Bright's Blog

75 comments from readers

unseen
24 June 2008 at 14:53

Hmm -

A "UCU academic boycott" means the union urging its members to boycott Israel. The motion calls for:

"colleagues be asked to consider the moral and political implications of educational links with Israeli institutions"

"promote a wide discussion by colleagues of the appropriateness of continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions;"

If this is not calling for UCU members to boycott Israel, what does it mean?

Afrasiab
25 June 2008 at 08:54

Only Israel would name an educational establishment after a war criminal.

Unless of course Ariel college teaches students how to commit war crimes, steal land, and murder women and children.

Morgan097
25 June 2008 at 18:54

The sooner the British hard left and its Islamist fellow travellers succeed in their boycott attempts, the sooner American and Canadian universities including Harvard, Yale and McGill will launch a counter-boycott against British academics.

EU residents are already suspect as a major potential threat to US homeland security. Wait for the US public reaction when UK academia is exposed as no more than a not-so-sleeper cell of radical jihadists.

American contempt for the tight little island will soon surpass that presently reserved for the corrupt, anti-Semitic garbage dump laughingly referred to as the UN.

Southfork
25 June 2008 at 19:08

I am no fan of Ariel Sharon but War Criminal? Hello who actually did the killing at Sabra and Shatilla?

redtakesy
26 June 2008 at 08:59

unseen: Well, it opens the way to considering a boycott as one of several options relating to the expression of links between universities. It's calling for debate rather than action.

In that sense, it's not as bad as I thought; initially, my reaction to what has been referred to as an "academic boycott" was very sceptical and concerned, as academic freedom is really important. But I think this hopefully allows space for actions to be taken that don't cross this particular Rubicon. I also like the point that "pursuit and dissemination of knowledge are not uniquely immune from their moral and political consequences;" this is a restatement of academic ethics, which are important.

That said, although I guess it was spoken about in the debate, I would like to hear more about the "apparent complicity of most of the Israeli academy" as I think that's a very sweeping statement. I'd like to know what the drafters actually mean by this; after all, if it involves funding, say, British universities aren't exactly squeaky-clean.

There is also the feeling that I could see it being alienating to Israelis who do oppose the Occupation, across society and especially in universities.

PS. MorganTroll097: "radical jihadists"? British academics? Criticism isn't always born of hatred; not toeing the line with the US does not equal being a "radical jihadist".

Afrasiab
26 June 2008 at 09:10

I’m sure the Germans convicted of war crimes didn’t personally do the killing.

Also it isn’t just Sabra and Shatilla , Sharon was involved in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians with the tacit approval of David Ben Gurion, the terrorist unit established by Sharon specifically targeted Palestinian Women and Children so as to break the morale of the Palestinian resistance.

Southfork
26 June 2008 at 16:05

Dont give that strupid nonsense about ethnic cleansing. Of course there were atrocities on both sides but there were so many Arabs left in Israel after the war that if that is what you call ethnic cleansing I think you need to redefine your terms. As Benny Morris has shown ( 1948) there was no official policy to drive out Arabs tho there was one to drive out Jews. . Rogues? Muderous rogues? Plenty of them on both sides, Haj Husseini for one. Try being fair and balanced it might liberate you from hatred.

Morgan097
27 June 2008 at 10:50

Ah shucks!

Did I offend the delicate sensibilities of the lovers of suicide bombers?

Afrasiab
27 June 2008 at 13:25

The theft of Palestinian land, the deliberate targeting of Palestinian Women and Children are well documented.

The theft of land continues, collective punishment is used as a tactic by the Israeli Military, the seige of Gaza is causing the deaths of dozens of Palestinian children, the destruction of Palestinian schools and the closure of universities continues to destroy the educational chances of the Palestinains.

Morgan097 - Focus on the crime rather than the method used.

Killing civilians is a crime, the methodology is irrelevant - using high tech weapons to blanket bomb cities to kill civilians is just as much of a criminal act as using bombs detonated by individuals carrying them in rucksack.

For you to deny the above, is no different from somone denying the deaths of Jews caused by Germany.

Serosch
27 June 2008 at 13:55

Southfork - As Benny Morris has shown ( 1948) there was no official policy to drive out Arabs tho there was one to drive out Jews..

Many people have shown that the Holocaust didn't happen, should we believe them?

Also I think the best place for Jewish people is Bavaria, after all why should Palestinians have to pay for a crime that was committed by gentiles.

Morgan097
27 June 2008 at 14:52

Serosch:

1. View any current map of North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean to determine who exactly stole what from whom. An obscure tribe of Muslim marauders expanded from the Arabian peninsula to conquer and subjugate vast numbers of Christians and their land before being finally stopped.

2. To compare the work of a serious historian like Benny Morris to that of crackpot Holocaust deniers is an obscenity.

Serosch
27 June 2008 at 16:13

Jewish claims to the lands between the Euphrates and the Nile are based on a religious book.

Is there any need to say anymore.

Morgan097
27 June 2008 at 16:30

Serosch:

1. Your assertion of certain Jewish claims to any place other than their ancestral homeland is pure fabrication.

2. To which book do Hamas and Hezbollah subscribe? "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or "Mein Kampf"?

Southfork
27 June 2008 at 16:46

Let us assume Morris is wrong. Again if there were a policy of ethnic clansing please explain why there were a million Arabs left? If Israel could defeat four Arab armies surely it could expell unarmed civilians if it had wanted to! And after 1967?

How pathetic to compare systematic and ideological extermination to a brutal and sad conflict of two rights in which both sides use questionable means. Did Jews in Germany ever mount suicidal attacks on German civilians? Were Jews ever offered a land by the UN and refused it? This childish Black and White simplistic myopia is precisely what makes solution so difficult. Unless of course you don't want a solution other than killing/ expelling the Jews.

knave
27 June 2008 at 18:33

"EU residents are already suspect as a major potential threat to US homeland security. Wait for the US public reaction when UK academia is exposed as no more than a not-so-sleeper cell of radical jihadists. "

I am against all boycotts because they have the opposite effect to what you want to achieve. Also many Isreali academics oppose the policies of the hawks.

