59 replies »

  1. david: “John,

    It is your ideals that do not fit with the Israeli reality, not mine.

    I have no illusions to lose about Zionism – I know it for what it is.

    It is just a pity that you, even in the face of evidence, do not.”

    Well, David, you misunderstood my point re Israel protecting Jews against persecution..as I pointed out to Exiled…so, not sure what you’re referring to.

    Why dont you put shyness aside and amplify a little on your views? They are a little tantalizing , as they stand…

  2. John,

    Let us clarify this. The statement that Israel

    “will also not allow Jews to be persecuted as long as it continues to exist. This is not a threat. It is a promise”

    Doesn’t mean you think it can prevent

    “every single act of anti Jewish terrorism” (as in the Buenos Aires bombings)

    And it doesn’t mean that Israel will protect Jews from organised, state-sponsored, persecution either (by the Junta)

    So what *does* it mean *to you*?

    I mean, I can tell you what it means *in reality*, in the light of Israel collaborating with the anti-semitic junta when it was murdering thousands of Jews – it means *nothing*.

    I’m interested, nevertheless, in how far you are willing to maintain your illusions in the face of that reality.

    Bear in mind, again, the reality is not that Israel

    “will also not allow Jews to be persecuted as long as it continues to exist.”

    The reality is that Israel not only *did* allow the Argentinian Jews to be persecuted and exterminated it *also* sold arms to the regime doing it and *also* refused and delayed visas to Jews trying to flee in full knowledge of the persecution and murder.

    Do tell, John, what you think this “promise” means.

  3. David: “I’m interested, nevertheless, in how far you are willing to maintain your illusions in the face of that reality.

    Bear in mind, again, the reality is not that Israel

    “will also not allow Jews to be persecuted as long as it continues to exist.”

    The reality is that Israel not only *did* allow the Argentinian Jews to be persecuted and exterminated it *also* sold arms to the regime doing it and *also* refused and delayed visas to Jews trying to flee in full knowledge of the persecution and murder.

    Do tell, John, what you think this “promise” means.”

    Dear oh dear: david, come clean. What’s your gripe, mate?

    To me, that promise is simply that Israel represents the best protection Jews have against another holocaust. To be sure, Israel is a state and will tend to behave as states do…but I would certainly put my money on Israel rather than any other state in the world if I were Jewish and persecuted. You clearly would not.

    Oh well…

  4. The reality is that Israel not only *did* allow the Argentinian Jews to be persecuted and exterminated it *also* sold arms to the regime doing it and *also* refused and delayed visas to Jews trying to flee in full knowledge of the persecution and murder.

    I thought I had heard every possible slander of the Jewish state, but this chazar David has come up with a new one.

  5. John Roosevelt,

    Hi John,

    We seem to be testing people’s power of concentration. Pretzel, I’m surprised at you – I saw you as more of a book reader than Beano reader 😉

    ISRAEL DOESN’T CITE GOD AS ITS JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS ACTIONS AGAINS HAMAS ET AL.

    Not at a Governmental level, no, but the settler movement and its supporters certainly do – not the settlers themselves, who are largely secular immigrants, but those who drive the push for settlement expansion.

    NO IT DOESN’T. I MAY AGREE WITH YOU THAT ISRAEL’S SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL ETC (I may not, also) BUT STILL MAINTIAN MY MAIN POINT TO BE TRUE.

    I don’t doubt that the actions of Israel are deeply influenced by Jewish history – the point of contention is whether understanding that should change my view on those actions, or change my willingness to express that view.

    I suppose that the real difference between us is this – what effect does criticism of Israel have on the chances for peace? I don’t doubt that you genuinely believe that by giving more prominence to Israel’s psyche, and less to its actions, Israel might feel less under fire, and therefore be more open to compromise. The problem is that I can’t agree. All the evidence suggests to me that Israel regards tolorance of its actions as a green light for expansion.

    If the world, and particularly the US, hadn’t been so mealy-mouthed about the settlement program in the first place, then we might not be in this mess.

    The problem with negotiating peace is the huge disparity between the two sides – damaging as the conflict is for Israel, it has the power, the land, and the control, and with US support, can maintain the current situation indefinately. For peace, something needs to change. Many Arabs believe that Israel can be forced into compromise by military means – I think that’s pretty much impossible. I think that Israel will compromise when it is its interests to do so (as with Egypt and Jordan), and in that, outside influence is vitally important.

