Former Israeli PM: Govt doesn’t want peace


10:01 am - December 2nd 2012

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

At a debate last night, the former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was not dedicated to the pursuit of peace.

He also criticised Netanyahu’s unwillingness to negotiate peace with the Palestinians, opposition to their statehood and taking sides in the US elections.

The comments were made at the Saban Forum in Washington DC. Here are some tweets reporting on the event last night.

Ehud Olmert served as the Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009. He supports the Palestinian bid for more recognition at the UN.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Dick the Prick

To be fair, he would say that wouldn’t he? Not like there’s an election on.

“Ehud Olmert served as the Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009″

During “Operation Cast Lead”. How many Gazan men, women and children killed, maimed and made homeless by that again, Ehud?

3. flyingrodent

And to be fair, Netanyahu can hardly be accused of constructing a convincing facade of peace-desiring.

He’s always said he doesn’t want to see a Palestinian state; when Obama finally convinced him to say he wanted to see one, he said he wanted to see a Palestinian state that had almost none of the powers that any modern state would take for granted.

The charade about Bibi and his buds questing for peace wasn’t created by Likud. It was an invention of the western media types, who assume that because any sane human would prefer a mutual agreement through painful concessions is the quickest route to peace, then Netanyahu must want that.

Well, he doesn’t. Even a charitable reading of his actions shows he wants to keep the Palestinians poor and divided until he can lock down as much of the West Bank as humanly possible. He’s always wanted that – it was us in the west who fantasised that he wanted anything different.

4. Rob Sheffield

Good on him for making these key points: it’s always important to have pointed out that Israel is a state and society with a multitude of views. Even- ‘Judge’- if it is one facing a monolithic Islamist regime in Gaza that behaves in the same violent and provocative way whoever is in power in Israel: and places fire points on/next to houses and schools. We need to be constantly reminded of that truth as well.

The sooner we see the back of the extreme rightism of Hamas and Netanyahu the better.

While I agree with flyingrodent, it could be argued that Netanyahu has a legitimate point of view about any fianl peace deal being made with the Plastinians.
Can they really afford to take their foot of the necks of Palestinians? Could a deal that both sides agreeed to actually be made? Given how far they were apart in 2000 I can’t really see it. Israel seems determined to only allow a weak new state carved up by settlements and controlled roads to come into being. And that is not acceptable to Palestinians.
As for what Olmert says … does it really matter? He’s an opponent of Netanyahu’s.

It was interesting to see that this website passed little comment on the recent violence in Gaza.
It shows how hard discussing this subject is. Which for the protagonists is many times harder.

Just as an example, even in theory, how impossible would it be even to suggest which areas might be swapped in a final agreement? Which parts of its territory could Israel give away? Offer parts of empty desert in exchange for WB settlements and that will be said to be unfair. Offer parts of Galilee with a Palestinian majority and it will be called ethnic dumping and gerrymandring. Maybe Netanyahu is just being more realistic, and there really can’t be a two state solution.

6. flyingrodent

It’s got little to do with any kind of realism, I imagine. Netanyahu’s ideological forebears wanted as much land in the region as possible, with as few concessions to the Palestinians as possible. Thanks to the US, he’s on the cusp of achieving exactly that.

The rest of the planet appears to have finally realised this but it’s far, far too late to do anything useful about it now. Netanyahu’s clique, bluntly, are not going to be dissuaded by a bunch of Europeans complaining and making boo-hoo noises.

@6, I can agree with that. So then what? Could it have been any other way? Can Gaza and the West Bank actually be joined together in the same state? It’s not quite East and West Pakistan, but states that are in two parts never work well. Maybe it’s time for people to admit that the two state solution as envisaged is doomed. Particularly when you have a country like Iran supplying people in Gaza with weapons as powerful as the Fajr-5 rockets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-5#Combat_Record

Personally, I think that creating Israel was a mistake, but even to say that will get you accused of hating all Jewish people. It’s the way discussion on this subject goes.

Look forward to him being called anti Semitic by mad Mel, and con home and the usual one trick ponies.

Because everyone who criticises the Israeli govt is anti Semitic don’t you know.

9. flyingrodent

Well, maybe it could’ve worked out better, if there had been about 100% more good faith negotiation on both sides. I’d say two things have brought about the current state of affairs – the long term planning of the Israeli right and the utter uselessness and malevolence of the Palestinian’s “liberation movements”.

And it doesn’t really matter whether the creation of a Jewish state on the Med was a good or bad idea. Either way, Israel is a solid fact – a fact with regionally dominant conventional arsenal and nuclear weapons, as it happens.

What’s new?

Netanyahu is the leader of Likud and PM of a coalition government which depends on religious parties for support in the Knesset. A fundamental belief of the religious parties is that Palestine belongs to Israel because of a divine covenant between jews and their ethnic deity.

A few searches of the web and YouTube can produce any number of Israeli settlers claiming that they are entitled to the lands they are occupying because of the covenant, a covenant that can be confirmed by reference to the Old Testament of the Bible. They don’t believe in a two-state solution because that is incompatible with their religious beliefs so they want no peace settlement with non-jews living in Palestine as that implies they would be giving up land they are entitled to. Given the premises of their claim, the conclusion is logical.

So long as that view prevails in Israel, there can be no progress towards a peace settlement. It is foolish to delude ourselves otherwise. The conflict over Palestine will continue.

Well, maybe it could’ve worked out better, if there had been about 100% more good faith negotiation on both sides.

Of course. But that would have been impossible.
Israeli public opinion is dominated by conservative small minded people. As is that of the Palestinians.
I don’t think the geography actually works for a proper two state solution. The area is too small and Israel will never give up land it feels it needs to control for its security.
Maybe the problem now is that we are so beholden to this idea of the two state solution.

A one state solution of course is even more of a non-starter.
Some problems just don’t have solutions.
Perhaps that applies here.

A solution would be found if Israel were declared to be a pariah state and the international community applies effective sanctions unless there is progress in the peace process.

Without that there will be no progress. Israel will continue to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land – not least because a chunk of the Israeli population believes Israel has a divine right to Palestine. And the Palestinians won’t negotiate until the settlement building stops. Hence, stalemate in the peace process. Meanwhile, Israel continues to build settlements.

IMO it is time to recognise the reality.

13. So Much for Subtlety

10. Bob B

Netanyahu is the leader of Likud and PM of a coalition government which depends on religious parties for support in the Knesset. A fundamental belief of the religious parties is that Palestine belongs to Israel because of a divine covenant between jews and their ethnic deity.