But the talk of UK academia been riddled with radical sleeper cells is barking. Name and shame ONE British academic who fits that criteria.

Morgan097
27 June 2008 at 22:07

knave:

"Name and shame One British academic who fits that criteria."

Answer:

Each and every British academic who, by voting to boycott in any way the only free democracy in the Near East, implicitly (or explicitly) condones the punishment of the descendents of an indigenous people ( the Jews of Israel) fighting to defend their minuscule ancestral homeland from barbarian invaders.

knave
28 June 2008 at 15:30

Each and every British academic who, by voting to boycott in any way the only free democracy in the Near East, implicitly (or explicitly) condones the punishment of the descendents of an indigenous people ( the Jews of Israel) fighting to defend their minuscule ancestral homeland from barbarian invaders.

Rubbish, some academics will boycott because they are opposed to Isreals occupation, it doesn't make them a member of a radical sleeper cell.

There is no logic to make that claim.

I repeat accuse an individual by NAME of been a member of a radical sleeper cell or refute the sentence.

Morgan097
28 June 2008 at 22:23

knave:

The quality of your reading comprehension appears to mirror that of your spelling capacity. "Isreal"?

A "not-so-sleeper cell" is PUBLIC.

REPEAT: PUBLIC.

For the names of those who wish to deny the Jewish state the right to defend itself and thus to deliver it to the multitudes who wish to destroy it, I need only direct you to the list of signees below every boycott petition.

Morgan097
28 June 2008 at 23:06

knave:

Upon reflection, I've decided that you may in fact have a legitimate point.

Kindly substitute "vicarious jihadist" for "not-so-sleeper cell", the practical objective of both (i.e. the destruction of the Jewish state) being ultimately identical.

knave
29 June 2008 at 22:35

"Kindly substitute "vicarious jihadist" for "not-so-sleeper cell", the practical objective of both (i.e. the destruction of the Jewish state) being ultimately identical."

OK name and shame the vicarious jihadist. Any name will do.

redtakesy
30 June 2008 at 08:47

MorganTroll: I think Knave's English, a few typos aside, is fine. You, on the other hand, might want to learn how to read English, so you can point out to me where, precisely, these raving academic anti-Semites have expressed their fervent desire to see the State of Israel wiped out. Because in the motion above, they talk about the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and the human rights abuses resulting from this Occupation (illegal under international law, contrary to UN resolutions, etc etc).

PS: "Each and every British academic who, by voting to boycott in any way the only free democracy in the Near East, implicitly (or explicitly) condones the punishment of the descendents of an indigenous people ( the Jews of Israel) fighting to defend their minuscule ancestral homeland from barbarian invaders." "Barbarian invaders"? When did the clock turn back 2,000 years? Even that is unfair: the "barbarians" Rome fought were actually quite sophisticated and rational. And really, notions of an "ancestral homeland" can go back and back and back; we might as well argue that, for true justice, the Canaanites, Hittites and others who were driven out by the Israelites should be allowed their ancestral homeland.

For what it's worth, I don't question the "right to exist" of the State of Israel; and I totally condemn attacks on its civilian population. What I would like to see is peace and coexistence between Arabs and Jews, based on mutual compromise.

Morgan097
30 June 2008 at 10:24

redtakesy:

I'm touched by your vote of approval for the now "shamed and named" knave's unsteady command of English, though I"d be more confident of your own academic "bona fides" were you not a disrespectful, sophomoric pedant regurgitating the historical pabulum you probably digested in only your last semester. Or was it Timewatch?

I'm certain that all Israelis will gratefully treasure your support for their continued existence, if not your willingness to strip them of the capacity to defend that existence.

As to the legitimacy of the UN, I defer to the

late Abba Eban, who once stated that that august institution would obediently declare that the world was flat were its Arab members to propose such a resolution.

redtakesy
30 June 2008 at 11:00

MorganTroll097: Knave hasn't been "named and shamed"; quite to the contrary, you've ducked every challenge s/he has offered you, refusing to engage with the questions s/he has asked you, namely: where are the "vicarious jihadists"? You cannot expect us to believe you if you cannot name names.

As for your little tirade, well, I have to say, I've never been attacked with such magnificent eloquence - nor with such totally irrelevant insults! I even had to look up "pabulum" ( according to dictionary.com: "Insipid intellectual nourishment". I was certainly curious. I take note of the fact that this particular reference to insipidness is attributed to one Spiro Agnew).

I'm not entirely sure what the pedantry was about - perhaps the comment about Israel not always having been a homeland for the Jews? Well, that illustrates a point: "homeland" is not a stable concept, and the preconception that Israel is the natural homeland of the Jews represents a certain ideological outlook; as, indeed, does any such claim to ethnic nationhood. So, this is a legitimate point with which you have to engage when debating this topic: this claim is ideological, sustained partly by religion but also by Europeans' dreadful treatment of the Jews through history which helped make Zion such an attractive concept. On the basis of this ideological conept, the Israelis created an ethnically-defined nation-state which, although according equal rights to non-Jewish citizens and functioning very well as a democracy, also, in its creation and expansion, has a dark side; namely occupation, displacement, disempowerment, impoverishment and human rights abuses. These processes have also helped nourish anti-Semitism by those targeted who don't necessarily draw fine distinctions. Is this pedantry and pabulum? Do tell, please.

How is compromise and negotiation stripping Israelis of the capacity to defend themselves? Believe it or not, if there is any solution to this situation it will be a political solution; Israel has been reaping the fruits of attempted military solutions for a long, long time. Of course this will require the Palestinians to compromise as well (compromise being a two-way street); will that, too, see them being stripped of their capacity to defend themselves?

As to your second point, it is only partially true; if the Arabs wanted to declare the world flat, they could - through a non-binding General Assembly Resolution. Which most countries would, rightly in this case, ignore.

And finally, as to being disrespectful: you throw big words around, but you never engage with anything or anyone, you never try to back anything up, you think if you shout enough then that's enough to win your argument; that's why I call you a Troll. If you find that disrespectful, prove me wrong and earn some respect.

Morgan097
30 June 2008 at 11:16

redtakesy:

For once your ignorance is excusable.

I specifically named knave yesterday in an extended posting.