    NOONE IS SUGGESTION YOU CENSOR YOURSELF. I AM MERELY TAKING ISSUE WITH THE THRUST OF YOUR ARGUMENT THINGS WILL IMPROVE IF ALL PARTIES OBEY THE LAW I.E. THAT IT IS A TRUISM..AND BEGS THE KEY QUESTION: HOW DO WE GET THE PARTIES TO DO THAT? THAT IS THE ISSUE, OF COURSE.

    The same way you get other states to obey the law. You make not obeying the law more costly than obeying it. Nobody in Israel seems to have much problem with sanctions being taken against Iran or Iraq, do they?

    Israel enjoys favourable trading status within the EU – I have no problem with that status being subject to certain conditions relating to Israel’s actions beyond its borders, just as I have no problem with the EU using its economic muscle against Iran.

    The question is carrot or stick – I think a bit of both can work.

    PERHAPS..BUT CLEARLY IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE YOUR PROPOSITION MEANINGFUL.

    No it isn’t. Israel has faced virtually no consequences for its actions.

    THERE IS A PLAGUE OF POSTS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON A VARIETY OF SITES, SCREAMING THAT THERE ARE NO ARAB TERRORISTS, ONLY FREEDOM FIGHTERS..AND THESE FFS CANNOT BREAK THE LAW BECAUSE THEY HAVE “RIGHT” ON THEIR SIDE…ETC ETC…ALL THE GOBBLEDYGOOK OF INFLAMED OPINION. THE LAW HOLDS AS MUCH SWAY OVER THIS SENTIMENT – WHICH DRIVES SO MUCH VIOLENCE (LEAVE ISRAEL ASIDE FOR THE MOMENT) – AS HAMAS DOES OVER MEIR SHARIM.

    That’s not my position – take it up with them. I claim common cause with nobody.

    There are idiots on both sides – I could point to recent posts here that make the most appalling racist accusations against Palestinians, and Arabs in general, but I don’t ask you to answer for them.

    MINOR DETAIL…LET’S NOT MENTION HIZBOLLAH, IRAN ETC…

    Yup, them too.

    DON’T AGREE. HAMAS WOULD NOT RECOGNISE ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO EXIST OR THAT NEGOTIATIONS ARE TO BE FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT. PERIOD. THAT’S A DEAL BREAKER.

    Hamas wouldn’t, but there are those that will. The Palestinians also face ‘deal breakers’ in the shape of Netanyahu’s settlement expansion. The question is whether the rejectionists can be brought on board (I doubt it), or whether they need to be marginalised. Each side has an impoertant part to play in marginalising the other side’s rejectionists. Netanyahu gains much of is support from Palestinian terrorism, and Hamas gain much of their support from Israeli settlement expansion.

    ISLAMISATION OF THE ANTI ISRAEL MOVEMENT WAS NOT BORN OF HAMAS. PERIOD. IT WAS BORN OVER 70 YEARS AGO. THINGS HAVE GOT MORE SEVERE RE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, FOR SURE, OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS OR SO…BUT THAT IS A GLOBAL PHENOMENON.

    Hamas are not just the result of a global phenomenon – their rise, in previously one of the most secular Arab societies, has much to do with local factors. Not all are to do with Israel – PLO corruption is a large factor.

    NOW YOU’RE PLAYING SEMANTICS. YOU WOULD SAY ALL ARAB ATTACKS AGAINST JEWS PRIOR TO INDEPENDENCE ARE IRRELEVANT IN THIS REGARD? NONSENSE.

    No, of course I wouldn’t – what I would say that the creation of a state turned a rather nasty civil war into a regional conflict. That’s not meant to apportion blame – the Arab states behaved appallingly – but is merely a recognition that the nature of the conflict changed.

    BY ALL MEANS WRITE A THESIS ON HOW YOU WOULD HAVE FOUGHT THE WAR AGAINST HIZBOLLAH AND HAMAS. THE IDF WILL, I’M SURE, BE ALL EARS…IT WOULD BE USEFUL, ANYWAY, FOR THE UPCOMING WAR..SO PLEASE HOP TO IT!