A few searches of the web and YouTube can produce any number of Israeli settlers claiming that they are entitled to the lands they are occupying because of the covenant, a covenant that can be confirmed by reference to the Old Testament of the Bible. They don’t believe in a two-state solution because that is incompatible with their religious beliefs so they want no peace settlement with non-jews living in Palestine as that implies they would be giving up land they are entitled to. Given the premises of their claim, the conclusion is logical.

So long as that view prevails in Israel, there can be no progress towards a peace settlement. It is foolish to delude ourselves otherwise. The conflict over Palestine will continue.

What is interesting about Bob’s bigotry is his utterly lack of self-awareness. Let us concede that every single claim he makes here is true. It is also true of the other side. Gaza has a government led by a religious party. A fundamental belief of that religious party is that Palestine belongs to the Muslims because of a divine covenant between Muslims and their ethnic deity.

A few searches of the web and YouTube can produce any number of Hamas members claiming that they are entitled to the lands they are occupying because of the covenant, a covenant that can be confirmed by reference to the Quran. They don’t believe in a two-state solution because that is incompatible with their religious beliefs so they want no peace settlement with Jews living in Palestine as that implies they would be giving up land they are entitled to. Given the premises of their claim, the conclusion is logical.

So long as that view prevails among the Palestinians, there can be no progress towards a peace settlement. It is foolish to delude ourselves otherwise. The conflict over Palestine will continue.

But none of that makes the slightest bit of difference to Bob. A totalitarian religious state is preferable to a democratic one that just happens to have some religious parties in the Knesset. A Jewish democratic state as it happens. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out what it is about Israel that annoys Bob so much.

12. Bob B

A solution would be found if Israel were declared to be a pariah state and the international community applies effective sanctions unless there is progress in the peace process.

A solution, sure. Destroying Israel would probably work. But another solution would be found if Palestine was declared to be a pariah quasi-State and the entire international community applied effective sanctions until, oh I don’t know, they renounce terrorism in all its forms and become democratic. Hell, we could just stop paying for their “refugees”.

Needless to say there is no chance of Bob supporting this solution is there?

Without that there will be no progress. Israel will continue to build settlements on occupied Palestinian land – not least because a chunk of the Israeli population believes Israel has a divine right to Palestine.

Israel has all but stopped building. And most of what they are continuing to build is no longer in the vast majority of the West Bank. They are building around Jerusalem.

And the Palestinians won’t negotiate until the settlement building stops. Hence, stalemate in the peace process. Meanwhile, Israel continues to build settlements.

And Hamas continues to fire rockets. Buildings don’t kill. Rockets do.

IMO it is time to recognise the reality.

Indeed. But dead Jews are preferable to a few houses, right Bob?

SMFS

For all your bluster and attempts at obfuscation, the fact is that Israelis are continuing to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian territory and have continued to do that for years despite warnings from the Palestinian Authority that peace negotiations would end unless the building of settlements stopped. The only logical conclusion is that the Israeli government wants to block progress in peace negotiations.

I’ll resist posting reminders about the succession of Israeli massacres of Palestinians and how the perpetrators of massacres went on to become political leaders in Israel. Israeli terrorism pays.

This is a valuable resource on the UN Resolutions which Israel has violated:
http://www.israellawresourcecenter.org/unresolutions/studyguide/sgunres1e.html

A simple search on YouTube will yield video clips of Israeli settlers on the West Bank, which isn’t Hamas territory, harassing Palestinian children – Muslim and Christian – on their way to school.

15. So Much for Subtlety

14. Bob B

For all your bluster and attempts at obfuscation, the fact is that Israelis are continuing to build illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian territory and have continued to do that for years despite warnings from the Palestinian Authority that peace negotiations would end unless the building of settlements stopped. The only logical conclusion is that the Israeli government wants to block progress in peace negotiations.

What bluster? Let us both agree that they are continuing to build settlements. But the Palestinians are also continuing to fire rockets and would be sending suicide bombers if not for the Fence. The PA can warn all it likes. It can refuse to talk if it wants. But any sane and impartial observe has to admit that they cannot continue to kill Israeli civilians and negotiate. The only logical conclusion must be that they too want to block progress in peace negotiations.

But of course, as we all expect, you only blame Jews.

I’ll resist posting reminders about the succession of Israeli massacres of Palestinians and how the perpetrators of massacres went on to become political leaders in Israel. Israeli terrorism pays.

Oh, please, feel free to post. After all, on the other side there is not a single party that does not grow out of a terrorist movement. Your hypocrisy here would be only too obvious. Why is the terrorism of the fore-runners of Likud relevant but the terrorism of Hamas and the PLO not? Among Palestinians terrorism is the only game.

A simple search on YouTube will yield video clips of Israeli settlers on the West Bank, which isn’t Hamas territory, harassing Palestinian children – Muslim and Christian – on their way to school.

Indeed. And a search of Youtube will not find anything like it from Gaza. Because Gaza is Judenfrei. And very close to being free of Christians too. But that is all peachy with Bob. Because they ain’t Jews.

By the way, Jews is usually written with a capital J. It is a matter of common politeness.

SMFS: “But of course, as we all expect, you only blame Jews.”

The terrorist bombing by Irgun of the King David Hotel Jerusalem in 1946 – 91 killed.

The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinian villagers in April 1948.

The Qibya Massacre of Palestinian villagers in October 1953.

The massacres at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982.

The Khiam Prison in South Lebanon when under Israeli occupation.

The supression of the Intifada by shooting stone-throwing teens in the head or thighs – as reported by Physicians for Human Rights.

Etc etc.

17. So Much for Subtlety

16. Bob B

Not a single mention of a single Palestinian atrocity. As I said:

SMFS: “But of course, as we all expect, you only blame Jews.”

The death toll from Palestinian terrorism grossly outweighs that of the Revisionists by several orders of magnitude. But Bob don’t care. He only cares when Jews are perceived to have benefited.

No I don’t tihnk Netanyahu is dedicated to the pursuit of peace.

But since Israel is dealing with an opponent whose own charter explicitly commits it to thye extermination of all Jews, why are you surprised, let alone complaining about it?

Do you serious expect anyone to negotiate with people explicitly committed to murdering them? Would you negotiate with people committed to exterminating YOU, Sunny? Or is it just that you expect Jews to do it?

Why do you present Israel, rather than the explicit would-be exterminators, as responsible for the hold up?

@ Bob B

Any particular reason you spell ‘Christian’ and ‘Muslim’ with capitals and ‘jews’ without, Bob?

Lamia: “Any particular reason you spell ‘Christian’ and ‘Muslim’ with capitals and ‘jews’ without, Bob?”

Because Christianity and Muslim are religions while jews are an ethnic group, some of whom are secular humanists and jews, religious or secular, may belong to any nationality. I spell Israelis with a capital “I” but whites and caucasions start with small caps. Btw I’m amazed that anyone this side of sanity would want to make an issue of this.