The powers-that-be promptly deleted my words and so deprived me of my right of response, as they have on frequent occasions during the past week.

In fact, a long but accurate tirade I directed against you was vaporised by the Invisible-Marxist-Hand-In-The-Sky on 26 June.

redtakesy
30 June 2008 at 11:26

Ah, was that the one where you managed to prove that all British academics are "radical jihadists", and that not necessarily agreeing with the Israeli Occupation means that you are just waiting for your chance to impose sharia? Alas, I must have missed that but I can only imagine it was a goody.

Morgan097
30 June 2008 at 16:37

redtakesy:

Rest easy.

The deletion fairy has already removed my

11:28 post.

Don't hold your breath waiting for British calls for the boycott of Syria, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other benighted entities professing adherence to The Religion of Peace (TM).

Or you might just lose your head for the amusement and edification of the enlightened Al Jazeera audience.

knave
30 June 2008 at 17:52

Morgan

A number of points.

1. I am a 48 year old white British male who served in NI and the Falklands.

2. I do apologize about my spelling and sentence construction. I am slightly dyslexic but that is no excuse. Although I would say your misuse of subjective nouns and the obvious overuse of the thesaurus without true knowledge of the language is slightly pot and kettle.

3. If you had read any of my earlier posts I am against any boycott. I am also no friend of the mullahs.

4. In the eighties I was one of the few voices who were dismayed when Reaganites / Thatcherites, a little like your good self, were arming and training the mullahs, selling them arms and welcoming them to number 10 for tea.

5. You haven’t answered the question, Name and shame these academics.

6. I also cannot remember insulting you personally. I just asked you a simple question, which you have still not answered. It would be very easy for me to call you a small minded coward who doesn’t seem to have the moral backbone to back up any of unsubstantiated claims, but I will not.

You also seem to have the same psychological problems as Antileft.

1. You have inflated ego, especially in regards to your own and others intellect.

2. You insult in a strange random manner when you are cornered, like a disaffected lab rat.

3. You have a conspiracy complex. Such as calling the admirable Ben the “Invisible-Marxist-Hand-In-The-Sky”, you really do have to get out more.

Admin
30 June 2008 at 17:58

Thank you comrade.

knave
30 June 2008 at 20:58

Zhelayu vsego khoroshego

Red Ben

Morgan097
30 June 2008 at 23:20

knave:

I sincerely apologize for having unnecessarily cast ad hominem aspersions upon your character. I both respect and admire your service to the country, and was certainly unaware of your dyslexia.

But please consider my amendment.

"Vicarious jihadist" is meant to imply one who assists in the goals of the fanatical Muslim anti-Semite without the unpleasantness of having to don a belt of explosives, nails and rat poison.

Their behaviour thus becomes congruent to that of the boycotters who insist that their singularly selective assaults upon the legitimacy of the only Jewish state have nothing whatever to do with Jews.

Besides, where's Darfur anyway?

And since we've decided to introduce a bit of biography, allow me solemnly to declare that I've never employed a thesaurus, though I did long ago attend an obscure school in the colonial Commonwealth of Massachusetts, then quaintly referred to as Harvard Law. But I doubt if it still exists.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 06:58

knave:

I can never thank you enough for having finally pinpointed my previously undiagnosed, borderline certifiable, psychological condition!

And thank you also for drawing my attention to the behavioural similarities I share with the cornered lab rat.

But unforgivably, I neglected to record the no doubt stellar medical qualifications which enabled you to achieve such a startling breakthrough.

So as not to place even further unconscionable demands upon your valuable time, I've asked the BMA for a list of your awards, but all they've so far produced is:

1. The definition of a common psychological disorder known as "Projection".

2. The symptoms of post traumatic stress syndrome frequently associated with guilt arising from having served with British occupying forces in both Ulster and the Malvinas.

3. The criminal penalties for the practise of medicine in the UK without a licence.

Please advise.

redtakesy
01 July 2008 at 08:33

Morgan097: Well, I for one am terribly impressed. Aren't you clever. You went to Harvard. Wooo.

Do they teach Pomposity 101 there? For your information, this doesn't make me respect you any more; for someone who allegedly studied at such a prestigious place, your ability to argue or accept complexity is limited at best.

By this I mean your utter inability to grasp some very basic facts: namely that it is possible to not support Israel in its illegal - look, I know it's boring to read it again and again, but it's true - Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza which has led to impoverishment and human rights abuses without a) wanting to support jihadists or b) being an anti-Semite.

As for the reasons for a boycott targeting Israel: have you ever considered that it might well be because Israel sets itself very high standards? It is a democracy and internally, it is committed to democratic ideals, but when it comes to this Occupation it fails spectacularly. Its actions (actions of the state of Israel in connection to the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza - not calling into question its right to exist, or casting aspertions on all Jews everywhere - I have to keep mentioning this, just in case you get the wrong impression of me), would be worthy of critique in any case, as is the Chinese annexation of Tibet, say; but it is especially bad to see a country which professes, and indeed bases its defense in international arenas (as the only democracy in the Middle East) on such high principles, categorically fail to meet them.

It's the same feeling of disappointment as when one looks at the Occupation of Iraq, or the dirty war in Northern Ireland, or the French occupation of Algeria, or the misdeeds of the British Empire - why is this country not doing what it should be doing? Why is it aggressively expanding rather than respecting international humanitarian and human rights law, as well as the right to self-determination?

As to why the boycott would target them and not Sudan, say, perhaps it would be the argument that, as a democracy, it would be more receptive to this kind of treatment than Sudanese academics, say, who cannot be said to operate in an atmosphere of the greatest academic freedom. However, I don't like this argument, and I think it embitters the very people who might well be more supportive of peace movements and more critical thinking; and, moreover, it probably would be hypocritical of British Universities, which is why I on balance would not support any boycott which might (emphasis on the "might", this motion only calling for reflection on the topic) result from this motion.

I await your measured, balanced and intelligent reply, o wise graduate from Harvard Law School (did you ever graduate? Or did the invisible Marxist-marker-in-the-sky - academics, they're all Commies, you know - come down and fail you for a lack of appreciation of alternative viewpoints?)

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 08:35

knave:

I shall proceed to heed your helpful advice!