    We don’t need a thesis on how to fight a war – we need a definitive account on how the war was fought. Unfortunately, both sides are united in their attempts to obstruct any examination of their actions.

    NOONE IS “COMPELLED” TO DO ANYTHING IN WARFARE. FACILE COMMENT. YOU MAY NOT THINK THESE TACTICS NICE..YOU MAY BE RIGHT..BUT, FOR ME, WAR IS NOT NICE. PERIOD.

    No, war is not nice, but there are degrees of not-niceness….

    The principle that all acts in war are not equally legitimate is not a new one – and I doubt that you would claim that all acts are?

    I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE COLOUR OF NETANYAHU’S LOO PAPER…GENERAL POLICY GOOD FOR ME…

    Fine – you believe that Cast Lead was necessary. We can argue about that, but it would be on the basis of judgement.

    I’m talking about individual acts. It is perfectly possible for a war to be justified, but aspects of its prosecution not to be. The general does not validate the particular.

    NOT TRUE. SELF-PROTECTION IS NOT ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE IMMEDIATE PRESENT. WAR OFTEN INCLUDES A STRATEGY FOR THE FUTURE.

    If that strategy for the future involves inducing a fear of war crimes in the civilian population, then it’s terrorism.

    PERHAPS TO DO WITH SHOWING THE COST OF AGRESSION AGAINST ISRAEL NOT WORTH IT.

    Showing who? Combatants or civilians?

    IRRESPECTIVE OF CHILCOT, THE QUESTIONS BEGGED BY OPPOSITION TO BLAIR AND THE NEO CONS REMAIN. WHAT WOULD ALL THE CRITICS DO IF….ETC ETC? NOT AN ANSWER ON THE HORIZON? HOW ARE THE PRICIPLES ON WHICH CRITICISM OF BLAIR AND THE IRAQ POLICY ARE PREDICATED GOING TO BE APPLIED WITH REGARD TO IRAN?

    I don’t think that they are – Iraq will merely produce a reaction to Bush and Blair’s bloodlust. Decisions on Iran will not be taken on the merits of the case, but as a reaction to the Iraq debacle.

    ANYBODY OUT THERE? SHOW ME A SIGN!!!!!

    If the sign you want is a way of stopping Iran getting Nukes, I’m not sure that there is one.

    ABOSFUCKINGLUTELY! NOW YOU’RE BEGINNING TO GE IT!

    I always got it – so do the Iranians.

    WOW! I MIGHT AGREE WITH THAT!

    So you should – the path was trodden by Israel as well.

    If the permanant five wanted to stop proliferation, then they’re 30 years too late. Israel was almost certainly the first outside the five to develop nukes, followed by India, Pakistan, and probably North Korea.

    If the UNSC, or the permanant five, wanted to stop it, they should have flattened Dimona….

    THIS OTION THAT ISRAEL’S FOREIGN POLICY IS DEFINED BY EXPANSIONISM IS PURE FANTASY. ABSOLUTLEY 100% NOT TRUE…AND FOR MANY REASONS.

    I don’t think Israel views it as foreign policy?

    I didn’t say “defined” – but I know of no Israeli Government, from Meir’s to Netanyahu’s, that hasn’t left more settlers than it inherited….

    AGAIN..YOU GOT IT!

    OK, so if the first step is countering the Iranian threat, how do you start?

    Do you tell the world to fuck off over the settlements, and launch an attack on Iran? Is that going to produce a coalition against Iran? To be honest, underneath the diplomatic language, the strutting gangster impressions of Netanyahu and Lieberman have not exactly endeared then to anyone.

    WHY NOT PUT HAMAS IN CHARGE OF THE WEST BANK? THAT NO DOUBT, WOULD HELP, NO?

    You think so? It would ensure a Netanyahu victory in the next elections….

    ISRAEL WOULD BE DENSE NOT TO HAVE SOMETHING PLANNED EVERY DAY OF ITS PRECARIOUS EXISTENCE – AS YOU WOULD TOO..BUT, I CAN ASSURE YOU, ISRAEL WILL NOT MAKE THE FIRST MOVE, JUST AS IT DIDN’T THE LAST TIME.

    There is no first move – there never is. All there is is a series of pretexts – some manufactured, and some valid.