For people who do support a two state solution … I’d just ask what that might look like. How much of the West Bank near Jerusalem could Israel actually keep?
And how would the international border really work?
Can they trust a Palestinian government to protect Israel from trouble along the border?
I still can’t see how Gaza and the WB could be connected. There are some proposals about a train and road link across Israel’s Negev desert. It sounds like East Berlin to me, although the distances aren’t that great. But actually building things is where all the objections and problems would arise. And the transport corridor would still be under Israeli control I presume. They could close it whenever they wanted to.

Northern Ireland was sorted out because people were sick of killing, and they were able to bring about a fudge that satisfied enough people. But for I/P that’s not good enough, because a vague concept of perhaps future statehood when everyone in the region agrees to it (which is sort of what they got in NI) won’t work there, as a new state has to actually come about and there are too many problems in the detail.

Flyingrodent wrote some quite reasonable and thoughtful posts on Harry’s Place last week, and received only hostility and abuse from those big time Israel supportrs. That’s how impossible this whole thing is. As soon as you start talking about it, the conversation breaks down into acrimony. Much of Israeli public opinion is like HP.

News update Monday morning:

UN’s Ban Ki-moon warns Israel of ‘fatal blow’ to peace
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20576201

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Britain is considering recalling its ambassador to Israel to protest at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to expand settlement building, a diplomatic source said on Monday.

22. flyingrodent

…Since Israel is dealing with an opponent whose own charter explicitly commits it to thye extermination of all Jews, why are you surprised, let alone complaining about it?

Well, it’s not good enough to just throw your hands up and say, well, Hamas are a horrible bunch, ergo the status quo – including the intentional imprisonment, immiseration and frequent bombardment of 1.5 million people, and the intentional frustration of their national aspirations through theft and repression – is fine.

Further, it’s really important to notice that Hamas didn’t just ping into existence in Israel’s back garden. The present situation whereby the Palestinians are divided between two godawful factions was actively sought and fostered by successive Israeli governments*, and everything about Netanyahu’s current behaviour suggests that he is just fine and dandy to have Hamas as an excuse to do exactly what he intended to do all along, with or without an excuse.

Bluntly, previous Israeli governments used to throw up their hands and declare that Fatah meant there was “no-one to negotiate with”, just as the present one does with its rival faction. Saying “Oh well, there’s no-one to negotiate with, so the Israeli government can do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians” is equal to endorsing the status quo. Endorsing the status quo means endorsing things like the intentional imprisonment and immiseration of 1.5 million people, and so forth.

The rest of your comment is the same old cut ‘n’ paste, and not much worth addressing.

*Adam Curtis wrote an excellent primer on this very topic, just a few days ago. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2012/11/save_your_kisses_for_me.html

Israeli ambassador called in to Foreign Office to explain 3000 home expansion of settlements. Now that is going to play well with the pro Zionists media. Which is most of it.

Look forward to the right wing media frothing at the mouth, demanding we bow down to Israeli govt. You know? Same papers that attack EU over erosion of sovereignty. Funny how the pro sovereignty brigade think we should be obedient to state of Israel.

24. Man on Clapham Omnibus

18. Lamia

‘Do you serious expect anyone to negotiate with people explicitly committed to murdering them? Would you negotiate with people committed to exterminating YOU’

What do you seriously expect when violent Jews stole most of the Palestinians land and specifically built Israel as a state just for Jews. Not content, as soon as Israel was established they made a play for Jordan and some of Lebanon in 56 followed by the land grab in 1967. Together with genocide and the continuing appalling human rights record I cant really see why you think Israel should have any right to exist. Perhaps you might inform us all.

25. flyingrodent

Together with genocide and the continuing appalling human rights record I cant really see why you think Israel should have any right to exist.

The idea that Israel is committing genocide is utter balls and should be dismissed as such, and the question of Israel’s “right to exist” is also nonsense, regardless of which side of the debate you’re come from. Israel exists and its military superiority over any likely enemy means that it will continue to do so far into the foreseeable future, and anybody who doesn’t like it had better start getting used to it.

Let’s also observe that comments like that one are part of the reason why it’s impossible to have any reasonable discussion of this issue. There’s no need to Be a Dick About It, and that’s about as stark a bit of BADAIing as you’ll see.

26. Man on Clapham Omnibus

25. flyingrodent

Sabra and Shatila just one example.

You seem to confuse rights with military strength.

The comments were addressed to someone else whose response I was looking forward to seeing.

The views expressed are not necessarily mine but nonetheless common and worth consideration because of their prevalence.

27. flyingrodent

The views expressed are not necessarily mine but nonetheless common and worth consideration because of their prevalence.

There are plenty of ideas that are common and not worth consideration. A major example – accusations of genocide, without any actual genocide going on to back the allegation up.

I realise that both sides in this particular grisly conflict are prone to accusing each other of “genocidal” behaviour without any impulse control at all but seriously, that’s one word that should be reserved for instances of actual, systematic murder of tens of thousands of civilians. Otherwise, it risks becoming another word that basically means “Bad thing” and is slung about casually.

Isn’t there a specific UN resolution declaring Isreal’s right to exist anyway? As such the only answer one can reasonably give to the question of ‘do you think Israel has the right to exist?’ is ‘Yes, it does indeed have a right to exist, enshrined in international law’.

Because Christianity and Muslim are religions while jews are an ethnic group, some of whom are secular humanists and jews, religious or secular, may belong to any nationality. I spell Israelis with a capital “I” but whites and caucasions start with small caps. Btw I’m amazed that anyone this side of sanity would want to make an issue of this.

It ties in with yourr general antisemitism.

Do you spell British with a lower case? We are largely secular humanists too. And we can be English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish so can belong to other nationalities too.

But a Jew is not worthy of capitalization to you because they aren’t really human in your eyes.

Israel is like a friendly neighbor who you wake up one day and look out of the window only to find he has moved his fence 1 foot in on your garden, effectively taking 1 foot of your land. But he stands there smiling, and waving and saying ” I want to be your friend” So you let it go, and a week later you look out the window and he has moved the fence, another foot in side your garden. But he says I like you, I want no trouble.

So you call the police, and the local council and find that the Chief of police and the mayor are your neighbors best mate, and says “sorry there is nothing we can do. And anyway his sister married my brother.”

Then he moves the fence another foot. At this point most people , if they hadn’t done it by now would burn the fucking fence down.

31. Chaise Guevara

@ 29 Shatterface

“But a Jew is not worthy of capitalization to you because they aren’t really human in your eyes.”