My repulsively inflated ego, my primitive defence mechanisms, and my manifestly right wing paranoia are all clear warning signals that I must, in your wise words, "get out more".

My new calling will be to arouse the increasingly influential Hispanic and Latino academic communities throughout the US to demand a boycott of all British academics for not opposing the racist, imperialist, expansionist, illegal occupation of the Malvinas! And to enforce this boycott until the illegal, genocidal, English settlers are forcibly repatriated to the crumbling European "English Entity", and the Malvinas, so sacred to Argentina, are once again free. And the same also applies to "Gibralter" being returned to Spain.

Next on the agenda: A boycott by Irish-American Catholic academics of all British academics for acquiescing to the illegal, genocidal, imperialist, expansionist, occupation by Protestant settlers of the northern counties, rightfully belonging to the Irish Republic!

" You say you want a revolution ..."

.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 09:12

redtakesy:

Ya cot me redhandid!

Ain't never gott no formel buke larning.

But i betcha YUE hav!

Jest thinck!

Whu elce but sum ignrant haf-eduukated collidge boi cude bee so stoopid az ta beleeve thatt failyure ta acheeve unreelistik eyedeels reekwires a pawllisee uv nashonel sueeside.

If'n it didd yore kappittel sitty wood bee kalld Germania nott Lundin.

Nope!

Allredy tryed thatt rute.

Ledd up a blind allee.

To a showwer in fakt.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 09:31

redtakesy:

And by the way, in the late '60s my teachers, including a rising young Criminal Law assistant professor named Alan Dershowitz, WERE mostly pink. (Except for John Mansfield and the wonderful W. Barton Leach.)

And back then, acknowleging being a Harvard Law student in the deep south could get one lynched.

redtakesy
01 July 2008 at 09:31

Morgan: So, your argument goes: Palestinians=Nazis and negotiation and compromise=suicide

Am I right? I'd hate to be oversimplifying and misrepresenting your logical, sophisticated and complex argument.

As to the cases you refer to above, I remember how the negotiations between the parties in the Northern Irish belligerents failed...

What?

You mean that sometimes, negotiations to resolve longstanding, bloody conflicts result in political solutions in which the two sides compromise and accept to live, if not as best of friends, then at least in a situation of coexistence and cooperation?

But, but... The Nazis! We'd all be speaking German! Talking bad! Endless conflict good!

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 09:50

retakesy:

Do you really believe that a suicide bomber expecting to collect 72 virgins in the afterlife is the right partner with whom to seek amicable compromise?

When was the last time you encountered an IRA follower entertaining so fundamentally such nihilistic delusions?

redtakesy
01 July 2008 at 10:07

Morgan: Thank you for engaging. I would argue that you're mixing up global Islamism of the Al-Qa'eda type with the nationalist concerns of the Palestinians (don't forget, suicide bombing was developed as a tactic by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a movement almost entirely secular and nationalist). While there has been blurring of these issues in recent years, I would argue that the recent willingness of Hamas to engage in a ceasefire and its broadcasting of its willingness to accept Israel's right to exist suggests that perhaps their demands might be equally realisable.

Also, the nihilism of which you speak, while possibly finding expression in terms of the "72 virgins" (although I'm not sure what the women get) is equally driven by the appalling living conditions which Occupation - which you defend as a necessary condition for Israel's defence - has helped bring about. So, in fact, there is a pragmatic argument for negotiated compromise as opposed to valourising military power alone in any solution.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 10:59

redtakesy:

Hamas agree to a ceasefire, not to "give peace a chance", but to rearm as it imports ever more rockets, explosives, ammunition and personnel through its porous border crossing with Egypt.

I regret having to disagree with you, but Hamas has NEVER been willing to accept peaceful coexistence with a Jewish state. I'm certain that they'd be ecstatically enthusiastic to accept a single state solution, whereby an Arab right of return would inevitably swamp Israel with millions of virulently antagonistic Muslims.

So their laudible "reasonableness" is patently disingenuous.

As Hamas (and everyone else) well knows, no elected Israeli government would, could or should ever consent to its own self-destruction.

No acknowlegment has ever been made by ANY Palestinian faction of the tragedy of the estimated 6 to 8 hundred thousand Jews forcibly expelled from their homes in Arab countries.

Even the "moderate" Abbas achieved his doctorate based upon his conclusion that the Holocaust was a hoax.

The Arab Palestinians successively embraced the Ottomans, Nazis, Soviets, and Saddam, and refused to accept a country of their own for the first time in 1948 (remember that pre-Mandate Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, and NOT the property of either Arabs, Jews or Christians).

The Palestinians' "plight" is of their own making, and will only end when they prove that they are genuinely willing to accept the existence of the Jewish state.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 11:02

redtakesy:

Sorry, but I must now sign off.

Thanks for the enjoyable exchange.

redtakesy
01 July 2008 at 12:41

Bye bye.

As to your departing broadside, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire, which may be a flash in the pan, or may be the basis of something more meaningful. For that we will have to see.

As for their unwillingness to coexist, well, their spokesperson did write this: "The Palestinian people aspire to freedom, independence and peaceful coexistence with all their neighbours." Now this may well be a public pronouncement that has little to do with reality, but their willingness to publicly proclaim this (their later actions can be judged by the commitment they make here) might be taken to represent progress. An Arab "right to return" would probably have the result of allowing Arabs of all stripes, Christian as well as Muslim to return; it might make Israel a non-Jewish state (although when did we decide ethnically-defined states were A Good Thing), and would cause tension, which is why other options, such as restitution, could be explored and negotiated.

No acknowledgement has been made of the tragedy of the Jews in the Middle East because the Palestinians themselves had little to do with it; this was action taken by Arab governments (Palestinians may be Arabs, but not all Arabs are Palestinians, or are acting always with their best interests at heart). Moreover, although the Jewish refugees undboubtedly suffered (and I hope this doesn't sound callous or inhuman, it's not meant to be) where these refugees were able to find a place to call home, Palestinians have been herded into camps and repressed by Arab governments who claim to act in their name.

Hamas acknowledge the Holocaust happened; they also argue that they shouldn't be made to suffer because of our inability to treat Jews with the respect that they deserve.

