Israel and Gaza and a summer of war?

67 comments from readers

Morgan097
21 June 2007 at 13:25

Gee whiz!

If only I could be assured that the next "hopelessly-oppressed" pregnant suicide bomber who makes it past the barrier and into a Jewish maternity ward were seated beside only oh-so-sensitive fellow-travellers like Mr. Baram.

Amihai
22 June 2007 at 12:02

The latest developments in the Gaza Strip should be taken as an opportunity, enabling us to consider, bravely, ideas to overcome the Palestinian Arab problem not fully entertained in the recent past. One such idea is having Egypt and Jordan becoming direct contributors to the resolution of the problem, backed up by other Arab countries and perhaps by the entire Arab League.

The Palestinian Arab problem is first and foremost the problem of people who fled their homes and properties during the time of strife in 1947/48 and have not fully settled since. The war to which we refer was initiated of course by the local Arab leadership of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel)/Palestine and continued on a much larger scale by five Arab armies – Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt – backed up by the entire Arab League of States. The aim of the aggressors was to annihilate the newly proclaimed - based on UN resolutions - of the Jewish state of Israel which of course repelled them..

The Palestinian Arabs as a people is a relatively new phenomenon that began to evolve only in the early part of the 20th century and has come to a certain degree of maturity in the 1960s. It has largely if not exclusively come about and has been sustained as a reaction to and a negation of the right of Jewish nationalism in Eretz Israel/Palestine.

Over the years the Arabs of Eretz Israel/Palestine have missed many opportunities to come to terms and reach and accommodation of peaceful co-existence with the Jewish community of Eretz Israel/Palestine and later the state of Israel. They were offered to set up their sovereign state as early as 1937 by the Royal Peel Commission, 1947 by the United Nations, 2000 by Israel's prime minister Ehud Barak and the US president Bill Clinton at Camp David; and have had the opportunities to demand a state between the years 1948 to 1967 when the disputed territories were fully under Arab control. They could have accepted Begin and Sadat's offer of 1979 for an autonomy that in time would have evolved into a state. They began to undo the Oslo Accords of 1993 when in 1996 their official armed forces opened fire, killed and wounded Israeli soldiers. The latest missed opportunity of course has been their leadership's refusal since January 2006 to accept the demand of the entire international community, i.e. UN, EU, Russia, US and the Arab world, to recognize Israel's right to exist, adhere to signed agreements with it, and cease all acts of terror and violence against Israel and Israelis.

Each one of their missed opportunities to establish an independent Palestinian Arab state was accompanied by violence against the Jewish community of the country, using bullets, explosives and mortars to, for all practical purposes, state their long term goal: the negation of the right of the Jewish people to its own nation-state, Israel, and its annihilation, despite universal recognition of this right.

The separation between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip brought about by the Palestinian Arabs themselves should enable the Arab world to demand that the Gaza Strip reverts back to Egyptian rule. Egypt should then apply its sovereignty in the territory, extend Egyptian citizenship to all its residents, and with a meaningful package of assistance and incentives provided by the Arab world, Israel and the international community it should be able to settle large numbers of Gazans in the under populated Sinai peninsula and develop it together with the Gaza Strip, its agricultural, industry and tourism industries both for domestic and export purposes.

Most of Judea and Samaria/West Bank and parts of the metropolitan area of Jerusalem, similar to the Gaza Strip, should, as a result of negotiations with Israel, be reverted back to Jordanian control and sovereignty, and with the right package of incentives provided by the same sources, Jordan should be able to develop both the West Bank and the under populated East Bank. Jordan, in the process, should of course see to it that all who choose to reside under Jordanian rule receive Jordanian citizenship, Arabs and Jews alike.

And what about all other Palestinian Arab refugees presently residing in other Arab countries is one of the questions. The Arab world it appears should be responsible to extend these people full citizenship in the countries in which they reside, and allow them to settle there permanently, as Israel has settled Jews who fled to Israel during the same conflict and as Israel has extended Israeli citizenship to the Arabs residing in Israel, nearly 20% of Israel's population.

The separation between the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria/West Bank, brought about by the Palestinians may, if managed properly, turn out to be the beginning of a solution to the Palestinian Arab predicament, and an accommodation of peaceful coexistence among all the parties in our immediate region.

Colin Hinshelwood
23 June 2007 at 13:30

The blogs from Nadav Katz and Morgan 097 are typical of gloating Zionists who revel in the plight of the Palestinians. Suicide bombers in maternity wards, indeed! Palestinian rejection of peace accords? A blindsided and racist approach to the entire process. Katz reveals his trure colours when he concludes that the solution is to push Gazans into Egypt and the Palestinians of West Bank into the "under populated East Bank". And behold - an ethnically cleansed State of Israel!

IB
23 June 2007 at 13:39

to Nadav Katz,

there is no "Arab-Palestinian" problem, like there was no "jewish problem". The Germans had problem maybe with the Jews and the Israelis have problem with the palestinians who had lived in Palestine befor the vast magority of the Jews arrived.

and to Haim Baram,

thanks for the important article. I would like only to add that Carmi Gilon, the former head of Shabak (Israels internal security organisation) is rehabilitated nowadays by the israeli academy, and is the vice president of external relations of the Hebrew university in Jerusalem http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?me....

This is of course not the first cooperative act of the israeli academy with the Mosad and Shabak and it supports the activ members in Unison and other organisation to boycott israeli academy.

Amihai
23 June 2007 at 14:50

Colin Hinshelwood,

I realize you consider the word Zionism an insult hence using it against me. I thank you for it. I am proud to be a Zionist as it is my people's movement – the Jewish people - for national liberation. And when I say national liberation I do not mean it in a violent way because our movement from its inception in the later part of the 19th century called for the establishment of a Jewish national home (nation-state) in our historic ancestral homeland of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), also called Palestine, and for a peaceful coexistence with the local population of the county. Indeed, I would suggest that you Google for and read Israel's Proclamation of Independence, 14 May 1947, to appreciate the attitude of our leadership even in the midst of a campaign by the local Arabs to kill as many Jews in the country as possible, what is called these days terrorism.

I am not a racist as you attempt to portray me. Indeed, I recognize the existence of a Palestinian Arab people - although it has been a late comer, especially by comparing it to the nearly 4,000 years of sense of peoplehood of the Jewish (Hebrew, Israelite) people. Indeed, as a believer of the right of peoples, all peoples, to national self-determination I have been and continue to support the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its own nation-state.