While Bob is not going to win any awards for egalitarian thinking, this is one hell of a conclusion to draw from a single datapoint that he has in any case explained quite adaquately.

32. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 Cylux

“Isn’t there a specific UN resolution declaring Isreal’s right to exist anyway? As such the only answer one can reasonably give to the question of ‘do you think Israel has the right to exist?’ is ‘Yes, it does indeed have a right to exist, enshrined in international law’.”

That’s silly. The concept of rights involves opinions as well as law. If I were asked “Do you think Israel has the right to exist?” I would respond with my opinion on whether it SHOULD have the right to exist (yes). I imagine most people would do the same unless thw question was “Does Israel have the right to exist under international law?”.

33. Man on Clapham Omnibus

27. flyingrodent

There are plenty of ideas that are common and not worth consideration. A major example – accusations of genocide, without any actual genocide going on to back the allegation up.

Sabra and Shatila is just one example.

@ Flyingrodent

“Well, it’s not good enough to just throw your hands up and say, well, Hamas are a horrible bunch,”

They are would-be genociders, not merely ‘a horrible bunch’. They want all Jews dead. Whenever they get the chance to kill Jews, they invariably take it. So it may not be good enough for you, but it’s not really about you, is it? I can well see why lots of Israelis would think ‘why should we negotiate with people whose goal is to exterminate us’. I agree that that won’t bring about a solution, but I am not going to get on my moral high horse about it and place the primary blame on them.

“The present situation whereby the Palestinians are divided between two godawful factions was actively sought and fostered by successive Israeli governments*”

Ah yes, the racism of low expectations; Palestinians are just children who have no moral agency, unlike the Israelis. Those poor naive Palestinians. Those cunning, manipulative Israelis. I feel a political cartoon coming on, maybe involving puppets.

“Saying “Oh well, there’s no-one to negotiate with, so the Israeli government can do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians””

That’s not what I was saying. I am saying it is dishonest and sanctimonious to hold Israelis to more exacting standards than any other nationality – most obviously, the people who are committed to exterminating them. I wouldn’t expect the British government necessarily to do business with a country whose elected leaders were committed to murdering every last Briton. I wouldn’t be blaming the government for not negotiating, or at least not holding the British government of primary culpability.

@ ManontheClaphamomnibus

“What do you seriously expect when violent Jews stole most of the Palestinians land”

That is a lie. Most of modern Israel was land legally bought and owned by Jews well before the war 0f 1948. Israel ended up with even more land because the Arabs picked several wars which they lost. They picked those wars because they would not under any circumstances countenance Jews living as equals of Arabs, let alone Arab Muslims, anywhere in the Middle East, and they thus rejected the UN partition plan.

The Arabs wanted it all and lost. They are not victims, they are just failed genociders. That’s unfortunate, but not particularly admirable. Still, the Arabs did seize huge amounts of land and property from Jews during the C20th – land about 20 times the size of modern Israel. The Egyptian government has just prevented the leaking of information regarding 17 million (IIRC) property documents formerly belonging to Jews, before the Egyptians expelled them and stole all their property. So there is no need to weep too much for the Arabs. The image of them as the victims rather than the relentless persecutors of Jews is a convenient but false lie.

Besides, the commitment in the Hamas charter is derived from ancient Muslim scripture; it’s a lie to try and suggest Arab antisemitism only arose as a result of Israel. It is truer to say that Israel arose in large part as a result of Arab antisemitism. Israeli Arabs are treated far better than any Jews have been in any Arab country (those that they haven’t been completely eliminated from). The problem is, Arabs can’t bear to have Jews living as anything but their subordinates.

“Together with genocide and the continuing appalling human rights record I cant really see why you think Israel should have any right to exist.”

The Palestinians must be the only nation to suffer a ‘genocide’ and end up with vastly more of them afterwards than before the ‘genocide’.

Don’t you realise whow stupid and dishonest such self-evidently false claims make you look?

As for Israel’s human rights record, what’s special about it? It’s rather better than every other country in the Middle East – though that is admittedly not saying a huge deal – so are you suggesting that their record disqualifies those countries too from existence? Will you be calling for the winding up of Iran? Or Syria? Or Egypt? And if not, why not?

Is it only, perhaps, Jewish countries that can outrage your sense of human rights and make you think of the poor children?

35. flyingrodent

I am saying it is dishonest and sanctimonious to hold Israelis to more exacting standards than any other nationality

Ho-hum – this tells you everything you need to know. Israel is not “held to more exacting standards”: I would say that it’s held to “the same standards”, although this is, of course, patently not true.

Israel is “held” to no standards whatsoever, since the US veto on any attempts to hold it to account means that it can, in practical terms, do more or less what it wants without any fear of serious consequences.

Everything else you’ve said is the repetition of mere propaganda, parroted without any of this information passing through any kind of analytical process. That makes it totally useless for helping anyone understand the situation, so we’ll just let it slide.

36. Man on Clapham Omnibus

@ 28 Cylux

There are also unfulfilled UN resolutions relating to Israel so the idea of the UN as a definitive voice is very questionable indeed. It was certainly not the right of the UN to give away someones land to a third party in the opinion of many.

37. Man on Clapham Omnibus

That is a lie. Most of modern Israel was land legally bought and owned by Jews well before the war 0f 1948.

I think you’ll find that the UN gave the Jews over twice the amount of land over the Palestinians who outnumbered the Jews by 2 to 1. Of the land given to the Jews, under 10% was owned by the Jews. Perhaps if you disagree with these figures you might cite sources which support your own.

Israel ended up with even more land because the Arabs picked several wars which they lost.

Wrong again! Ben Gurion made a grab for some of Lebanon and Jordan just prior to the Suez crisis in 56 but was dissuaded by the French and English. I would point out that in 1967, Israeli gained the occupied territories through preemptive strike :-

The war began on June 5 with Israel launching surprise bombing raids against Egyptian air-fields after a period of high tension that included an Israeli raid into the Jordanian-controlled West Bank,[11][12] Israeli initiated aerial clashes over Syrian territory,[13] Syrian artillery attacks against Israeli settlements in the vicinity of the border followed by Israeli response against Syrian positions in the Golan Heights and encroachments of increasing intensity and frequency (initiated by Israel) into the demilitarized zones along the Syrian border’

Again if you have information to correct this please post it for all to see.

‘The Arabs wanted it all and lost’

I think you’ll find it was Arab territory so to want to keep your territory seems a bit of a no brainer.

If you are suggesting by ‘lost’ they were in same way subject to legitimate and fair competition to this land I would suggest you have little understanding of the history involved.

I think a fairer way of explaining it would be:-

The Arabs wanted it all (cos it was theirs) and it was stolen from them.

