218 replies »

  1. Exiled: “John Roosevelt,

    Al Capone???? Wouldn’t “Meyer Lansky” be more appropriate? ;-)”

    You certainly have a point!:)))..but at least big AL looked Jewish..!

  2. Hi John (or Al)

    Thanks for your reply,

    I have not suggested that one ignores any Arab or Moslem narrative. It is a nonsense – in trying to find a away of making both sides find a path to peace – NOT to try and understand BOTH side’s view of the conflict.

    But do you try to understand the other side of the conflict really? Reading back over your comments, I think your understanding – in public at least – is little more than a kneejerk stereotype of the Arab position. If you want to promote understanding of the Israeli position, I think that you’re going to have to tone down the trash-talking.

    I have not suggested one side or the other is right or wrong either, actually. Nationalism, like so many “isms”, is not always easy to adhere to lock stock and very smoking barrel, especially for good, secular middle class liberal guys like me…

    Agreed – nationalism makes me very nervous.

    Point I was trying to make was simply that in order to find a way forward, there is no substitute for genuinely understanding what makes the position of each side mutually exclusive..and see what, therefore, has to change or be modified, to prize open the door that is – right now – so firmly shut.

    I would still question whether you want me (and others) to understand – or whether you want us excuse and make allowances for Israel’s behaviour. One can understand, and still deplore what is being done.

    I took issue with your position re the Law primarilly because I think it tends to push down the priorities on the list of factors to grapple with (to find a way forward) and the cries to obey the Law dont seem to take cognizance of why the Law may have been, and continues to be, disobeyed in the first place (if indeed it is or has been..etc…etc..).

    There’s a bigger picture here than the I/P conflict. Watching Blair yesterday, I had similar feelings, and given your views on the UN, and international law, I don’t expect you to agree – I have a very real sense that the entire edifice built up from Nuremberg onwards is falling down around our ears. It isn’t being destroyed by the usual suspects – it is being destroyed by the ‘good guys’ – the states that would claim to be upholding it.

    Law is much governed by precedent – when Blair rewrites the rule book in terms of Britain’s interpretation of international law, he doesn’t do so for Iraq, he does so for posterity – he has set the precedent for the next time. There is considerable evidence that Israel is setting a precedent too – the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sri Lankans are both borrowing Israel’s methods, and Israel’s legal tap-dancing routines.

    The world is now truly global – don’t expect people to see anything as a private dispute any more.

    One final thing: I think you are, if you pardon the expression, fundamentally wrong about the the history of of fundamentalism. The Mufti made the Palestinian Arab nationalism into a religious crusade…and he made killing of Jews per se acceptable in the name of this crusade. The roots of this marriage of Islamism and anti-Jewishness, therefore, runs deep…and makes the finding of any way forward, therefore, that much more intractable.

    Did he use religion to garner support for his actions, or were his actions religiously driven? I would say the former. Arafat turned up at the Mosque from time to time (no doubt Assad does to), but that’s political PR, rather than heavenly inspiration.

    I think this notion that fundamentalism is the exclusive result of recent Western and Israeli actions is false. Islamism has become more fanatical, as the secularist West has reasserted its influence in Moslem regions…particularly since the 19th century. Jews enjoyed the possibilities to assimilate that this rise in influence afforded them and fucked the moslems off accordingly. It was not just anger at Jews, of course, but anyone who threatened their position of supremacy.

    Islam has always been basically fundementalist – that’s one of the drawbacks of religions that stress the personal relationship with God (Islam, Mormans), rather than through an intermediary (Christianity, Judeism). In Islam, any man can receive God’s word – that’s fucking dangerous…..

    The real change has been the move to international political Islam. Whatever the position of the Mufti, or for that matter the Mahdi, or any other religious political movement, they used to be localised – Islam has many centres of influence (Mecca, Cairo, Qom, Damascus, Istanbul).

    The rise of international political Islam – Al Qa’eda, Wahabism, Hamas, Hezbollah are all examples – has its origins in the Iranian revolution, and Saudi Arabia’s attempts to counter Iranian influence.

    In any event, the fact is that Israel exists.

    It does indeed.

    It is likely a nuclear power.

    Ahem… whatever you say… Are you governed by secrecy laws or something? If you are, tell Olmert…..

    It will not shuttle off this mortal coil without a fight. It will also not allow Jews to be persecuted as long as it continues to exist. This is not a threat. It is a promise that I have no doubt any Jew – Zionist, self hating or even transgender..would likely recognise as real – not to mention any keen observer of politics of any religious persuasion.