Yet, reality has been, for at least the past 70 years, that the Arabs of this land (I am an Israeli, residing in Jerusalem) have not missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for an accommodation of peaceful coexistence with the other major community of the country, the Jewish community, indeed with the Jewish people as a whole. They could have settled all misunderstandings as early as 1937 as I indicated in my first post. This is 11 years before Israel even came into being. But they refused that opportunity. They refused the opportunity that came along in 1947 and instead initiated a war that was the cause of the "refugee problem" that is still simmering thanks to the rest of the Arab world that backed them up in that war. They opted not to demand a state on the entire territory of the western bank and eastern Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip between the years 1948 to 1967 when these territories were fully under Arab control. The opportunities that came along since: 1979, 1993, 2000, and present day Roadmap to Peace have all been shot down by them.

Indeed, after each rejection of an opportunity for an accommodation, the next opportunity was less attractive the all the previous ones.

As a realist, I suggest to my Arab neighbors: You have now caused the separation between the Gaza Strip and the western bank with your own hands. This is reality. Try to do the best for yourselves with this reality.

The best in my opinion is for them to get out of the misery that has prevailed in the Gaza Strip. The way to do it is to develop the economy of the Strip and the economy of the under populated Sinai Peninsula. To do so, Egypt must be a major player even to the point of retaking control of the Gaza Strip, extending citizenship to its residents and by so doing enabling them to move freely between the Gaza Strip and the Sinai. The international community, Israel and the Arab world, I am sure, would be eager to assist in providing the necessary assistance and incentives for the development of both the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula for the sake of the residents of Gaza. This, Sir, is what you call ethnic cleansing??

The situation in the western bank is not as bad as in the Gaza Strip. But there too, an independent Palestinian Arab state will simply not be a viable possibility. In order to improve the opportunity of the residents of the western bank I suggest that Jordan takes control of the area, and with its residents, Jews and Arabs alike, under Jordanian citizenship, bring about proper governance that the Palestinian Arabs have never been able to provide for themselves.

Note, I do not suggest that the state of Israel takes over these territories. I do suggest however that the nearly 20% of Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of the state of Israel be provided with all the rights AND obligations of all other citizens of the state. I also suggest that for the sake of an accommodation of peaceful coexistence, all Palestinian Arabs residing in other Arab states receive full citizenship of those states and are permitted to reside, work, study, etc. in those country; in essence being treated like all other Arab citizens of those states, e.g. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq.

I hope you would from this point on discuss the merit of this proposal instead of throwing insults since those, Sir, do not serve anyone, certainly not the Palestinian Arabs whose predicament I am eager to overcome.

Amihai
23 June 2007 at 14:54

IB,

Since you chose to write about the proposal to boycott Israeli academic institutions, I wish to share with you Tom Friedman recent report from Jerusalem, published in the New York Times. You and other readers may find it interesting and enlightening:

A Boycott Built on Bias / By Thomas Friedman

Two weeks ago I took part in commencement for this year’s doctoral candidates at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The ceremony was held in the amphitheater on Mount Scopus, which faces out onto the Dead Sea and the Mountains of Moab. The setting sun framed the graduate students in a reddish-orange glow against a spectacular biblical backdrop. Before I describe the ceremony, though, I have to note that it coincided with the news that Britain’s University and College Union had called on its members to consider a boycott of Israeli universities, accusing them of being complicit in Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. Anyway, as the Hebrew U. doctoral candidates each had their names called out and rose to receive their diplomas from the university’s leadership, I followed along in the program. The Israeli names rolled by: “Moshe Nahmany, Irit Nowik, Yuval Ofir. But then every so often I heard an Arab name, like Nuha Hijazi or Rifat Azam or Taleb Mokari. Since the program listed everyone’s degrees and advisers, I looked them up. Rifat got his doctorate in law. His thesis was about “International Taxation of Electronic Commerce.” His adviser was “Prof. D. Gliksberg.” Nuha got her doctorate in biochemistry. Her adviser was “Prof. R. Gabizon.” Taleb had an asterisk by his name. So I looked at the bottom of the page. It said: “Summa Cum Laude.” His chemistry thesis was about “Semiconductor-Metal Interfaces,” and his adviser was “Prof. U. Banin.” These were Israeli Arab doctoral students — many of them women and one of whom accepted her degree wearing a tight veil over her head. Funny — she could receive her degree wearing a veil from the Hebrew University, but could not do so in France, where the veil is banned in public schools. Arab families cheered unabashedly when their sons and daughters received their Hebrew U. Ph.D. diplomas, just like the Jewish parents.

How crazy is this, I thought. Israel’s premier university is giving Ph.D.’s to Arab students, two of whom were from East Jerusalem — i.e. the occupied territories — supervised by Jewish Israeli professors, all while some far-left British academics are calling for a boycott of Israeli universities. I tell this story to underscore the obvious : that the reality here is so much more morally complex than the outside meddlers present it. Have no doubt, I have long opposed Israel’s post-1967 settlements. They have squandered billions and degraded the Israeli Army by making it an army of occupation to protect the settlers and their roads. And that web of settlements and roads has carved up the West Bank in an ugly and brutal manner — much uglier than Israel’s friends abroad ever admit. Indeed, their silence, particularly American Jewish leaders, enabled the settlement lunacy. But you’d have to be a blind, deaf and dumb visitor to Israel today not to see that the vast majority of Israelis recognize this historic mistake, and they not only approved Ariel Sharon’s unilateral uprooting of Israeli settlements in Gaza to help remedy it, but elected Ehud Olmert precisely to do the same in the West Bank. The fact that it is not happening now is hardly Israel’s fault alone. The Palestinians are in turmoil. So to single out Israeli universities alone for a punitive boycott is rank anti-Semitism. Let’s see, Syria is being investigated by the United Nations for murdering Lebanon’s former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syrian agents are suspected of killing the finest freedom-loving Lebanese journalists, Gibran Tueni and Samir Kassir. But none of that moves the far left to call for a boycott of Syrian universities. Why? Sudan is engaged in genocide in Darfur. Why no boycott of Sudan? Why?

If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy. And they would call on every British university to dispatch visiting professors to every Palestinian university to help upgrade their academic offerings. And they would challenge every Israeli university that already offers Ph.D.’s to Israeli Arabs to do even more. And they would challenge every Arab university the same way.