Personally I find it astonishing that anybody finds it difficult to understand that if you waltz into somebody else’s land and take it from them that they wouldn’t be happy. The point wasn’t lost on Gurion, but obviously is on you. Maybe you can tell us why.

38. Man on Clapham Omnibus

Lamia

As for Israel’s human rights record, what’s special about it? It’s rather better than every other country in the Middle East – though that is admittedly not saying a huge deal – so are you suggesting that their record disqualifies those countries too from existence? Will you be calling for the winding up of Iran? Or Syria? Or Egypt? And if not, why not?

No I am not considering the widespread condemnation of the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis nor issues of murder, piracy, stealing other peoples passports to commit assainations etc etc. in relation to the existence or non-existence of the state of Israel.Its a different question I am addressing which defenders of Israel find it hard to discuss.

Forget Israel and consider this:-

If you like the look of your neighbours car is it legitimate for you to steal it on the basis you will look after it a little better?

Maybe a little Golder Mier variant to consider:-

If you like the look of your neighbours car is it legitimate for you to steal it on the basis that God wants you to have it?

Over to you.

@ flyingrodent

“Everything else you’ve said is the repetition of mere propaganda, parroted without any of this information passing through any kind of analytical process. That makes it totally useless for helping anyone understand the situation, so we’ll just let it slide.”

Ah yes, the old ‘I could refute your argument if I could be bothered, but I can’t (be bothered)’ tactic. How very convincing.

@ manontheclaphamomnibus

You are absolutely silent on the fact that Jews were expelled from most Arab countries and dispossessed of vastly more land and property. Not surprisingly, most of those Jews ended up in Israel. So evidently if it’s a Jewish car, you have no problem with it being stolen. Why is that? Where is your ‘widespread condemnation’ for that? Where do you expect the Jews of the Middle East to live? Back under Arab rule as second class citizens (if at all) again?

And no, there were not twice as many Arabs as Jews.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4068854,00.html

I was wrong about 17 million documents, it was 1.7 million, but it’s still a vast amount of Jewish property in Egypt that was stolen from them.

“The Egyptian authorities have seized documents which reportedly confirm Jewish ownership of property in Cairo.

The 1.7 million documents, weighing two tonnes, were confiscated as they were being shipped to Israel via Jordan.

The attempted delivery of the documents was called “the most dangerous case of security breach in history” by Egyptian media on Sunday.

Israeli authorities intended to use the documents and deeds in a legal suit to reclaim property that was confiscated from Cairo’s Jews during the 1952 revolution.

Levana Zamir, president of the association of Egyptian Jews in Israel, said: “Those 1.7 million documents belonging to the Jews of Egypt, are the best proof that we are now dispersed all over the world [and] left behind billions of our assets.

“All those 1.7 million documents, belonging to us, must be transferred to us.

“There are many Jews from Egypt who would like to recover their family possessions left behind by their fathers – but this is impossible today in Egypt.”

Ms Zamir, 74, added that there are only two Jews remaining in Egypt – a woman in Cairo and a man in Alexandria. She was forced to leave Cairo in 1950 and now calls herself a “refugee living in Israel”.

http://www.thejc.com/news/world-news/88653/egypt-seizes-17m-jewish-property-documents

Of course, the righting of historical dispossession of Jews by Arabs is also very high on the list of priorities among ‘anti-zionist’ ‘human rights’ activists, isn’t it? Because after all, your humanitarian concern makes no distinction on account of religion and ethnicity, does it?

Oh look, it’s absolutely nowhere at all on your list. Because Arabs expelling and dispossessing Jews is fine and dandy with you. No ‘widespread condemnation’ for that, is there? And not only that, you’re happy enough also to blame disposessed and expelled Jews for having the temerity to go and settle in Israel rather than just crawling off and dying quietly. How dare they?

When you show exactly the same concern for dispossed Jews as for dispossed Arabs I will know you are being serious. Until then, your racist motives are blatantly obvious.

41. flyingrodent

Ah yes, the old ‘I could refute your argument if I could be bothered, but I can’t (be bothered)’ tactic. How very convincing.

No, fire away pal – I’m sure everyone is desperate to hear how one side is entirely righteous and correct and the other is utterly venal and vicious. There’s no room for grey areas in propaganda, is there?

FR: Saying “Oh well, there’s no-one to negotiate with, so the Israeli government can do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians”

Lamia: That’s not what I was saying. I am saying it is dishonest and sanctimonious to hold Israelis to more exacting standards than any other nationality

So, to be clear, Lamia’s position is that Israel should not be free do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians. But if it does so, then it is “dishonest and sanctimonious” for anyone to object.

As bullshit goes, that’s quite a work of art.

43. So Much for Subtlety

20. damon

Northern Ireland was sorted out because people were sick of killing, and they were able to bring about a fudge that satisfied enough people. But for I/P that’s not good enough

Mainly because in the Middle East one side in particular is not sick of killing yet. There’s the problem. What would make you think that any concession on the part of Israel would be anything other than a step towards more violence and terrorism – as you can see with Israel’s big concession allowing the PLO into the West Bank. They got nothing but suicide bombers out of that.

22. flyingrodent

Well, it’s not good enough to just throw your hands up and say, well, Hamas are a horrible bunch, ergo the status quo – including the intentional imprisonment, immiseration and frequent bombardment of 1.5 million people, and the intentional frustration of their national aspirations through theft and repression – is fine.

Ummm, why not? Hamas is a horrible bunch. No peace with them is possible. Some other policy needs to be found. This is not ideal, but a genuine uprooting of Hamas would be too bloody and violent to contemplate. If not this, what? More concessions? More suicide bombings?

Further, it’s really important to notice that Hamas didn’t just ping into existence in Israel’s back garden. The present situation whereby the Palestinians are divided between two godawful factions was actively sought and fostered by successive Israeli governments*, and everything about Netanyahu’s current behaviour suggests that he is just fine and dandy to have Hamas as an excuse to do exactly what he intended to do all along, with or without an excuse.

That may be true about Netanyahu. It is certainly true that Israel, naively, gave Hamas some support in the early days. But you may have noticed the upsurge of Islamist parties across the whole of the Middle East so it would have happened anyway. Even so. What is done is done. Ideally Israel would never have been created in the first place. But it was. Ideally Hamas would never have come into existence. But it did. Ideally it would not have taken power in Gaza. But there it is. What do we do now? Israel tried playing nice. It did not work. Hamas shows no signs of wanting peace. So there is no point talking to it.

Bluntly, previous Israeli governments used to throw up their hands and declare that Fatah meant there was “no-one to negotiate with”, just as the present one does with its rival faction.

Rightly so.