    I’m not suggesting it does.

    This, of course, means that it wont give up land without serious assurances; and it will protect its citizenry robustly (to put it mildly).

    You’re getting a bit ahead of yourself here – the immediate problem is Israel expanding its settlements. You can start the “no surrender” stuff if and when it starts to reduce them – prior to that, it all sounds a bit hollow.

    So, though there are one hell of a lot of sympathisers – deliberate or by default – with Islamic fundamentalism – much of whose sympathy is grounded in either anti Americanism , archaic and transmogrified Leftism, snivelling, wet, Liberalism..mere abject, milk-livered, fear of the nutters; perfidious albion-like political opportunism; or romantic, out-erotic fantasists who love the flowing white robes/ guns and little dark boys in the sand dune images the Levant (Vcs, perhaps?) – Israel, for one, knows its enemy and won’t shirk what it takes to defend itself.

    Most of that is little more than a rant – it’s meaningless.

    There is little western public support for Islamic fundementalism (Gorgeous George Galloway apart) – what there is is a different view of how it should be tackled.

    While you might oppose motherhood and apple pie if the Islamists supported it (the clash of cultures position) – others would say that in order to fight fundementalism, one has to be even handed in your dealings with the Islamic world.

    It’s the basic dispute between those who see compromise as caving in to the extremists, and those who see refusal to compromise as bolstering the extremists – supporting the extremists is very much a minority illness.

    So, my advice to the world – for the pathetic little it matters – is to take note: Islam will not be allowed to spin everyone, all of the time, to help push the case for allowing it to have its way – according to its nutter, Islamic strictures. The propaganda will fall on deaf ears when it comes to this state. And it is with this state that the Moslems will have to negotiate.

    Which pretty much illustrates my point above?

    I hope you saw Blair yesterday? You have a lot in common in your world views.

    If the Moslems are smart they will genuinely start to accept that they have seriously to compromise and take very substantive steps to placate Israel. Not the other way around, I’m afraid. Without Israel being convinced the nutters will be held at bay, I repeat: NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE.

    Then the conflict will continue – it will be a two way street, or a dead end. The advantage of your position is that it is self-fulfilling, and self justifying – if you start from the position that the other side is the problem, and that you won’t move an inch until they’ve moved a mile, then you’re certain to be proved right.

    The more the West avoids this realisation..and indulges all the various reasons for screaming blue murder at Israel and..yes..the Jews…;the more cries there are for the US to abandon Israel; and the more talk there is re FORCING Israel into a corner to meet Molsem demands…..the closer the cataclysm, that most of us want to avoid, becomes. Love it or hate it, this is simply how it is.

    The US isn’t going to abandon Israel. US support is deep-rooted – it comes from the American people, who regard Israel as very much a state in their own image.

    Let us make both sides WANT to bey a Law that is not thoroughly politicised and that can inspire every one of us.

    That’s going to be mighty hard work, and persuading you is not going to be any easier than persuading them.

    Speak later….

  3. Hi John,

    I’ll wait and see if it turns up like your posts did, and if not, I’ll email Hawkeye.

    It’s still the Jewish Sabbeth in New York, and there’s no hurry.

    If not, I’ll reply again.

  4. The plate set by the arabist apologist is par for the course filled with sophistry to enable a “debate” on a false foundation that consequently can be manipulated.

    There are winners and losers and each has his version of what happened and why, this isn’t history. It is the winner who determines and develops the following events not the loser. If the opposing side would have been the victor things would have moved along in a different direction and “history” would be different.
    Right off the bat he wants to make revisionism acceptable fact.

    Its very important to recognize that “Palestinians, called that without any attempt to spin anything” were not a “people” in any sense of the term, they identified themselves by clan or city and not by any “national” vision. Semi-nomadic is accurate in that they came from the wide region of what is today Iraq, Lebanon,Syria and Jordan, better educated is not as there wasn’t much in the way of urban population and “education”.

    The partition plan is stated to have given the Jews more than half the land, though that included the Negev, yet totally ignores that 70% of Palestine was already “partitioned” to the exclusivity of the very same “semi-nomadic” people, now under the rule of the Hashemites.

    He states that Ben Gurion accepted partition and that Hussein did not, yet throws in the caveat that it “wasn’t a final settlement”.

    He then pretends that the poor Arabs were rubes who were fearful, misunderstanding and had no control of their own environment in the face of world events…… yet somehow the Arabs managed to “get” Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait AND land for a second Arab country in Palestine.