That’s what people who actually care about Palestinians would do. But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do.

Henry Dubb
24 June 2007 at 13:32

"A decade of concerted vilification of Muslims has created a sense of collective paranoia in Israel" says Haim Baram.

That's funny. I thought it was the result of a decade of jihad and suicide bombings.

Amihai
24 June 2007 at 13:44

Cybertiger,

I suggest that as an "enlightened" British person you deal with the merits of Tom Friedman's article and not just with hollow slogans that have no merit in reality what so ever, but you can't, can you??

Nadav

Amihai
24 June 2007 at 13:51

Henry Dubb,

I fully agree with your comment. Do note, Baram, while described here as a writer and a journalist is a Jerusalemite who writes about sports and has a short weekly column in a tiny city paper. This is the extent to which people here value his opinions.

Cybertiger
24 June 2007 at 18:41

Nadav said,

"Cybertiger, I suggest that as an "enlightened" British person you deal with the merits of Tom Friedman's article and not just with hollow slogans that have no merit in reality what so ever, but you can't, can you??"

I prefer the enlightenment of the admirable Tanya Reinhart who sadly died earlier this year. Tom Friedman only succeeds in shining more light into the deep, dark well of democratic Israel's sixty years of rank dishonesty, deceit and international lawlessness.

In the introduction to her book, 'The Road Map to Nowhere', Tanya Reinhart describes Ariel Sharon as "the most brutal, cynical, racist and manipulative leader Israel has ever had ..."

With Israel's superior form of electoral representation, Sharon the Bulldozer is clearly representative of a democratic majority of the Israeli people. You'd otherwise have to be a blind, deaf and dumb Israeli voter not to understand that Sharon and his elected successor have absolutely no intention of ever giving up Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians as international law dictates. The fact that the 'uprooting of Israeli settlements' in the West Bank is not happening is the fault of Israeli democracy alone and entirely. Go figure, Nadav.

PS. Why do you consider me a 'British person' or indeed "enlightened"? I doubt that you are being entirely honest about your perceptions?

Molly Brown
25 June 2007 at 09:33

Time and again one is told of the Israeli "left," the many number of Israelis, ranging from members of the Knesset to shop owners, dedicated to peace. The 40-year occupation is of particular concern to putative peace activists and purported individuals of conscience. "The burden of occupation" and its ugly realities, as many so-called dovish Israeli politicians have pointed out, tear at the moral fiber of the Jewish state. Yet, even when one looks at the horrors of the occupation in the Israeli media and political circles, it is at best through the Israeli prism, which juxtaposes the pain of Israel in equal magnitude to the pain of the Palestinian people. This Israeli pain, without its counterpart's suffering, is transferred to the papers of the U.S. press and is ultimately exponentially magnified, giving the American people a distorted awareness of the Israeli narrative.

Nonetheless, there must be a clear understanding that only one people is living under occupation — many after being dispossessed in 1948 and again in 1967. By even phrasing today's climate as a conflict, it lends support to the assumption that this is a dispute between two equal sides, with equal grievances. The complexities of the Palestine question is further complicated by issues beyond the 40-year occupation, including the Palestinian right of return, the Israeli settler movement in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the third class status of Palestinians living in a Jewish state.

Supposed peace activists find solace in verbally condemning the settlement movement and the harsh conditions that emanate from occupation. Yet most aren't doing anything to actively stop it, and when moral fiber is truly urgent, as was the case during the Lebanon war or the continuing debilitating sanctions and bombardment on the Palestinian people, they remain silent. Condemnation after a war isn't moral reflection, it's cowardice. There is no difference between hawkish and dovish policy in Israel, only a divergence in the approach to implement it. Those on the "far left," who are the brink of being classified as "self-hating Jews," including self-styled humanitarians such as Meretz MK Yossi Beilin, only serve to massage their own egos and consciences by portraying an image that they are fighting for peace. In reality, these people assign themselves to the same racist and exclusivist ideology that came into form long before the creation of the state of Israel.

The discourse that frames the parameters of debate pertaining to the Palestine question is disturbing on multiple levels. Take for example, the recent fighting in the Gaza Strip. Nine Israelis have been killed in Palestinian rocket attacks over the last seven years, while last year alone, 700 Palestinians — half of them unarmed civilians — were killed throughout the occupied territories. Reading the news columns, be it in Israeli or Western newspapers, one would think it was the Israeli people who were occupied and being indiscriminately killed. The opposite remains true: when one woman is killed in Sderot, it consumes the Israeli media and immediately becomes headline material for nearly every Western newspaper.

The cease-fire between occupied Gaza and Israel is another case in point. Hamas eventually ended its unilateral recognition of a cease-fire because of continued attacks by Israeli forces inside of Gaza and the West Bank. The demand for a Gaza/West Bank cease-fire by Hamas is seen by Israel as the same old story, where "conventional wisdom" suggests that the obstinate, overreaching Arabs insist on the fulfillment of unreasonable demands, when they are in no position to do so. Yet, calling on the Palestinians (including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade), to accept a truce localized to the Gaza Strip, giving Israel impunity to act within the West Bank, is tantamount to asking Hamas not to fire rockets at Sderot and the Negev, while remaining free to bombard Tel Aviv and Haifa. The Palestinians are a people, no less than the Israelis are a people, and a death in Ramallah is as significant as a death in Gaza City.

Every problem afflicting Palestinian society, be it the expansion of the Apartheid Wall, checkpoints, flying checkpoints, curfews, or the restriction of goods and access to education, is characterized as necessary measures for Israeli security. Nonetheless, many non-partisan organizations, including the World Bank, the United Nations, the Hague, Amnesty International and a number of other institutions have condemned Israel and its tactics on levels of morality, legality, and effectiveness. Logically, if one is looking for peace with a society, economic strangulation and imprisonment will not create an environment conducive to peace. The Wall is not being built on the internationally recognized green line and encroaches so far into the West Bank that thousands of Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes, lost their land or have been split from their towns, workplaces, and schools. Even if one were to justify the Wall, which the Israeli Shin Bet has called an ineffective means of protection, why not build the Wall on Israeli territory? "Punishing" the Palestinian people by creating a greater refugee problem and economic deprivation is hardly an incentive for Palestinians to resort to more preferred tactics of resistance. Furthermore, settlements continue to grow, far surpassing the number of settlers that were removed from Gaza, and even with the basic cessation of suicide bombings, restrictions in movement have markedly increased in the West Bank.