Saying “Oh well, there’s no-one to negotiate with, so the Israeli government can do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians” is equal to endorsing the status quo.

In the same way that saying Israel must make concessions is just demanding more suicide bombings and the ultimate destruction of Israel.

Endorsing the status quo means endorsing things like the intentional imprisonment and immiseration of 1.5 million people, and so forth.

In the same way that endorsing the alternative means more bombings like the Dolphinarium.

Hamas must lose. Only if Hamas has been shown to fail and comprehensively fail will the Palestinians turn elsewhere. Maybe then we can find someone worth forcing Israel to talk to. But Hamas is not it. Nor is this irrelevant to Britain. Victory for Hamas means more 7-7s. A victory for terrorists anywhere in the Middle East means more 7-7s. We have to draw a line somewhere. Better in Gaza than in the West End.

In the same way that saying Israel must make concessions…

Notice what “concessions” would mean, with regard to Bibi’s recent announcement.

I hope everyone on this thread will be grateful for the exceptionally generous concessions I am making to you all, by not coming and erecting houses for my friends in your gardens.

Shatterface: “It ties in with yourr general antisemitism. Do you spell British with a lower case? We are largely secular humanists too. And we can be English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish so can belong to other nationalities too. But a Jew is not worthy of capitalization to you because they aren’t really human in your eyes.”

That’s the typical mandacious garbage we have come to expect.

I spell Israel(is) starting with an uppercase I and Americans starting with an uppercase A since those proper names relate to the citizens of countries but I spell negroes, aborigines, melanesians, caucasians, whites and jews etc with lower case because those are ethnic groups, the members of which may belong to any religion or to any nationality. Christianity, Muslim, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism all start with uppercase letters as those are the proper names of specific religions.

The insistence that jews must start with an uppercase letter is part of that embedded notion that jews are God’s chosen people, a variation on the Nazi notion of the master race, which fortunately went out with the demise of the Third Reich.

For years, I mistakenly thought the Nazi ideas of the master race was something at the margins but not so. It was really fundamental. Some serious docs on video about the history of WW2 I watched several years back included illuminating interviews with survivor of all sides in the war.

An unpalatable episode for the Soviets, our heroic allies at the time, was that Ukrainians and Belarussians initially welcomed the invading Germany army in the summer of 1941 – which is hardly a suprising response in retrospect, given the experience of the famines of 1932/3, inflicted by Soviet collectivisation of agriculture.

The Germany army could have exploited that welcome for military advantage but the welcome was spurned because the German troops, including the officer corps, had been thoroughly indoctrinated by swathes of propaganda about the “undermensch”, who were, at best, fit only for enslavement. As a result, the welcoming Ukrainians and Belarussians were converted into becoming armed partisans who attacked the German invaders.

Gerald Kaufman has made public on several occasions his insight that Israel has adopted the behaviour traits of the Nazis, hence his speech to Parliament: Israel behaving like Nazis in Gaza
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQxdxH2k7-M

I spell negroes, aborigines, melanesians, caucasians, whites and jews etc with lower case because those are ethnic groups, the members of which may belong to any religion or to any nationality. Christianity, Muslim, Islam, Buddhism and Judaism all start with uppercase letters as those are the proper names of specific religions.

That just looks weird. Do you spell “Maoris” as “maoris” and “Polynesians” as “polynesians”? That’s fairly eccentric spelling.

The insistence that jews must start with an uppercase letter is part of that embedded notion that jews are God’s chosen people, a variation on the Nazi notion of the master race, which fortunately went out with the demise of the Third Reich.

Most people spell “jews” as “Jews” simply because it’s a convention. I don’t know how that convention started but your explanation for it is suspect in two ways – (1) accuracy; and (2) your love of writing whiffy stuff like that “God’s chosen people” being on par with “Nazi master race”, which I’ve observed in other threads.

BTW, Evelyn Waugh, who was as bigoted about Jews as you’d expect a right-wing bastard like him to be, would refer to “jews” when talking about them but when he wanted some useful info from some Jewish guy took care to use the capital “J”.

Rosie: “That just looks weird. Do you spell ‘Maoris’ as “maoris” and ‘Polynesians’ as ‘polynesians’? That’s fairly eccentric spelling.”

And your authority for that claim is? I’m very likely to spell maoris and polynesians in lower case, as red indians etc.

“Most people spell ‘jews’ as ‘Jews’ simply because it’s a convention. I don’t know how that convention started but your explanation for it is suspect in two ways – (1) accuracy; and (2) your love of writing whiffy stuff like that ‘God’s chosen people’ being on par with ‘Nazi master race’, which I’ve observed in other threads. ”

But many folk also spell ‘jews’ as ‘jews’, because jews are only an ethnic group like negroes or caucasians and many others, who may belong to any religion or to none or to any nationality.

The basis of the claim to all the territory of ancient Palestine, made by some Israelis belonging to the religious parties and the settlers, relates to a supposed divine covenant between the ‘Israelites’ and their ethnic deity, which anyone who believes in the Old Testament of the Bible is supposed to accept without question. That claim to all Palestine is staked out by quite a few videos on YouTube. The Israelites certainly believed they were the chosen people of their ethnic deity. The Old Testament is full of that stuff. There seems to me no distinctive difference between that and the Nazi notion of the Master Race.

As a secular jewish friend said to me several decades back, if you want to become a Christian go and see the local vicar or priest, if you want to become a Muslim go and visit the nearest Mosque. If you want to be a Jew, don’t bother. It’s too difficult.

48. flyingrodent

Larry – So, to be clear, Lamia’s position is that Israel should not be free do whatever the hell it likes to the Palestinians. But if it does so, then it is “dishonest and sanctimonious” for anyone to object. As bullshit goes, that’s quite a work of art.

Quite – a kind of wanky, belligerent Bokononism. Or “Bokonanism”, if you prefer.

I remember a few years ago, one of the guys at AaroWatch said something along the lines of wondering how soon this bullshit would evolve into “Only racist relativists would have a problem with the occasional democide” and I suspect that the day draws near.

Certainly, we appear to be at the point where it’s perfectly acceptable to justify mass incarceration, collective punishment and a policy of intentionally throttling millions of people’s livelihoods, simply by saying “Hamas are bad”. I wonder what other war crimes “Hamas are bad” will justify, in future.

Mind you, So Much For Subtlety is one of the folk pushing this line, and let’s not forget that he’s previously declared that he’s fully got behind the actions of both Generals Franco and Pinochet…

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/18/guido-fawkes-defends-pinochet/#comment-391117

…So let’s hope he represents one of those loony outliers, rather than an omen of things to come.