    He pretends that not only was Arab objection to a Jewish State understandable, it was unavoidable.
    Opposition can be understandable, but international resolution made it completely avoidable.

    The revisionism has to find a soft spot of rationalization of course to set the table for the “upcoming debate”- and we learn that jihad is a new phenomenon brought on in the last 30 years by the nature of the conflict, the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, with Saudi Arabia and Iran using the area as a proxy battlefield.
    This sounds beautiful yet Jihad was there from the outset, refusing outright the concept of ANY area, no matter what the size or where it was, to be a Jewish country.

    The historical palate presented by the arabist apologist is another 3-legged chair being passed off as a chair and as usual sitting down on it will land you on your ass.

    You know, I can understand how this type of thing can go over at the guardian but over here?
    While the raison d’etre of the site is to point out and expose the anti-semitism of the guardian, why is space devoted to this arabist apologist feeding off the electronic intifada?

  5. Yeah, ain’t life a bitch,
    You’re so used to revisionists and arabist apologists serving it up at will that even at a site like this, dedicated to exposing anti-semitism, with people who know and understand the topic, people who have lived, read and have life-experience….. you think you can get away with it..

  6. Peter1,

    With all due respect, i.e. very little, if you know a great deal about anything* then you don’t show it in your posts on here.

    A lot of insults and bits and bobs cribbed from here.

    You are, I think, not a very serious person.

  7. khartoumi/David – so are you.


    And I don’t think that you ever were a person, khartoumi, in the fully-founded psychologically-developed sense.

    You are and always were a conglomeration of bizarre ideas – an online construct.

  8. You think anybody here gives a hoot what you of all people thinks of them????

    Goodness gracious, guardian has done such a wonderful training chuchems like you and the arabist apologist, thinking the mindless drivel you soak up can be repeated to people who actually know and understand the topic.

    by me, you can still shmeck in tuches.

  9. John Roosevelt,

    Hi John,

    My post finally made it – I think it must have taken the Delta flight from Madrid to New York, rather than the web route…..

    It’s a few posts up – 12.01pm, Jan 30th.

    It might be an idea to move this debate somewhere else – a nice quiet thread without 200 posts or Peter perhaps…….

  10. yeah, I’d suggest over to CiF where your revisionism and half-truths fit the mold and have a welcome home.
    What you call “debate” is nothing more than feeble sophistry that is lost and out of place among people who are drawn to a site that exposes the anti-semitism at the guardian..

    You don’t have any customers here for the three-legged chairs of yours that are so welcome at the guardian and its a shame you’re just too thick to realize it.

  11. Hi Pretzel,

    On what grounds do you accuse exiledl of revisionism, half-truths and sophistry?

    I wouldn’t bother if I were you – Peter doesn’t debate, he recycles a load of pre-prepared and frankly unfathomable set insults.

    Lots of stuff about three-legged stools, revisionists, the historical palate, and setting plates – while I admire the creativity, I haven’t the feintest idea what he’s going on about, and I’m not sure that anyone else does. I can’t say I’ve noticed Peter engaging with anyone else either….

    It all reminds me somewhat of the Morning Star newspaper, circa 1975 – lots of stuff about the running dogs of capitalism, workers of the world, and the military industrial complex, but almost totally devoid of any substance….

    You could try to find out what he’s going on about, but I’m happy enough scrolling – the amount of engagement needed seems to be excessive for any benefit acrued.

  12. Exiled: my response to your last longish post ever made it either. Hoping Hawkeye will resolve that..

  13. pretzelberg,
    I unfortunately bothered to take the time to point out the revisionism and half-truths of the arabist apologist as he engaged in sophistry while presenting the historical palate.

    I say unfortunately only in the sense that it hasn’t sunk in that there are no customers here for this type of junk.

    Perhaps I should define sophistry for you, a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading.

    The famous 3-legged chairs of the arabist apologist, that he passes off as stools, but you cannot sit down on without falling on your ass.

    The guardian is a wonderful place for the arabist apologist, they not only buy into his gibberish, they happen to promote like minded statements.
    The goal of this site is not to expose the sophistry of the arabist apologist, but neither do we need to listen to the baseless dronings of the arabist apologist either, one can go to countless sites that espouse his point of view and methodology.

    This site happens to have people who have a vested interest, concern, life experience and involvement in the history, both recent and not so recent, people that can be learned from.