The issue of the 400,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is particularly startling. Policy in the United States has slowly shifted from a two-state solution on the basis of the green line, with no Jewish settlers within Palestinian territory, to the vast majority of settlers staying in place, with effective Israeli control of half of the West Bank for an indefinite period of time. The prevailing truth that Israel and America want people to accept is that time creates "indisputable" facts on the ground, meaning: if a crime is committed for a long enough period of time, the international community and the victim must recognize the crime. It is to the bewilderment of the Palestinian people that they are seen as the uncompromising ones when they are asking for no more than international law provides. Sadly, it was the Labor party-the party that many purported peace activists are members-that propped up and legitimized the settler movement, leading to one of the many disputes Palestinians and Israelis find themselves in today.

Many so-called Israeli peace activists point to Camp David 2000 as the quintessential example of Arab rejectionism. One is told that Israel offered the Palestinians 95 percent of the occupied territories, including a grand compromise on East Jerusalem. Let us suppose this is true and forget the Palestinian narrative, that by engaging in Oslo, the Palestinians had effectively relinquished the right to 78 percent of historic Palestine (a "generous" compromise in their minds). Even looking through the Israel prism, one should ask themselves, if Israel was interested in peace (added to the fact they are the occupying force with the upper hand), would it not be reasonable with peace at the forefront of one's mind, to give up all of the occupied Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as 5 percent of the Negev? While Israel has much empty land, an abundance of resources, power and capital, an Israeli could claim that on principle alone, the state could not commit to such a plan. But is principle really an option when peace could be just over the horizon or even a remote possibility? If the offer failed, the Israeli left could point out further Arab rejectionism, could it not?

The way in which one is expected to digest the so-called "facts" of the Israeli occupation and the Palestine question hinders any rationale debate and demonizes any individual calling for an end to Israel's racist and hegemonic policy, as was the case with former president, Jimmy Carter. If there were a 100 suicide bombings in Tel Aviv tomorrow, it would not diminish the Palestinian right to see an end to the occupation, nor would it minimize the urgency. Furthermore, Israel is not occupying Palestinian land as a punishment. It is not as though a suicide bombing struck Tel Aviv 40 years ago by a Palestinian group and the Israel army decided it was time to clamp down on Palestinian society. Rather after a preempted strike on neighboring states, Israel colonized a land that the international community, including the United States, insisted it had no business occupying.

A quick and just two-state resolution to Israel/Palestine may sound like an oversimplification, but if supposed steps towards peace were made and "offered" at Camp David 2000 and at the following talks at Taba, the same type of directive could be taken today. But let's be honest with ourselves, the two-sate solution is dead. It is a figment of the imagination of the Israeli left and of the multitude of Palestinian leaders and diplomats who have gone enormous lengths to sell out the Palestinian people. That is the danger of looking at the two-state solution and Israel/Palestine through an Israeli prism: it draws the parameters of practicality, affecting even those who support the Palestinian plight. Israel doesn't want peace, not under a Barak government, a Sharon government, an Olmert government or a Peres government. It's been forty years, and yet Israel has become married to the settlements and to an ideology that sees a Jewish state with inherent rights over its non-Jewish citizens, but more critically it as an expansionist state that believes in the right to permanent domination of the lands it controls.

The only way to break down a racist and exclusivist structure is to chip away at its base and force an alternative reality. This would require not only ending the occupation, but looking internally at the Israeli state, a Jewish state, a state which doesn't and can't function as democracy for all its people. Many Palestinians leaders and supporters within Israel have come to realize this and have been ostracized for bringing this notion to light, namely Azmi Bishara, while many more will be undermined and attacked in the future. Yet, divestment, boycott, and sanctions coupled with a movement forward for both Israelis and Palestinians to live as equals in a shared society is the only hope for true peace. This new path must run counter to the Oslo mentality of submissiveness and acquiescence: a model much like South Africa, Northern Ireland and Belgium. It is time for an end to the occupation, but more importantly, it is time to look through a new prism, one that sees a better solution for Israel/Palestine.

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 10:14

Cibertiger,

I respect you choice not to be perceived as British and an enlightened person.

The subject matter, sir/madam, is the one that you chose to debate: The proposed academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions and individuals. It is within this context that Tom Friedman wrote in the New York Times what he wrote, and so far you have not been able to refute his observation, both about the "racism" that exists in Israeli academe, and the motivating factor behind the obsessive negative indeed demonizing meddling in Israeli affairs without any proportion to Israel's size, importance in the world, and especially by comparison to how more important and larger countries which truly commit grave violations of human rights are being dealt by "progressive" people in Britain – pure and simple, Anti-Semitism.

You have now chosen instead to deal with Ariel Sharon – which is not entirely clear to me what Sharon has do with the subject matter at hand – and with giving Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinian Arabs based on international law.

Well, Sir/Madam, Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem are territories in dispute. They have certainly never been under Palestinian Arab sovereignty, for the simple reason that no such sovereign has ever been in existence, hence returning to Palestinian control is misleading. These territories were taken over by Israel during a defensive war from Israel's perspective, the Six-Day War, 1967, after Israel had been attacked from these territories by then the controlling military forces there, the Jordanian Legion, and after Israel had asked explicitly King Hussein of Jordan to cease all hostilities against Israel lest Israel would have no choice but to unleash its Defence Forces in order to stop the firing and additional aggressive moves by the Jordanian army. The King refused of course, hence Israel repelled the aggressor to the other side of the Jordan River.

The relevant UN Security Council Resolution to vacating these territories is number 242. This resolution clearly calls for Israel's withdrawal of its armed forces from territories occupied during the Six-Day War, but not ALL territories. Israel, as you may know, has already vacated territories captured during that war: The entire Sinai Peninsula and the entire Gaza Strip. Furthermore, Israel has offered to vacate 97% of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, yet, the Palestinian Arab leadership opted not to accept such a move, made in the summer of 2000 by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak as witnessed by the US President Bill Clinton.

Moreover, UNSC Resolution 242 also insists that it is the right of every State, including the State of Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats of acts of force. Well, having been exposed to daily attempts at the murdering of Israeli citizens both within and without Israel's boundaries, Israel has not been able to live in peace with its neighbors, free from threats of acts of force. Hence, the whole situation, including the status of the territories, is in dispute, and when matters are in dispute, it is not for Israel to take unilateral moves to resolve the it. It is instead the responsibility of all the relevant parties to resolve the dispute and bring the conflict to an end. I would therefore ask that at least every once in a while, if you are an intellectually honest person, review critically the long term goals and policies of the various Arab parties to this dispute as well.