And it is true there was never a Palestinian state; but then, a lot of states have emerged where previously there were none. Good luck with that.

The Palestinian plight is partly due to their own actions; suicide bombings and other attacks against civilians are despicable tactics. However, the role of Israel in occupying and annexing their territories cannot be ignored; otherwise your analysis is worthless.

You also have to take into account the actions of the British empire, the US, and Arab neighbours, all of whom have played a pretty unpleasant role in bringing us all to this pretty pass. The Arab governments, for example, who use the Palestinian cause and corrupt it into vicious anti-Semitism to cover up their failures at home, all while denying hospitality or responsibility to Palestinians.

It's a messy, messy picture, and I hope that you reflect on this fact and find some balance in your thinking.

Morgan097
01 July 2008 at 21:05

redtakesy:

Why do you remain unable to grasp the simple concept that one cannot be dispossessed of something that one does not and has never owned?

Suppose I pay a visit to Tiffany's on Fifth Avenue and 57th Street in Manhattan. There is in the showcase a Patek Philippe that I covet. I demand that the sales clerk hand it over. He replies: "Why should I give this watch to you when it is not and never has been your property?" I answer: "Because I want it! And if you refuse to hand it over, I'll kill you."

How long do you think it would take before I was either arrested for attempted extortion or committed to a mental institution for the criminally insane?

The creation of two ethnically distinct states by the UN in 1948 established indigenous ownership for the FIRST time in modern history. The Jews accepted the deal; the Palestinian Arabs refused it, expecting the invading armies of five Arab states to secure for themselves the whole loaf.

It didn't quite turn out in the way that they'd anticipated.

Neighbouring Jordan, once 79% of the Mandated Palestine, had in the early '20s been unilaterally severed by the British from the rest of the Mandated territories, and renamed Transjordan. Britain then generously bestowed this land upon its loyal, non-indigenous Hashemite cronies for services rendered, and proceeded to outlaw the presence of any Jews therein, contrary to League Mandate provisions.

It was to this portion of Greater Palestine that some, but by no means all of the Arab refugees chose to flee, voluntarily or otherwise.

Now, the overwhelming majority of "Jordanians" are of Palestinian Arab descent. But the Palestinian Arabs now not only demand a SECOND Palestinian state, but the right to overwhelm the tiny existing Jewish state with the carefully UN nurtured and segregated decendents of Arab refugees as well.

And in case you may have been distracted, Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, only to be rewarded by incessant indiscriminate rocket attacks upon the Israeli towns of Sderot and Ashkelon.

As the Tiffany sales clerk might exclaim in justifiable exasperation:

"Gimme a break!"

redtakesy
02 July 2008 at 09:05

Morning Morgan097.

The notion of a nation-state is a modern one, which may draw on historical precedent but, for the majority of the world, is imposed artificially. Therefore questions of previous "ownership" in this case do not relate to governance - they relate to the fact that, pre- and post-1948, this area is one in which a large number of Palestinians lived and held title deeds for property and land of which they were dispossessed. The demand for nation-statehood is a demand for self-determination on that basis; the same basis of most post-colonial nationalisms. So your example, compelling as you may find it, is totally irrelevant.

The refusal of the UN deal, I suspect may well have had as much to do with the ambitions of other Arab governments as the Palestinians themselves. The Jordanian state, for example, has a very distinct identity, not considering itself Palestinian at all - in fact, having thrown out those who wanted to continue considering themselves as such in Black September. So the Palestinian state would be the first state to be Palestinian.

Moreover, the situation of Palestinians is not limited to Jordan, but includes populations throughout the Middle ast; so, where in Jordan Palestinians may become Jordanian, elsewhere, for example Lebanon, the situation is much worse.

As for the ending of the Occupation in Gaza, well, the situation is (as ever) more complicated; true, Israel compromised; but it was based on strategic goals, recognising that giving up one of the poorest, most densely populated nightmares on earth was a good tactical move. It didn't bring any further negotiations or commitments to further withdrawals in the West Bank- it was a unilateral move. So the core of the problem hadn't been addressed, and the frustration that breeds terrorism - and the rocket attacks are terrorism - carried on. The blockades probably didn't help; nor the retaliatory shelling and bombing which, as usual, keeps on killing civilians.

Morgan097
02 July 2008 at 11:16

redtakesy:

Good morning to you, as well.

You know what?

It's really no use turning our mideast disagreements into repetitive and ultimately pointless debate.

You're clearly sincere in your attempt to somehow resolve non-violently a conflict which I believe to be unresolvable non-militarily.

I believe the Arab-Israeli conflict to be, unlike its Northern Ireland counterpart, a zero sum proposition in which one can never square the circle.

So long as Jews possess so small a fraction of the world's population, land and fossil fuel resources, they'll never "win" a vote in a truly useless UN.

So long as BBC coverage by the likes of Orla Guerin, Barbara Plett and Jeremy Bowen continue to villify the democracy and pity the suicide bomber, I've reluctantly concluded that insofar as support for the continued existence of the Jewish state is concerned, the UK is a lost cause.

And that someone of obvious good such as yourself could even half-seriously entertain the disastrously impractical notion of repatriating millions of vengeful Arabs into a surrounded nation at one point four miles wide truly depresses me.

And for the hundreds of thousands of totally-innocent Jews forcibly evicted with only the clothes on their backs from their often centuries-old Arab homelands?

No recognition.

No sympathy.

Certainly no compensation.

Just too bad.

Let's quickly return to the lugubriously permanent, yet incredibly well-financed, "Plight of the Palestinians"!

I hope that the room service in Suha Arafat's Bristol Hotel suite is entirely satisfactory.

I'm certain that her numbered Swiss account is.

I remember once seeing her racing her BMW convertible around the former Place de l'Etoile and wondering if it was the same vehicle she'd routinely speed through the slums of Ramallah?

"What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable".

Differing core beliefs are often quite simply irreconcilable.

So on this matter, let's just agree to disagree.

But don't despair!

You're one of the good guys.

knave
02 July 2008 at 15:49

Thank you Morgan.

You are a slippery one.

And you still haven't answered the question.

Name and shame the academics.

As a lawyer you should be to answer that simple question.