    AS IS AID – IN EFFECT IT IS. BY DEFAULT OR OTHERWISE..SAME SHIT. ENABLING AND PROACTIVE SUPPORT ARE COMFORTABLE BEDFELLOWS AND THOSE WHO ENABLE SHOULD KNOW THEY ARE UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT, TOO. IT’S ANALAGOUS TO THE NOTION THAT IT IS ONLY WHAT IS SAID IN THE BOARDROOM THAT COUNTS. YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WHAT IS NOT SAID ALSO COUNTS AND OFTEN CRUCIALLY.

    Does that also apply to those who enable Israel?

    YOU ENABLE SADDAM TO CONTIUE USING WMD AGAINST HIS OWN PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU ARE AGAINST THE US AND THE NEO CONS ETC, YOU THINK YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ANSWER FOR? NOT TRANSGRESSED INTERNATIONAL LAW? PIFFLE…

    Saddam used WMD against his own people when he was a client of the US. The Americans sold him much of his arsenal. The reason that there was no attempt to hold him to account was that he was on side.

    As Galloway pointed out to the senate committee, he had met Saddam twice, which is once less than Donald Rumsfeld…..

    THERE ARE PLENTY OF REAL ENEMIES – EASILY IDENTIFIABLE. NO NEED TO INVENT ANY, AND I DON’T.

    I’m not talking about military enemies – I’m talking about enemies in western public opinion.

    WHAT TOSH? THAT HAMAS, HIZBOLLAH, IRAN ETC ETC ARE ENEMIES? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO CONVINCE ME OF, NOT MENTION YOURSELF?????

    Like I said – I’m talking about your view of world opinion.

    GOOD TO HEAR..BUT WHAT WE HAVE MENTIONED IS CRUCIALLY CONNECTED..AND IN MANY WAYS.

    Everything is connected in some ways.

    EMOTIVE??????????? EXCUSE ME…

    That it’s some cultural distinction – that civilised societies are somehow defined by their revulsion of suicide bombings. That’s both emotive and simplistic – it doesn’t bear scrutiny (at least in regards to Christian tradition).

    CLEARLY YOU MIGHT..BUT IT’S THE MENTALITY THAT INFORMS THE METHOD THAT IS AN INTERESTING KEY TO UNDERSTAND THIS KIND OF COMBATANT AND THE IDEOLOGY WHICH DRIVES IT.

    But that mentality isn’t necessarily religious – Kamikazes, Tamil Tigers, Islamists, Crusaders – the giving up of your life for a military objective is not specific to one culture.

    COME ON, EXILED, YOU’RE SLIPPING RADICALLY, NOW.

    In what way?

    PIFFLE.

    You think that Iraq is a safer place now, with Iran and Al Qa’eda both operating freely?

    I THINK YOUR VIEW IS HIGHLY IDEALISED…A CANDIDATE FOR THE VICTIMISATION OF WISHFUL THINKING BRIGADE.

    It’s a view held by a lot of military people – support for the taliban is largely an expression of opposition to foreign occupation.

    GOOD TO KNOW YOU THINK THAT ALL THE EX IRGUNNICKS,
    GENERALS – WHO LEAD ISRAEL – WERE SOFT SPEAKERS…☺ HILARIOUS. WHENEVER ISRAEL HAS WON A WAR, THE AFTERMATH CRITICISM OF ITS LEADERS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME..AND, WHEN A LEADER MADE SOME HEADWAY IN THE WAR OF PROPAGANDA AND GARNERED SOME GENUINE INTERNATIONAL RESPECT ETC, HE WAS STILL DENIGRATED BY THE PALESTINIAN ARABS AND THEIR LEADERS…AND MANY OF THE WESTERN LEFT ETC ETC…

    But they gained international support (far more useful than respect)? Israel is currently in danger of having to rely almost exclusively on US support.

    EVEN IF TRUE, AND I AM NOT CONVINCED,WOULD ANY STATE BE ANY DIFFERENT?

    Not every state has Israel’s advantages – permenant loan of a UN veto.

    PERHAPS SO..BUT THE UN SHOULD NOT PREDICATE ITS APPLICATION OF THE LAW ON THIS ASSERTION. OR SHOULD IT? WHAT BECOMES OF YOUR LAW, THEN?