Cybertiger
25 June 2007 at 10:45

Nadav Katz

That you may consider yourself an intellectually honest person - or indeed 'enlightened' - makes me laugh out loud.

IB
25 June 2007 at 10:50

Nadav Katz,

thanks for refering me to Thomas Friedmanns article. As far as I know Thomas Friedmann supported also the war in Irak, that as an Israeli I am going to suffer from (a little victim of this horrible war, I know...), and already suffering from other military actions that Friedmann and his friends are advocating. During the last years, under the "security-terroe" that the israeli government is propagating, 75% of the capital in Israel is held by 18 families.

In order to put an end to the auful situation in Palestine and Israel I would like to encourage our british colleagues and call them: boycott me!

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 11:54

Molly Brown writes that those that are "far left" in Israel "only serve to massage their own egos and consciences by portraying an image that they are fighting for peace. In reality, these people assign themselves to the same racist and exclusivist ideology that came into form long before the creation of the state of Israel".

And what is this "racist and exclusivist ideology that came into form long before the creation of the state of Israel"?

This ideology was and still is Jewish nationalism: the striving of a people, the Jewish people (or the Hebrew or Israelite people during earlier periods in the course of the nearly 4,000 years of history of this ancient people), to re-establish its own nation-state within its ancestral homeland, its historic homeland of Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel).

This ideology is a product of the 19th century as are other ideologies of national liberation, the aim of which has been the realization of the universally accepted right of peoples to national self-determination and the establishment of their nation states.

It is the same ideology, incidentally, on the basis of which the peoples of former Yugoslavia for instance strive for their own nation-states and the very same ideology on the basis of which the Palestinian Arab people demands its own nation-state.

I would treat with a degree of respect, although disagreement, Molly Brown's post if the critique of nationalism were global and inclusive of all other national liberation movements and all other national ideologies that strive for the establishment and the maintenance of nation-states. But by singling out one people and one people only and attempting to negate the right of this people, the Jewish people, to its own nation-state, Molly Brown may be viewed as an anti-Semite, which is Tom Friedman's conclusion as well.

Israel's right to exist as the expression of national self-determination of the Jewish people was recognized by the international community during the early part of the 20th century. It received its first official recognition as early as 1917 in the form of the British government's - the sovereign of Eretz Israel/Palestine at the time – in the forum of the Balfour Declaration. This recognition was the basis of the proposal of the Royal Peel Commission of 1937 to establish a Jewish state in Eretz Israel/Palestine along side an Arab state. This recognition was also shared by the League of Nations, and in 1947 the United Nations also recognized Israel's right to exist – along side an Arab state within the country.

Israel was established as the nation-state of the Jewish people on 14 May 1948 based on UN resolutions. The very progressive vision of its founders may be found in the form of the Israel's Proclamation of Independence of that date (you may Google for its English translation), signed by people from the left right and centre, including representatives of the Communist and Socialist parties of the country, secular and religious, men and women, Sephardim and Ashkenazim. It was truly a people's proclamation. To now question Israel's right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, which is the essence of the long post in question is nothing short of pure racism.

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 12:06

IB,

Could you argue with the merits of Friedman's article? If you can't I suggest you don't say anything, because the more you say the more you exhibit how much you don't know about South West Asia (the region that you, a Eurocentric, call Middle East), the geographic region that is my home yet not yours).

And who may I ask you, are Tom Friedman's friends? Are you implying here too a certain ethnic orientation? Is it not politically correct yet in Britain to demonize Jews directly, hence you must accuse him and find him guilty by association?

Can't "progressive" and "enlightened" people in Britain deal with all peoples with equal respect?

Cybertiger
25 June 2007 at 12:54

Quelle surprise!!?

My 'slogan' about the bitter juices that liberally flow from those 'hollow' lemons that flourish in Israeli occupied Judea and Samaria - has now disappeared. Why did the censor take so long to act?

Molly Brown
25 June 2007 at 15:08

To Katz

That was not my work, but that of Remi Kanazi, a venerable American Palestinian Journalist from NY. You have failed to seriously challenge any of his arguments. I think you missed the point when you say that the substance of the post is denial of Israel’s right to exist. He is saying that an exclusively Jewish state is in itself a recipe for conflict. He speaks of facts/realities on the ground, those of human suffering, eviction, persecution, sell-outs and subjugation. You speak of 4000 year history and perceive it as a licence for Israel to practice its tyrannical apartheid. Don’t forget that Israel was created by gangs of terrorists that disembarked from boats packed with displaced European Jews in 1947; don’t delude yourself about romantic proclamations. One displacement always leads to another. You play the anti-Semite card to convince yourself and others that all who argue against the present diabolical situation must in some way be motivated by religious hatred. I don’t think anyone should question Israel’s right to exist; that’s absurd. But a great many people and nations should question Israel’s apartheid and its treatment of its native population, namely those of Arab and Muslim origin. Israel’s intransigence and its expansionist Biblical delusions must be addressed before any lasting peace can be negotiated.

IB
25 June 2007 at 16:06

Nadav Katz,

it seems to me that you did not read what I write, try again...

I am israeli, having unfortunately israeli ID and passport, my parents are coming from North Afrika and Palestine and the last thing one can say about me is that I am eurocentric: I do not support any supression of my ancestors in Israel, as it daily practiced.

I know that most israeli think unfortunately alike and it might be hard for you to imagine that I am israeli myself, but I was born in Israel to israeli jewish parents and even if I would want I could not change my identity.

as for Thomas Friedmann: his friends are the neo cons in the USA, and they are indeed antisemithists. In the moment they will be able to achieve theire goals in west Asia, they will let us israeli all fall to hell together with our neighbours. If you are willing to die for interests, you are wellcomed to do it in Irak for example. I do not see any reason why plestinians and other Israelis have to risk their life so that the Americans will drive with cheep oil.

I did not read Friedmanns article and do not read all of your posts, because they are too long. This is the www here and not the israeli TV.

And I appeal again to our british colleagues: boycott me!

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 17:30

No, Molly Brown, I have not missed any point. If you were part of Israeli society, which I am, be it Arab or Jew, you too would have been able to read the sub-text, to read between the lines.