"I sincerely apologize for having unnecessarily cast ad "hominem aspersions" upon your character."

Again mate you are using words you don't understand. Read Dickens or Austin, they used words in the correct context not drivel to try a build up an illusory aura of an itellectual. which you are not.

But please consider my amendment.

""Vicarious jihadist" is meant to imply one who assists in the goals of the fanatical Muslim anti-Semite without the unpleasantness of having to don a belt of explosives, nails and rat poison. "

By your posts, I think, you mean anybody who disagrees with the isreali hawks or neo con agenda

.

"And since we've decided to introduce a bit of biography, allow me solemnly to declare that I've never employed a thesaurus, though I did long ago attend an obscure school in the colonial Commonwealth of Massachusetts, then quaintly referred to as Harvard Law. But I doubt if it still exists"

I forget you are an American, or trained in the US and you follow the prose style of the pompous i.e. when one word can suffice I will show my own self importance by using many.

"My new calling will be to arouse the increasingly influential Hispanic and Latino academic communities throughout the US to demand a boycott of all British academics for not opposing the racist, imperialist, expansionist, illegal occupation of the Malvinas! And to enforce this boycott until the illegal, genocidal, English settlers are forcibly repatriated to the crumbling European "English Entity", and the Malvinas, so sacred to Argentina, are once again free. And the same also applies to "Gibralter" being returned to Spain."

I totally agree.

Morgan did you really go to Harvard.

Morgan097
02 July 2008 at 18:29

knave:

Ah!

The part-time dyslexic, part-time amateur psychologist, full-time pinko ignoramus has finally crept back out of the woodwork.

Were you too busy selecting the furniture with Bolshie Ben?

I hereby withdraw my unnecessary apology.

Presumably you read (make that raed) my unnecessarily courteous amendment.

And were predictably SILENT instead of attempting even the most perfunctory rebuttle.

YOU HAVE MY REPLY!

If you fail to comprehend it, might I suggest which of your no doubt unwashed orifices might serve as the ideal receptacle.

And don't presume to cross-examine me, Bazooka Boy.

You're no more a prosecuting attorney than you are a linguist, political expert or psychiatrist.

And since we're on the subject of demanding answers, I vaguely recall your having proffered offhanded psychological analysis of my presumed personality defects.

Where I come from, such activity is called "practicing medicine without a license".

If you can support your libels with professional accreditation, proceed immediately to do so!

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

In case your medical condition prevents you from digesting my meaning, allow me to repeat my challenge as a point of personal privilege:

PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

I now eagerly await confirmation of your medical credentials.

But I'm not holding my breath.

The British military may have been adept at escaping from Dunkirk beaches.

It may also have mastered the art of surrender to numerically inferior opposition at fortresses like Singapore and Tobruk.

But it forever reign supreme at having constructed concentration camps for Boer women and children as well as holding camps for hopelessly desperate Holocaust survivors.

You're indeed a credit to your profession.

But unlike me, the only way you'll ever have seen the interior of an HLS classroom will surely be as a lavatory attendant.

Strike that; you'd probably be unable to read directions to the men's room.

Southfork
02 July 2008 at 20:56

I suspect this sparring will soon come to an end so I should like to thank Morgan 097 for at least trying to redress the incredibly one sided attitude to the conflict that seems endemic in the UK.

Even today the BBC seems more upset over the death of the tractor driver than the children killed on the bus and no one, no one has asked why it is that Hezbollah will not say if Goldwasser and Regev are alive or not. It is the norm it seems to mutilate and kill captives. And Hamas has not only not recognized Israels right to exist but all its spokesmen on French TV, Al Jazeerah and CNN persist in their dream of eventually eradicating it..

Its a rum world. As a critic of Israeli policies and a loather of occupation, I find the one sidedness so dispiriting. But hey ho, I suppose since most of the world seems happy to turn a blind eye to Mugabe, why should I be surprised.

Morgan097
02 July 2008 at 21:53

Southfork:

When Dave Marash finally quit his job at Al Jazeera English, he stated that what most surprised and discouraged him was the flagrant anti-Semitism expressed, not so much by his Arab colleagues as by his British ones.

And knave's sparring is likely to continue until his Arafat-autographed Kalashnikov is taken from his cold, dead hands.

knave
02 July 2008 at 21:58

Morgan

You still haven't answered the question. Name the academics who you accuse of being a jihadist or a member of a sleeper cell.

Simple, even for Harvard grad like yourself. Although I didn't know they had a community college there.

Some might say this is cowardice.

I am waiting.

"I suspect this sparring will soon come to an end so I should like to thank Morgan 097 for at least trying to redress the incredibly one sided attitude to the conflict that seems endemic in the UK."

Creeepppppyyyyyy

knave
02 July 2008 at 22:09

I am waiting Yank.

Name them coward, like your boys in nammm.

Good at raping but not so good at fighting

Morgan097
02 July 2008 at 22:37

Ah...

Poor knave...

I'm still waiting to receive a reply to my PUT UP OR SHUT UP demand.

WHERE ARE THE PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS

LEGALLY ENTITLING YOU TO PRACTICE PSYCHIATRY?

AGAIN: PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

And did you really expect a Harvard Community College grad to leave himself open to an action for libel before the notoriously plaintiff-friendly British court system that so unconscionably found for your soulmate Georgie Galloway against the truth-telling Telegraph?

You really do take us for idiots.

But better play nice, or next time the cousins might not ride to rescue you from your exploding heros.

NOW:

WHERE ARE YOUR PSYCHIATRIC CREDENTIALS?

knave
02 July 2008 at 22:38

Still waiting coward.

Morgan097
02 July 2008 at 22:52

So am I, Herr" Doktor".

Sorry to disappoint your mideast sponsors, but Mama never raised no suckers.

knave
02 July 2008 at 23:37

Come on Morgan, you little scary pants. Name and shame. I promise I won’t tell. I know your countryman don’t like taking on difficult tasks. Easier to rape young women and kill old men, like in Fallujah.

Mid east sponsors. You are paranoid old boy.

Just a few questions.

Was it European pinkos or US Reaganites , like your good self? Who

1. First trained the mullahs.

2. First armed the mullahs.

3. Sold arms to fundamentalist Iran in shady deals.

Is it secular Europe or the US that sounds like a fundamentalist religious state?

