.

James, I think it is highly unlikely that ordinary Palestinians in Gaza are going to draw the conclusion from the Israeli assault that their leaders should have been even more aggressive in attacking Israel. Quite the opposite.

I imagine you wouldn’t feel too moderate if a member of your family had been given a white phospherous coating, kitten. 1,000 dead from a population the size of the Gaza Strip is an immense proportion, even if Israel left right now. You really imagine that the vibe is more “Concillation” than “Vengenace” right now?

(And this is leaving aside the nonsense that Hamas were “Aggressively attacking” prior to the ceasefire ending. Which even the Israeli government has admitted they weren’t…)

You can’t bomb liberalism into people, I’m sorry. And you certainly can’t bomb an imaginary organisation into existence.

And hang on just a minute.

Are you suggesting that the Israeli military is acting in a violent fashion to try and alter the political views of the Palestinians? Isn’t that terrorism?

James and HB, you forget that Israel is a democracy. Fanatical settlers have neither the support of the majority of the Israeli public nor of a plurality of the Israeli public. There is no mystery, Israeli opinion is as polled as any other democracy. It is not because of the settlers that the West Bank is still occupied.

Once again, anyone who is both honest and intelligent would admit that.

I think one has to distinguish between Israel proper and the occupied territories. In Israel, there may be a problem with racism, although this is perhaps not so unusual. In the occupied territories, whilst describing it as South African style apartheid is not an exact fit, it seems closer to the mark.

The assumptions behind this, that Israel could give citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories and solve the problems is incorrect. That might be a reasonable thing for the Palestinians to want, but they didn’t ask you to make their goals for them.

It’s far to late for that sort of solution. If Israel opened it’s boarders to the Palestinians – made them all citizens, then the result would be a resumption of the horrific terrorism that the occupation and wall is there to prevent. It is the theology that makes killing Jews god’s desire and jihad the only path to heaven that has made unification impossible. A people who would vote for Hamas are not a people you can live with in your neighborhood safely.

The assumptions behind this, that Israel could give citizenship to the Palestinians in the territories and solve the problems is incorrect.

That is not my assumption. Israel needs to end the occupation, and Palestine be created, and then there is no limbo.

As I have said so often, the problem is constantly exacerbated by a lack of material change for the Palestinians. Limbo for too long – and no, that is not all Israel’s fault.

One irony is that Israel says it cannot work negotiate with Hamas, and it must fight it. But that very struggle itself only exacerbates the problem, as it again stalls material change. This can then be blamed on Hamas, fine, but the problem is still worsened – which then strengthens Hamas or more extreme groups. I cannot for the life of me see why the Israeli govt cannot see that. It cannot deal with Fatah alone; they cannot bring peace alone. Someone has to break the vicious cycle.

Netanyahu says:

“The truth is that if Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.”

But what he doesn’t add is “and there would be no Palestine” (under Netanyahu, at least). And Palestine, at the end of the day, is the crux of the issue.

This Hasbara bloke is weird!

As for national determination, well, unfortunately this is not possible for all peoples. The Jews chose to emigrate from their lands 2,000 years ago; the fact that a tiny minority remained in Palestine is precisely evidence that the majority’s exile was voluntary.

Since there are Arabs living in Israel we can only assume, therefore, that the migration of Arabs not to be under Israel influence was voluntary and that they have no right of return.

Like the Gypsies, the Bedouin, the Travelers, the Eskimo and so many other scattered peoples, the Jews became a nation without a territory.

If the Bedouins & Gypsies could point to a place where they had a kingdom, taxes, head of state etc then I’m sure we should help them re-establish their homeland.

60 years ago they returned and imposed their rule on an existing Arab population that was not consulted.

So Jews returned to Palestine in 1948? What was that Mandate for Palestine thingy in 1922? I seem to remember is created countries that were exclusively Arab and a single area, called Palestine on which Jews and Arabs were to live and where Jews were allowed to re-form a national identity leading to statehood at a time undetermined.

60 years ago was when the UN proposed Res 181 which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and Arab State. Hence Israel exists by the will of the UN.

People moan about Israel ignoring UN Resolutions and yet these SAME people don’t want to accept the will of the UN in creating Israel.

Next Hasbara Buster will argue why planes can’t fly.

But what he doesn’t add is “and there would be no Palestine” (under Netanyahu, at least). And Palestine, at the end of the day, is the crux of the issue.

Once again, the Palestinians didn’t ask you to choose what “the crux of the issue” is to them. Once again, you can say that it’s a second state next to Israel till you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t make such a solution acceptable to Palestine. Too many prefer the only sure route to heaven and Gods grace to a mere country, too many may prefer a popular myth to a dismal reality.

Also, if there were no Palestinian intransigence there would be no popular support for right wing governments in Israel. The Israeli people vote for the the leader who seems most appropriate to the situation. When peace is not even possible, then one doesn’t want a leader who will make more disastrous concessions like the disengagement that lead to rocket attacks.