Israel is a nation-state, not unlike Denmark, Greece or Portugal. And like all other nation-states, it too has a minority. The Arab minority of Israel lives as all other Israelis in a liberal and democratic state in which every person is equal before the law, and like in most other nation-states, Israel does have social and economic problems that are largely a result of different ethnic groups living in the same country. To therefore assume that it is an exclusive state is simply not the case and reflects more about the person who parrots it than about reality.

The essence of the text that you shared with us is essentially a call to do away with a single nation-state, but not with the whole concept and all other nation-states. Such a call is racist by its very nature, and if you don't see it this way, perhaps it is due to the fact that this disease has affected you very deeply as well .

Waldstock
25 June 2007 at 18:29

Nadav Katz

Goodness, but you do make some wild assumptions! I am not British, still less a British academic and even less an inhabitant of a chapel of a small town in that country (not culture, even less, a sub-culture - sub-culture of what, by the way?). Nor do I live in Britain.

Tradition is not necessarily truth or reality. It is always characterized by belief. The Bible is not history. It is a mythology built around folk memories, some of which will recall dim memories of real events (the 12 tribes of nomads terrorizing settlements like Jericho for example). Just like all the other primitive, pre-scientific, attempts to explain the existence of the world. It is a particularly vicious and vengeful mythology, and it is the curse of the West that it was the one to prevail and shape the mediaeval and early modern periods.

As for modern times [no typo this time -) ], my grandfather served during the British Mandate. During that time he encountered Irgun, (the "National Military Organization in the Land of Israel") which was a clandestine militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine from 1931 to 1948. One of its prominent members was Menachim Begin, first Likud Prime Minister of Israel - and still controversial.

Perhaps you would call them freedom fighters, but one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

So, remove your blinkers and look around you - reality is here and now. It was not defined by a dubious verbal tradition of 4000 years ago.

Waldstock

(non-British, non chapel-going and a member of a high culture!)

Molly Brown
25 June 2007 at 19:18

Nadav Katz

Nation-state? Dont you mean a Fascist State? I dont see Denmark, Greece or Portugal serving up the same spectrum of first, second and third class citizenship that is in evidence in your country. You confine the displaced Palestinians in a hell hole in the desert and test the latest military technology on them. Why dont you practice your so called liberal democracy and absorb them in your society. Even so, who made the Arabs a minority in Israel? You cannot have a selective preference of time zones where you want to replay Middle East history. Arabs were evicted and exiled from their land as you yourself said in an earlier post: “let Egypt and the Arab League accommodate them”.

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 20:27

Waldstock,

Do note what you wrote and to what I responded: "In more modern time, the State of Israel itself was only founded after a long terrorist campaign. it is therefore particularly revolting to hear Israeli politicians pontificating about "terrorism." And I asked you to back up your statement.

Telling me about the fact that you had a grandfather is not an illustration (mine, incidentally, was murdered by the Nazis before I even knew him!). And sharing with us that there was a minor underground Jewish organization that fought for the liberation of the country from the British is also not an illustration to a "long terrorist campaign" orchestrated by the State of Israel as you put it, before the State of Israel was even established.

How about, Sir/Madam, get off the sloganeering horse and start strolling as a pedestrian, but on a safe ground of knowledge and understanding of a region about you obviously know very little at this point?

Amihai
25 June 2007 at 20:40

Molly Brown,

I realize, it is the in thing these days in certain circles by which to demonize the Jewish state of Israel, calling it a "Fascist State". Have you, Sir/Madam, ever checked about the political philosophy of Fascism? What is, in other words, Fascism? Who is Israel's Head of State whom we worship? How many political parties do we have in our Knesset (Israel's Parliament)? How many of our Knesset Members are not Jewish, and how many of them oppose the very existence of a Jewish state? And as for Israel's relationships with its Arab minority: do note, the Arabs in Israel have all the same rights under the law as non-Arabs (mostly Jews), although not all the responsibilities. Perhaps it is time to discuss the subject at hand based on facts and analysis and not based on the throwing around of slogans that are removed from reality??

Jay
25 June 2007 at 22:31

Nadav Katz,

The territories are not 'disputed', they are occupied. Every country in the world, including the USA but excluding Israel, of course, recognises Israel's presence as an occupation. Israel seeks to deny this, although the International Court of Justice made this clear, because it seeks to avoid its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel signed. Among other things, this makes illegal the transfer of settlers into the occupied territories, and also the purported annexation of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Molly Brown
25 June 2007 at 22:53

Nadav is either a teenager discovering his inept debating skills, a low level Mossad agent profiling would be terrorists or just or an IDF private killing time (instead of Palestinians for a change). Mr Katz, what you or I say here is not going to make an iota of a differnce to a grim situation, so why bother? I am not going to change your mind (not that I want to) nor vice versa,, so let the idiots at the top on both sides finish their game and lets hope, for the sake of humanity, common sense prevails in the end..

Amihai
26 June 2007 at 06:22

Jay,

Of course the territories are occupied as stated in resolution 242, yet the future of the territories is in dispute, which is the reason for discussions and negotiations aimed at resolving the dispute.

As for the existence of civilian population in the territories, that is a defferent question all together. This question must be viewed within the proper context of time, place and circumstances. Even the PLO in its negotiations with Israel, both formal at Camp David and informal as part of the Geneva Accords, understands that the picture is not simply, black and white. Attempting to simplifying it, in my mind, is not useful in this case.

Jerusalem is a separate question all together, for the simple reason that it was to be, based on UN resolutions, an internationally governed territory, neither Palestinian Arab nor Jewish and certainly not Jordanian, the power that illegally controlled it between the years 1948 to 1967.

You see, matters are not as simple, hence they are in dispute.

Amihai
26 June 2007 at 06:36

Molly Brown,

I am an Israeli Jew, born in Jerusalem and raised here. I am not a teen ager, just a person who cares about his country and his people. An Israeli patriot if you will.

And as an Israeli patriot I recognize the right of all peoples to natinal self-dtermination, including of course the right of my people, the Jewish people, to its own nation-state within our ancstral historic homeland of Eretz Israel.

My hope is, and here I reflect the view and feelings that have been prevalent among my people for generations, is for an accomodation of peaceful coexistence with all our Arab neighbors, be they Palestinian Arabs, Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Saudis, North Africans, etc., all of them.