Is it the US or the UK which has only one congressman or MP who has the courage to say he is atheist?

Which country is run by a moral majority who believes in creationism, the rapture, a literal version of the bible and is fiercely anti gay.

Which country mimics Iran, Morgan?

knave
03 July 2008 at 05:09

Morgan I know you have had a busy day cross burning and it is hell of job getting ash out of your pointy hat but I am still waiting.

Southfork
03 July 2008 at 15:56

Knave

Sure theres a lot wrong with US politics. Tell me one country where politics is not corrupt. But at least they change horses more often than the Brits. Bush's team is nearly up. His party has already been booted out. Offences against humanity and civil rights, indeed. I suppose the Brits and the french are innocent are they? Whose your whited Sepulchre here?

Morgan097
03 July 2008 at 19:59

knave, old boy, ya caught Morgie dead to rights!

Thanks for diplomatically omitting such additional unpleasantness as

The Salem witch trials.

Sacco-Vanzetti.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

And of course, Jimmy Carter.

Admittedly, we're thoroughly evil.

But you just don't understand us.

Since Britain abandoned her empire, life's just been so unbearably boring.

A drama is only as good as its villain.

So, what if we did exterminate one or two Native-Americans.

And maybe our field slaves were deprived of our most cunning labor lawyers.

And don't neglect our having digested (sort of) half of Old Mexico, if one includes Texas in the equation.

But hey, nobody's perfect.

You have me all wrong, old boy.

Without the mother country, there'd be no John Lobb, no James Lock, no H. Huntsman, no Trumper's, no Simpson's-In-The-Strand, no Harrad's, no Savoy, no Top Gear, no Spectator and even no Kate Beckinsale.

Other than those, I'm at a loss to understand why you continue to insist upon remaining above the waves.

And try to keep in mind the undeniable fact that in the U.S., I'm considered an anglophile!

knave
03 July 2008 at 20:38

Come on Morgan I am still waiting.

You do seem to have a little yellow streak.

You old boys must be just aching for a lynching so let’s name and shame.

“Admittedly, we're thoroughly evil.”

Actually most yanks are OK and how can anybody hate a country who has given us the Simpson’s, Frasier, Truman and Roosevelt. Also I actually like Old jimbo. No what we hate is your type of yank.

Racist, rapture loving, small minded bullies, Reaganite hypocrites who steal the oil off Iraqis and then kill hundreds of thousands of the poor sods with cluster and phosphorus bombs.

Also after reading your earlier posts you have no empathy for any other human but yourself. In some ways you sound autistic at least Aspergers. I don’t think you even care about the poor innocents killed in 9/11 or in Israeli bus lines. They are just reasons to hate. In fact are you Anne Coulter’s love child

Morgan097
03 July 2008 at 21:21

knave, my imploding pink blancmange, do try not to drool on the keyboard.

I'm astounded by your sudden concern for the victims of the 9/11 atrocity and Palestinian suicide bombers.

Especially since you so closely to share the political objectives of the perpetrators.

And there you go again, practicing psychiatry without a license.

Did I once again miss your fax from the RMA?

PUBLISH OR PERISH, FRAUDULENT FIEND!

And what fault could any impartial observer find with Mummy's sensible post-9/11 suggestion:

"Lets just invade all the Arab countries, kill all their leaders, and convert their people to Christianity."

Personally, I believe that she was being too polite in not including Eurabia in her plans.

knave
03 July 2008 at 21:46

PUBLISH OR PERISH, FRAUDULENT FIEND!

Sorry for upsetting you because you are getting slightly unstable. Capital letters.

You have issues, don't you. You can feel the hate.

"Lets just invade all the Arab countries, kill all their leaders, and convert their people to Christianity."

Oh dear I . Southfork you happy some unusual friends.

Still waiting for those names coward.

Morgan097
03 July 2008 at 22:18

knave:

Where will your sympathies lie when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Londonistan start self-detonating inside double deckers in order to bring to the world's attention their "plight" and their just struggle to throw off the yoke of fascist crusader Albionism!

Your one trick pony routine bores me, so I think I'll now abandon you to your vodka.

And watch out for things that go bump in the night.

knave
04 July 2008 at 06:17

"Where will your sympathies lie when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Londonistan start self-detonating inside double deckers in order to bring to the world's attention their "plight" and their just struggle to throw off the yoke of fascist crusader Albionism! "

Thesaurus again Morgan. You a sad bore.

Also where in my post have I stood up and praised the Mullahs. In fact if you could read and look carefully. I despise them.

That is why I am asking you to route out these evil academics who are members of Islamic sleeper cells. Come on chicken hawk boy. Name and shame.

But I also as a secular old labourite I despise the fundamentalist US and their grab for power and oil.

My sympathies are for the average Joe caught in the middle of a conflict between two greedy fundamentalist ideologies.

Also I haven’t much time for liars. As if you went to Harvard, sure you did. Although you have might be allowed in to fill their quota of autistic and paranoid headcases.

Your one trick pony routine bores me, so I think I'll now abandon you to your vodka.

Vodka,

French claret if you don’t mind.

And watch out for things that go bump in the night

You’re the paranoid one old boy.

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 14:12

Ah..

Brave knave.

You're one scary dude.

From an oceanic distance.

But tread r-e-a-l softly, little pink chicken dove.

This particular chicken hawk has sharp claws.

His late daddy (Big Rooster to you), a former captain in the OSS, bought little Morgie his first .45 ACP Colt Commander in 1957 in Las Vegas.

Long before you were ducking Argentine Mirages, Morgie was going deaf, firing .50 cal. rounds on full auto from defenseless Hueys.

Missed you at Hue during Tet '68 festivities, Tough Guy.

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 16:08

Come to think of it, I'm gonna celebrate the Fourth by taking the next flight over there and beating the living crap outta ya!

knave
04 July 2008 at 16:42

Ah...

Brave knave.

You're one scary dude.”

No I am a bit of a softy really. Not as hard as you yanks

From an oceanic distance.”

How do you know I don’t live in the States or Canada. Actually you are correct I do now live in Holland. Leiden actually.