@ Flying rodent

There is no ‘mass incarceration’ of Palestinians by Israel. Gaza has a land border with Egypt. It is not surrounded by Israel. Israel has a wall along its border with in order to defend Israel’s people from Palestinian suicide bombers. there is no international obligation to have an open border with a hostile enighbour state. Every time you ‘anti-zionists’ wank on about Gaza being the world’s biggest prison etc., people only have to alook at a map to see that you are telling just about the biggest lie going.

“I’m sure everyone is desperate to hear how one side is entirely righteous and correct and the other is utterly venal and vicious.”

That was you. Supposedly being sarcastic. Before tear-jerking off a load of crap about ‘mass incarceration’.

50. Man on Clapham Omnibus

39Lamia

”You are absolutely silent on the fact that Jews were expelled from most Arab countries and dispossessed of vastly more land and property. Not surprisingly, most of those Jews ended up in Israel. So evidently if it’s a Jewish car, you have no problem with it being stolen. Why is that? Where is your ‘widespread condemnation’ for that? Where do you expect the Jews of the Middle East to live? Back under Arab rule as second class citizens (if at all) again?

And no, there were not twice as many Arabs as Jews.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4068854,00.html

An unsurprising response and the usual diversionary claptrap.

The trouble you have is the rather large elephant in the room and you just cannot face it or indeed answer the questions posed. I would suggest rather than arguing on this site go and read Ben Gurion’s book.

He was quite open and honest that he was taking over the Palestinians land by force;that he had no intention of inclusivity and Israel was in essence a Jewish state.
Furthermore that on the basis of the jews occupancy of the area, gained on the basis of ethnic cleansing between 1200 and 722 BCE, and the writings in some fictitious book the land has been bequeathed to the jews by God.

OK I get all that ,clearly you don’t but the underlying reality is the jews didn’t own the vast bulk of the land and they dispossessed the indigenous Palistinian population.

The political reality of the jewish state lies in the fact that the land was granted by the UN not Palestinians and on the basis that it would be inclusive ,which Gurion almost immediately reneged on.

I do have some sympathy with your position. Having obviously been indoctrinated by jewish education you are not able to recognise the discrepancies between what is obvious to everyone else and your own point of view.

If you look at peer reviewed work on this subject you may form a different view. The link sadly only points to more propaganda in Israel’s unending attempt to legitimise the indefensible.

51. flyingrodent

There is no ‘mass incarceration’ of Palestinians by Israel. Gaza has a land border with Egypt. It is not surrounded by Israel. Israel has a wall along its border with in order to defend Israel’s people from Palestinian suicide bombers. there is no international obligation to have an open border with a hostile enighbour state.

Yes, I’ve heard this propaganda line before. Surely it must be a wall to “defend against suicide bombers” and definitely not one for unilaterally drawing final borders.

Who am I going to believe? You, or my lying eyes?

And, rather obviously, Gaza is not a “neighbour state”. It’s a blockaded and impoverished ethnoreligious enclave. It’s one of these because its ultra-aggressive and utterly dominant neighbour wants it that way in perpetuity, and does everything it can to ensure that this state of affairs continues.

Every time you ‘anti-zionists’ wank on about Gaza being the world’s biggest prison etc…

I’ve never, as far as I’m aware, referred to myself as an “anti-Zionist”. Though it is very noticeable though that you use the term in much the same manner as you might use “cockroach”, a mannerism that you share with Bob B, above.

That was you. Supposedly being sarcastic. Before tear-jerking off a load of crap about ‘mass incarceration’.

You’ll notice one of us is capable of heavily criticising both sides for their criminality and blatant propaganda. You’ll also notice that it isn’t you.

So. For much of the decade, Gaza has been walled away from the rest of the world by Israel (and Egypt! Can’t forget Egypt!) – a large population, mostly civilian, interred and segregated from society for a period of years, due to some characteristic of racial or political undesirability, generally under harsh or oppressive conditions, with ingress and egress of people, supplies, humanitarian aid, and so on strictly curtailed or suspended altogether, with blockades and periodic, punitive raids.

And all of this is fine, just fine and dandy, because Hamas is bad, and because the Egyptians helped out at their end. Nice.

Like I say – you do have to wonder what actions the badness of Hamas will justify tomorrow.

“hough it is very noticeable though that you use the term in much the same manner as you might use “cockroach””

I have never used the term ‘cockroach’. You have just won a strawman-building trophy.

‘Anti-zionists’ don’t accept the right of Jews to have their own state in the Middle East. They seemt no have no problem with there being numerous Arab Muslim states and make no protests whatsoever about the fact that Jews have either been expelled from or treated as second class citizens in all Arab countries. They are racists. End of.

” For much of the decade, Gaza has been walled away from the rest of the world by Israel (and Egypt! Can’t forget Egypt!)”

So it hasn’t been walled off from the world by Israel. Gaza isn’t enclosed by Israel, anymore than China is enclosed by North Korea (or vice versa). Gaza has a land border with Egypt. So the stuff about blockades and an open air prison is bollocks. Gaza is no more ‘imprisoned’ by Israel than I am imprisoned by my next door neighbours’ fences. Is Israel imprisoned by its neighbours? All of those are hostile, so there is more of a case for using it about Israel than Gaza. But you don’t. Because you are a hypocrite.

Get beyond the hyperbolic falsehood and you might be worth taking seriously.

54. Chaise Guevara

@ 52 Lamia

I was going to point out that it’s not racist to say people don’t have the right to certain territory if you consider that territory to rightfully belong to someone else. But then I saw you finished with “End of”, which I assume is code for “I am going to refuse to discuss this further yet claim victory for myself.”

55. flyingrodent

Gaza isn’t enclosed by Israel, anymore than China is enclosed by North Korea (or vice versa). Gaza has a land border with Egypt… Gaza is no more ‘imprisoned’ by Israel than I am imprisoned by my next door neighbours’ fences.

Gawd almighty. Like your next door neighbour’s fence? That’s the best you can do?

Your neighbour doesn’t imprison the man from Tesco when he tries to deliver food and medicine to your door, geezer. He doesn’t impound your possessions if you displease him or prevent you bringing essential supplies and goods onto your own land. Your neighbour doesn’t shoot you dead if you stray too close to his fence and he doesn’t make tacit agreements with your other neighbours to enforce his restrictions on their side of the fence either.

Seriously, this is why I’ve been calling you a propagandist. You’re saying here that Gaza is just like any other international border despite the fact that Gaza is not a nation and it has none of the powers of a nation. It has no capability re: self-defense, control of its own borders, control of its own airspace or waters, control of its own foreign policy, control of its own immigration policy or any of that. Israel controls all of this – a foreign state, in your depiction!