Yet, for the most part, despite our hopes, as reflected in Israel's Declaration of Independence, 14 May 1947, for which you can Google, our neighbors have not yet internalized that we, the Jewish people, are here by right, and our Jewish state is rightfully here to stay. The moment that happens, the moment our neighbors finally internalize that the Jewish people is at home and seeking to live here as a good neighbor, that will be the moment when peace will reign.

Until that moment, we shall continue to do all that we can to bring about an accomodation of peaceful coexistence, but we shall also continue to defend ourselves from those whose aim is still to extinct our very existence here, both individually and collectively.

Cybertiger
26 June 2007 at 10:14

Molly Brown said,

"so let the idiots at the top on both sides finish their game and lets hope, for the sake of humanity, common sense prevails in the end."

I think it was Abba Eban, another Israeli patriot, who said,

"Men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all the other alternatives."

PS. Of course, any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and I see the censor has been out and about again where there has been a slight made against the democratic State of Israel.

Amihai
26 June 2007 at 11:47

No, Cybertiger, not any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic as you claim. Part of our Jewish and Israeli culture is free thinking, expression and critical observation of the world around us, including our own, hence the very high level of introspection among our people.

Yet, when the critique is constantly negative and obsessive, focusing only on the Jewish state of Israel without any proportion to Israel's size, importance in world affairs and merits of the matters to be viewed critically, and it is done by outsiders who tend to ignore nearly all other negative human phenomena that affect us human beings in today's world, one begins to question why.

You see, our people has been around for long enough to have experienced what anti-Semitism looks like and smells like.....

I suggest you read Tom Friedman's article that I posted above to appreciate my point.

Patricia
26 June 2007 at 14:28

Nadav, well done but pointless. You've explained, clarified, and quoted historically accepted truths and not one of your detractors has been able to dispute you. All they can do is resort to personal insults and racist slogans to demonise Jews and Israel. These people cannot be reached because their heads are full of hatred to begin with. They can't be educated because they they've inculcated too many lies on the way and they do not possess the intellectual honesty to investigate events with an open mind.

As for the writer of Israel and Gaza and a summer of war? his sneering and incoherent article demonstrates a dreadful malaise whereby a concerted terrorist war that has been imposed on Israel since before its inception with the sole intention of annihilating its Jewish citizens can be summed up as. "A decade of concerted vilification of Muslims has created a sense of collective paranoia in Israel." How can anyone take this loon seriously?

Amihai
26 June 2007 at 15:32

Patricia,

I agree with every word of yours. I shall not change the minds of those whose minds are closed. I do hope, however, that I have been able to expose to other readers the kind of people whom we face and their "rationale".

Thank you for your kind words.

Nadav

Cybertiger
26 June 2007 at 17:35

Nadav

I did read all Thomas Friedman's piece and was deeply unimpressed. Friedman is a sophist: sophistry like that is impressive only to those with their eyes wide shut - or to those blinded by the hatred that inspires 'eye for an eye' vengeance.

I suggest you read Tanya Reinhart's book 'The Road Map to Nowhere/Israel Palestine since 2003'. Her opening paragraph has these words,

"In the present political atmosphere in the US and Europe, anybody who expresses criticism of Israel's policies is immediately silenced as an anti-Semite. Part of the reason why the pro-Israel lobbies have been so successful in their use of this accusation is the massive lack of knowledge about what is really happening in Israel-Palestine. Without the facts, the dominant narrative remains that Israel is struggling to defend its very existence. Attention focuses mainly on the horrible, despicable Palestinian terror; hence critics of Israel are often accused of justifying terror."

Tanya Reinhart provides the facts - the facts about the true state of Israel. Do read her book Mr Katz.

PS. I resent the unthinking censorship - so prevalent today - which seems to accompany any cogent criticism of Israeli games play - and which any old cheating games player indiscriminately deems 'anti-Semitic.'

Amihai
26 June 2007 at 18:33

Cybertiger,

I think I have a bit more information, knowledge and experience about Israel than your Tanya, and I don't think I have the need to be told by this Tanya person about the facts of life of a country in which I was born and in which I have lived for many decades.

But if you feel you need to supplement your lack of knowledge about a country that you have chosen to demonize, well, you are welcome to do so. Indeed, I can suggest to you a few other authors who set out to demonize the Jewish state. Would you like to fortify your "knowledge" by reading them as well?

Just don't loose sight of the reason for your obsessive critical view of a single tiny entity in this whole wide world........!!

DG
26 June 2007 at 18:34

What an odd selection of postings.

We have the usual dishonest postings that claim supporters of Israel are playing the "anti-semitism" card to censor any criticism of Israel, when that's clearly not what's going on here.

Then we have Molly Brown, who writes well, but whose sophomoric "analysis" is riddled with distortions and half-truths, not to mention wholesale slander. She won't even allow good intentions on the part of any Israeli (even "so-called peace activists" most of whom "aren't doing anything to stop it"). And after demonizing the entire population of Israel (actually assume Israeli Jews only) and announcing the death of the two-state solution, she states that it's absurd for anyone to question Israel's right to exist.

Not sure where that leaves us, Molly...although while you seems energeticlly opposed to an "exclusively Jewish" state (which of course Israel is not, despite the desires of some Israelis), I'd be interested to hear about your views on exclusively Muslim states (which of course many are).

Anyway, Molly's "reasoned" analysis rapidly degenerates into name-calling ("fascist") and personal insults. It only took a couple of postings.

And Greece, Denmark and Portugal certainly have second-class citizens. Ask the Roma, ask Cape Verdean immigrants, ask Danish Muslims. That doesn't excuse Israeli treatment of Palestinians, but Israel is certainly not a fascist state in any sense of the word. That's just utterly ridiculous and juvenile. Molly's microscope certainly seems quite focused.

DG
26 June 2007 at 18:39

Certainly not all (or even 99%) of criticism of Israel is anti-semitic. But that doesn't mean that some isn't:

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/Statesman.jpg

Molly Brown
27 June 2007 at 10:05

DG

You are right, my microscope is focussed, but I dont believe you meant to say that. Why do you insist that every person who criticises Israeli policy is an anti Semite or a terrorist? Why begin by dehumanising your opponent? Having read Friedman, I understand that this is one of his obtuse tactics. Even a former US president, Jimmy Carter, gets kicked with this knee jerk. We are in a democratic forum where we analyse rights and wrongs and offer ideas. Obviously, when someone with the compromised reasoning clout of Mr Katz starts to offer inconclusive tangents, I flippantly draw attention to his meanderings. Its not slander and I am not personally attacking him, I am stating the obvious. His patriotism is commendable, but his ideas are sadly inconsistent, in my view.