“ But tread r-e-a-l softly, little pink chicken dove.

This particular chicken hawk has sharp claws.”

This is quite exciting I am getting threatened by a mad, autistic American

“His late daddy (Big Rooster to you), a former captain in the OSS, bought little Morgie his first .45 ACP Colt Commander in 1957 in Las Vegas.”

OSS just fought in WW2 didn’t they. Then they were superseded by the CIA.

You loved your dad Morgan but he didn’t return the love or respect did he.

Wanted you to be a success and didn’t occur. I really feel sorry for you. Genuinely.

“Long before you were ducking Argentine Mirages, Morgie was going deaf, firing .50 cal. rounds on full auto from defenseless Hueys.

Missed you at Hue during Tet '68 festivities, Tough Guy.”

I remember visiting the US and a mate of mind, a vicious little jock, was accosted by a so called tough guuuuuy marine

He asked him “Why were you guys not in Naammmm.”

His reply was quite simple.

“the VC were doing all right on their own”

I will leave you with two questions.

1. Name the academics.

2. What medication are you on ?

I won’t return to this post because you are scary but more importantly I feel sorry for you and pity you.

Big Rooster did love you but couldn’t show it.

Southfork, you seem a decent chap, is this normal behaviour for Americans.

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 16:45

When they ask me why, I'll tell 'em I got this sudden flashback.

There I was back in the brush northwest of Da Nang, once more zapping the scum Cong.

Actually, not that great a leap.

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 16:53

Answers:

1. Same academics who issued you your medical license.

2. Zoloft.

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 17:00

Holland, huh.

Did you ever recover the knife with which you tried to decapitate Van Gogh?

Morgan097
04 July 2008 at 19:09

Morgan is shocked.

Shocked!

Who could have predicted that knave would have sought refuge from all those uncouth westerners in a nation that had already so gracefully accepted its inevitable dhimmitude?

He must have booked his flight to Tulipland the moment he learned that "Muhammed" had become the most popular name among Dutch newborns.

knave
06 July 2008 at 07:22

Morgan,

Why the threats ?

1. I despise the mullahs as much as you do

2. Yes I have insulted you but only after you started insulting my disability.

3. All I did was ask you a simple question. Which is what blogging is about.

If you cannot debate without resorting to threats then then don't make comments on the site.

Southfork if thsi has debate occurs in the state. threats of physical violence is the norm , then that perhaps explains why your country is so disliked ?

knave
06 July 2008 at 14:47

The trouble is that Morgan is what is wrong with the US and to lesser extent the UK, also ones of the reasons I have recently moved to Leiden, on a micro scale. An urge to carry out violence for no reason, desensitization to violence brought about by drugs and the influence of TV and film violence, a Nietzsche belief in free individual will with no. moral code. A hate for altruism and kindness to their fellow man. On a macro scale they call it American foreign policy

Morgan097
06 July 2008 at 22:37

knave:

Welcome back!

Frankly, I thought I'd given the game away when I referred to my old man fictitiously as "Big Rooster," which in the States would be a sarcastic euphemism for "Big Pr**K."

Sure, Pop bought me the Colt in '57 with reservations (I was young and no Nevada gun restrictions applied at the time.)

But ya don't get accepted to HLS (JD, '70) without a significant quotient of pride from your parents.

My relatives have attended a variety of undergraduate and professional schools including Brown, McGill and (yes) Harvard. Incidentally, unless you're a Kennedy or Rockefeller, acceptance to Harvard, Yale, Princeton or Stanford has, more often than not, become more than anything else an instance of "luck of the draw" based as much on gender, race and geographical distribution as it does on grades or LSATs.

And regarding "threats," believe it or not, a 63-year-old has more productive outlets than playing assassin to some anonymous target on another continent.

If I on occasion employ exaggerated invective it's usually in the spirit of hyperbolic humor rather than malicious cruelty.

Aside from our obvious political differences, I bear you neither hostility nor animus.

But come on!

Frothing racists are hardly apt to refer to American Indians as "Native-Americans."

For the most part, I enjoy and even admire Britain and the British, except when armed Royal Navy sailors, on patrol in the Persian Gulf, surrender without a struggle to Iranian speedboats, and later state without shame that they intend to publish their "memoirs" for profit.

And try to comprehend the common American aversion to sanctimonious political correctness.

"The Simpsons" (which you say you enjoy) was the show that introduced the immortal description of the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys."

gnuneo
12 July 2008 at 20:47

morgan: you state that you beleive the only 'solution' to israel/palestine is through military means - what exactly do you mean by that in reference to the palestinians? That Israel should militarily annihiliate them? The Palestinian 'Final Solution'?

is THAT what you desire?

Morgan097
14 July 2008 at 11:45

gnuneo,

Don't be impertinent.

Clearly a Palestinian population that votes in a Gaza government dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state is not a population prepared to accept compromise. And Abbas is still a feckless Holocaust denier.

Both Hamas and Fatah continue proudly to bless their noble kamikazes and lovingly outfit them with explosive belts filled with nails, ball bearings and rat poison in order to kill Jewish civilians (pregnant young women being a particular favorite).

At present, a majority of Jewish Israelis would still willingly exchange land (something concrete and essential for national self-defense) for peace (an ethereal concept that only a hopeless romantic could expect to materialize in the near future.)

It will require generations to restore mutual confidence, and even that time frame is a probably overoptimistic.

It ain't pretty, but until the heralded arrival of that golden utopia, guns not words will remain the essential factor keeping suicidal jihadists at bay.

gnuneo
21 July 2008 at 18:45

::sighs::

i just can't remember the last time palestinians invaded jewish land with bulldozers, built military outposts on jewish land, or indeed illegally occupied it with the intention of making it permanent by building 'settlements' upon it.

but of course it is ALL the palestinians fault, *they* are the ones who are "threatening the jews", pity the poor Isrealis, who just like the german settlers into poland circa 1940s, just want to live a quiet, peaceful life.

i hope one day you will open your eyes, and realise that "national self determination", and "right to a homeland", also apply to palestinians as well as jews.

i doubt it though, you are clearly more interested in hating the palestinians than loving the Israeli Jews.