The solution has always been in the Palestinians’ hands. They can get what they want out of Israel the same way every group in the world gets justice from a democracy. They lobby, they get the voting public on their side – if you want something from Israel it makes no sense to vie for the approval of the Iranian public, or the Syrian public. Gandhi, like the lawyer he was, argued his case, demonstrated his aims, understanding that the British public was his jury.

Am I imagining things (or becoming sight-impaired) but wasn’t there someone called bissli here? And didn’t I post? Or was it another thread which I can’t find? Has David T been getting his big chopper out? Was something offensive said?

When peace is not even possible, then one doesn’t want a leader who will make more disastrous concessions like the disengagement that lead to rocket attacks.

The disengagement was not a concession; it was done so that Israel would be able to retain the West Bank, as was clearly stated by Weisglass. The withdrawal placed no particular obligation on the Palestinians because it was not part of a treaty.

The solution has always been in the Palestinians’ hands.

See here how fundamentalist Jews built an illegal road on the West Bank’s Area B (i.e. Palestinian land, and the army, far from repressing the settlers, is preventing the Palestinians from accessing their lands close to the road.

Is the solution to this problem in the Palestinians’ hands?

HB, it hardly matters now since the rocket attacks, like the suicide bombings have made a pull out from the west bank too suicidal for Israel to ever do.

Thus my point is made. The Palestinians choose those actions which make independence impossible. I would suggest that this was a deliberate choice on the part of the various leaderships – both of the PLO and other militias, and that since it evokes no resentment on the part of the Palestinian public, that the loss of the possibility of a reasonable ending to the conflict doesn’t matter to the Palestinian public.

I don’t really understand why your focus is on the fact that life is not ideal for Palestinians during the war they perpetuate.

Wurtzel’s piece is terrible. Face it. If the Arabs were bombing Israel, the left would be protesting against it just a ferocioulsy. Just lazily dressing up any criticism of Israel as anti-semitic is just condoning slaughter.

You have not read what Wurtzel says have you Steve?

“If the Arabs were bombing Israel, the left would be protesting against it just a ferocioulsy.”

Ah, Steve Brown, the man who wanted as many of the unhappy, resentful and disgruntled to make the embassy of the Jewish national presence in this country the object of their violent disaffection as possible:

“The leader of the Jewish Students Union in France said that in this time of crisis, the Palestinian cause could act as a lightning rod for deeper social discontent.

I do hope he is right. Get out there on Saturday, get as many people to go with you. We may be in the middle of a lit fuse…
(The real) Steve Brown | Homepage | 7 Jan, 16:37 | # ”

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-attempts-to-block-gaza-march.html

C’est vraiment le socialism des idiots.

HB, it hardly matters now since the rocket attacks, like the suicide bombings have made a pull out from the west bank too suicidal for Israel to ever do.

I’m not asking Israel to withdraw from the West Bank. I’m asking it to stop fundamentalist Jews from further stealing Palestinian land. If you feign not to understand the difference it’s because you really have no answer to my point.

I didn’t answer that point because it isn’t important to me.

All I want is for the war to end. And if there are bombs that’s not an end. If there are rockets, that’s not an end. And if children are being indoctrinated to want genocide and commit terrorist acts later, that’s not an end.

Let me know when peace is on offer. Land is a sideshow I don’t care about at all. It’s not an issue of life and death, it’s not ruining the lives of children with fear, it’s not promoting hate and war… it’s just fucking ownership. Hey, maybe you’re a trot, remember “ownership is theft”?

Anyway I just couldn’t give two shits about who claims papers to what pile of dirt.

Land is a sideshow I don’t care about at all. It’s not an issue of life and death, it’s not ruining the lives of children with fear, it’s not promoting hate and war…

Finally I’ve come to understand some of your posts. You live in a state of denial.

Let me know when peace is on offer.

A peace plan was proposed in 2002, and ratified in 2007. It’s called the Arab Peace Initiative.

Mike, what is this obsession with “many people think…?” You share it with quite a few people here.

Most people don’t give a damn about anything which doesn’t affect them directly. I would wager that they care more about anti-Israel demonstrations which turn violent (and which show Muslims in a very bad light in spite of the letter condemning violence against British Jews, rather than Jews in general) than they do about what Israel does or does not do, or that she is an extension of Western colonialism. Most people care more about whether they will have jobs this time next month.

That letter is a disgrace, smells strongly of weasel and calls to mind the so-called covenant of security offered to this numpty government by Islamists here.

Finally I’ve come to understand some of your posts. You live in a state of denial.

Lol, no it’s you western Palestinian activists who are in denial. The Palestinians do everything in their power to prevent an Israeli pullout and hard borders that would keep settlers from taking more land.

They don’t care about what you think they should care about.

Anyway my values don’t place land high on any list. Everyone in history has been kicked off their land. My own ancestors were slaughtered as well as expelled probably more than once

So what. That’s no excuse for hatred, genocidal intent, vendetta, war

That’s what you excuse. That’s what your “hasbara” promotes.

Serendipity

Most people care more about whether they will have jobs this time next month.

This is all so pertinent!!!! Foreign policy is not going to be Obama’s main priority. We cannot afford a small minority of the idle left to go on the rampage anymore!