    No, and it should not predicate its application of the law on Israel on that assertion either, but it does. The danger is that Iran will gain the unprincipled protection of either Russia and China in the UNSC, and Israel will howl blue murder – despite having been the benificiary of just such an arrangement for 40 years.

    AN NOW? IS THIS A HINT AT YOUR POLICY PRESCRIPTION RE IRAN? IF ISRAEL DOESN’T DISARM, OR THE US, RUSSIA, CHINA ETC..SO IRAN SHOULD HAVE A BOMB OR TWO ALSO???? DEAR OH DEAR…WHERE IS MATHEW PARRIS WHEN YOU NEED HIM??? MAYBE WE DO’T NEED HIM!!!

    It isn’t a policy prescription – it’s a bald description of the reality.

    You are saying that the west should take the Israeli line, because Iran being nuclear armed is our problem as well? It is our problem as well, but we must decide for ourselves how to approach the problem. Israel’s position on Iran is not just about nukes – Israel wants to weaken Iran for a lot of other reasons as well.

    You can’t tell me that Israel will do what it needs to do, irrespective of outside opinion, and then expect the world to help out – if it does, it will be for its own reasons, and it may demand a price for doing so.

    GREAT POLICY PRESCRIPTION! I’M GETTING MORE OPTIMISTIC BY THE NANOSECOND, EXILED!

    Once again, it isn’t a policy prescription.

    Israel wrote the book on the covert development of nukes – why do you think the world can stop Iran, when it couldn’t stop Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea?

    AH, THERE GOES HISTORY OUT THE WINDOW AGAIN..BUT LET’S LOOK AHEAD..AND BE REALSITIC: PRAY FOR A MIRACLE!

    There won’t be a single, big-bang, sort of miracle – there might be a lot of small steps, which may end in something miraculous.

    Maybe Israel should talk to Iran? Maybe there’s more chance of a regional solution, than a global solution?

    Maybe Israel needs to make a firm decision about where the greatest threat comes from – it’s immediate neighbours, or Iran? It’s no secret that many of Israel’s neighbours aren’t over the moon with Iranian influence.

    Maybe Israel needs to mend a few bridges with Turkey? Turkey is the obvious rival to Iran for regional dominence, and Turkey isn’t exactly well disposed to Israel at the moment.

    Maybe working towards an agreement with the Palestinians and Syria would reduce the support that is flowing to Hamas and Hezbollah?

  6. John,

    Oh…. I see! How silly of me! Of course! You said Israel

    “will also not allow Jews to be persecuted as long as it continues to exist. This is not a threat. It is a promise.”

    And in that sentence “persecution” = “another holocaust”?

    “To me, that promise is simply that Israel represents the best protection Jews have against another holocaust.”

    A less civil-minded person than I might suggest you’re an absolute balloon lacking either historical perspective, a modest grasp of the English language or any ability to see reality when it comes to the reality of Zionist practice.

    Which is it, John?

    As for what my “gripe” is, it is exactly the last of them: the complete refusal to grasp Zionism as it is in practice rather than as it is in theory.

    Zionism is the “protector” that abandons and the “liberator” that oppresses.

    That people cannot see this, that they repeat as truth what has been proven false angers me, John. As it should anyone.

    Lose your illusions.

  7. David: “A less civil-minded person than I might suggest you’re an absolute balloon lacking either historical perspective, a modest grasp of the English language or any ability to see reality when it comes to the reality of Zionist practice.”

    Mmm..is that all, David? Sweet chap…

    “Which is it, John?”

    ooooh I dunno, dav..maybe all of it. I have to say that I do feel thankful that you are such a “civil-minded person”.

    “As for what my “gripe” is, it is exactly the last of them: the complete refusal to grasp Zionism as it is in practice rather than as it is in theory.”

    Ah, yes…David…so..out with it then..Don’t be shy..and, oh, be sure not be an absolute ballon or lack historical perspective..come, come, now…your English is fine for me…not sure re your grasp on reality but don’t let that discourage you…

    “Zionism is the “protector” that abandons and the “liberator” that oppresses.”

    Mmmm…ok.. Is that a quote from da Bible, den?

    “That people cannot see this, that they repeat as truth what has been proven false angers me, John. As it should anyone.”

    Who said israel was perfect? What’s your favourite state then..Come on, let’s play….

    “Lose your illusions.”

    Please let me keep ’em..you know it’s all I have…