Whether you think this situation is nice or nasty, any sane and honest observer has to recognise that Gaza is not surrounded by a “fence”, and thet the fact that part of the blockade is subcontracted doesn’t mean that it somehow doesn’t exist, or that those who planned, ordered and orchestrate it emerge with clean hands.

Is this really the best you can do? “This apple is not an apple, it’s an orange”? Weak, weak stuff. The kind of thing Orwell was laughing at, decades ago.

All of which, of course, takes us further from the point of this thread which was – Netanyahu is not interested in peace and intends to impose a military solution upon a subject people. But then, you know that – you’ve already said you’re in favour of it, in fact.

“Netanyahu is not interested in peace and intends to impose a military solution upon a subject people. But then, you know that – you’ve already said you’re in favour of it, in fact.”

Oh look, you made that last bit up, in fact.

“the fact that part of the blockade is subcontracted”

Subcontracted to whom? Egypt has its own policy. It’s not puppeted into doing it by manipulative Jews, whatever Steve Bell/Der Sturmer cartoons tell you.

57. So Much for Subtlety

48. flyingrodent

Certainly, we appear to be at the point where it’s perfectly acceptable to justify mass incarceration, collective punishment and a policy of intentionally throttling millions of people’s livelihoods, simply by saying “Hamas are bad”. I wonder what other war crimes “Hamas are bad” will justify, in future.

Come on, you can do better than this. It is not simply by saying Hamas is bad. And you will notice no one here is simply saying Hamas is bad. Everyone has pointed out in some detail precisely why Hamas is so bad that Israel is justified in taking some extreme actions. Suicide bombings aimed at teenagers are not merely bad. They are beyond that. Wanting to kill every Jew in the world is not merely bad.

You can disagree, but you should at least behave like an adult when you do.

Mind you, So Much For Subtlety is one of the folk pushing this line, and let’s not forget that he’s previously declared that he’s fully got behind the actions of both Generals Franco and Pinochet…

More than fully behind. They remain the only moral choice.

51. flyingrodent

Surely it must be a wall to “defend against suicide bombers” and definitely not one for unilaterally drawing final borders.

If the Fence with Gaza deviates so much as a centimetre from the internationally-kind-of-half-agreed border, it is news to me. Can you please tell me where the Fence does not run exactly along the Green Line? So perhaps it is unilaterally drawing a final border. But it is the one that everyone seems to have agreed to. Which does kind of suggest it has something to do with suicide bombers doesn’t it?

Who am I going to believe? You, or my lying eyes?

What are your lying eyes telling you Fly?

due to some characteristic of racial or political undesirability,

The more you keep ignoring the reality of suicide bombing the lamer your argument becomes. You can’t just pass over the number one cause of the Fence with Gaza.

And all of this is fine, just fine and dandy, because Hamas is bad, and because the Egyptians helped out at their end. Nice.

Because it is the lesser of two evils.

Like I say – you do have to wonder what actions the badness of Hamas will justify tomorrow.

You do. We will have to see. And judge each and every one of those actions on its merits. At the moment the choice is simple – we can have some low level suffering in Gaza or we can have huge civilian deaths in Israel. I tend to prefer the former. I assume you prefer the latter or do you seriously think there is a third option? If so, would you care to spell it out?

To cut through the familiar hypocritical cackle about Israel and its peace-loving intentions, try this BBC report about the Khiam prison in South Lebanon when it was under Israeli occupation:

Soon after the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon, the guards of the notorious Khiam prison fled, leaving the prisoners free.

More than 100 men women and children had been held in appalling conditions. . .
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/766746.stm

Note that South Lebanon is north of Israel and therefore well away from Hamas territory in Gaza. South Lebanon was part of ancient Palestine.

@ 18 Lamia

But since Israel is dealing with an opponent whose own charter explicitly commits it to thye extermination of all Jews, why are you surprised, let alone complaining about it?

Could you remind who killed Rabin

Oh you forgot it was Right Wing Zealots in Israel who wnat to ethnically cleanse the ‘ biblical homelands ‘ of Arabs

60. Man on Clapham Omnibus

52 Lamia

‘Anti-zionists’ don’t accept the right of Jews to have their own state in the Middle East.

I am interested on what that right is based. Please explain.

“‘Anti-zionists’ don’t accept the right of Jews to have their own state in the Middle East.

I am interested on what that right is based. Please explain.”

On the

1. same right that evidently entitles Muslim ethnic groups to have numerous states in the Middle East. The one that is taken for granted here and elsewhere.

2. right not to live as second class citizens in the Middle East, something that has been denied them by every single Arab country, many of which heave persecuted their jews out of existence.

If you oppose the right of Israel to exist, you are objectively supporting the status quo ante of Middle Eastern Jews living as second-class citizens, if at all. I say objectively because you will no doubt claim that’s not what you want, though I have seen neither you nor any other ‘anti-zionist’ suggest seriously how such a situation would be avoided. Certainly, the persecution of Jews in Arab countries both before and since the foundation of modern Israel has never exercised the ‘anti-zionist’ movement as anything worth worrying or protesting about, let alone suggesting a remedy.

@ tgerdarwin

“@ 18 Lamia

But since Israel is dealing with an opponent whose own charter explicitly commits it to thye extermination of all Jews, why are you surprised, let alone complaining about it?

Could you remind who killed Rabin

Oh you forgot it was Right Wing Zealots in Israel who wnat to ethnically cleanse the ‘ biblical homelands ‘ of Arabs.”

Logic fail. What bearing does that have on whether or not Hamas are dedicated to the extermination of Jews? Nothing at all.

It doesn’t follow from the fact that it may be raining in Glasgow that it can’t also be raining in Norfolk. But that is the kind of fallacious reasoning you are trying to use. Feeble stuff.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Abu Sultan

    Former #Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace http://t.co/qqc5iD1M via @libcon #Gaza #Palestine

  2. Jason Brickley

    Former Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace http://t.co/LPuu1zVB

  3. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Former Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace http://t.co/FKvWtk1s

  4. dyannesty

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY

  5. akbar khattak

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY

  6. Val Atkins

    Former Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/p18G04r6 @Add onissuenews

  7. Andy May

    Former Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/hFEqCJxX – too true

  8. Paddy Punx Offical

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY

  9. fauxpaschick

    RT @sunny_hundal: Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/lhmcyAfZ

  10. Steve Hynd

    Former Israeli PM: Netanyahu not dedicated to pursuit of peace | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/2rcrZP6Q via @libcon

  11. Cathal

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY

  12. Tippu Sultan

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY

  13. Mc Gra

    Former Israeli PM last night: 'the current Israeli govt is not dedicated to the pursuit of peace' http://t.co/HrtZxOeY





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.