Why I called Israel a Fascist State? Fascism does not necessarily mean there has to be an autocrat at the helm or a one party system. It is an authoritarian set of rules imposed on a group of people. It could also mean indiscriminate imprisonment without trial, such as the thousands of young Palestinians in Israeli custody. It could mean the suppression of an occupied population by overwhelming and asymmetric military force. It could mean the curtailment of their cultural and economic development. Can you refute that any of this is taking place? I think not. Understandably, you need to deal with the terrorist problem, but beating the hysterical patient to death is not the answer. Enslaving the Palestinian population is becoming an unsustainable burden on Israel from every possible perspective, and could be its undoing. So it is in your own best interest to deal with the problem by building bridges, not Apartheid-like walls or continuously harp on the exhausted claim that your neighbours are out to destroy you. As you saw from the Lebanon war, shock and awe doesn’t solve the problem no matter how much shock and awe you throw at it. Armed struggle on both sides is wrong. There has to be a just and lasting peace built on, not claims dating 4000 years ago, but the here and now. We are in the 21st century not 2000 BC. The Palestinian demographic acceleration is a reality that is not going to go away any time soon. What are you going to do, nuke them all? Sterilise them? Maybe if you offered them your hand in peace, jobs and their settlement land back they would be too busy too breed so much. It’s a changing world. Apartheid is dead, Communism has fallen, the Berlin wall is no more, selfish dictators have gone out of fashion, the global economy is changing nations and democracy is coming to a theatre in every Arab capital; so why should the Israelis still be fiddling the same old tune? Take a look at the Truth and Reconciliation example of the Rev. Desmond Tutu in South Africa and how it led to constructive solutions of a once intractable problem.

I cannot argue with you about exclusively Muslim states, you are right, they exist. But why? Prior to the creation of Israel, Muslims and Jews peacefully coexisted side by side in the Arab world. The creation of the Jewish State at the expense of the Arabs changed the whole Muslim-Jew relationship. Also, if you study Islamic history, you will find that religious tolerance and social justice was at the core of the Islamic Empire.

As for your claim about social inequality, the Greeks, Danes and Portuguese didn’t displace the native population. The class system you refer to in these countries is the stereotype immigrant plight found all over the world and based on culture, language and economic background. In Israel’s case, those few Arabs that have not fled after 1948, found themselves marginalised as nth class citizens much like the Red Indians in America. That is the difference. You cannot tell me that minority native Arabs have equal opportunity in your country, because they don’t. Google it, as they say. I did not denounce the two nation state. I think its a good start for a long and painful road to all concerned.

Cybertiger
27 June 2007 at 10:15

To DG

There is an Arab proverb that goes,

"He utters a lie then believes it".

PS. John Pilger is one of the 1% - and obviously anti-Semitic. Do you think Alan Johnston is too?

Mike, Manchester
27 June 2007 at 21:40

Molly Brown - what planet do you live on. You neither talk sense or truth. "In Israel’s case, those few Arabs that have not fled after 1948, found themselves marginalised as nth class citizens" I visited Israel last year and saw for myself the standard of living in Israeli Arab towns and villages -I visited lots of them - all the neat houses with 2 cars etc. I had occasion to visit a hospital and was amazed to see half the patients were Arab. When you talk of those "few marginalised Arabs" - there are well over 1 million - nearly 20% of the population.

When Sharon suggested swapping Arab towns in Israel for settlements in the west bank - it was Israeli Arabs who protested - they at least know the truth. Israel a facist state - don't make me laugh.

Maybe you are too yong to remember Pinochet in Chile or Galtiere in Argentina - now there you had real facists.

DG
27 June 2007 at 22:17

The response really is remarkable. Shocking, even.

Molly Brown states: "Why do you insist that every person who criticises Israeli policy is an anti Semite or a terrorist?"

I'm sorry, but I'm utterly confused. Did I "insist" or even state that you were an anti-Semite or a terrorist. One of us appears to be utterly delusional, and it's not me.

I certainly didn't say it Molly, but if the shoe fits...

What I did say, however, regarded "dishonest postings that claim supporters of Israel are playing the "anti-semitism" card to censor any criticism of Israel, when that's clearly not what's going on here." And your postings clearly fall into that category.

What's so twisted about this whole issue is that Jews are forced into the position of denying or apologizing for accusations of anti-Semitism, even ones that haven't been made.

We have people accusing us, indivually as well as collectively, of "playing the anti-Semitism card" in the face of any criticism of Israel. And that accusation is made prior to any such thing happening. And here we have Molly Brown accusing me of playing that card, when I have not, and when I have specifically stated that I don't believe most criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.

And then here I am, forced to deny that I accused her of anti-Semitism. This whole thing is so twisted, so backwards, so pathological that it just reeks.

Can you imagine people who imagine themselves to be politically on the Left (and there are many) having the nerve to tell other minorities when racism is present and when it is not, and that when they feel they sometimes detect it they are wrong, and they are just engaged in a game of manipulation for their own advantage. I can imagine it, but in the past only from the Right, Norman Tebbit and rightwards from there, but certainly not from the self-defined Left. Times have certainly changed.

DG
27 June 2007 at 22:19

And I think it's certainly legitimate to ask Molly Brown why she seems fine with states that are exclusively Muslim and which enforce the most conservative interpretations of Muslim law (including restriction on women, lashings and sometimes the death penalty for homosexuals etc), but it's not OK with here for there to be a Jewish state, one that almost nobody seeks to make exclusively Jewish and which enforces very little Jewish law.

That's not an accusation of anti-Semitism Molly, it's a request for clarification and explanation of an apparent inconsistency.

Molly Brown
27 June 2007 at 22:20

Sorry, Mike from Manchester, I stand corrected. What about the rset of the crap?

Molly Brown
27 June 2007 at 22:50

DG

Lets not diverege. You have not proposed any new solutions to the "4000 year old question".

Molly Brown
27 June 2007 at 23:02

The fascism that I refer to has nothing to do with the Arab popultion of Israel. Please read and comprehend before you respond, not only my post but the actual article at the top of this page. The one that shows a Hellfire missile falling on women and children!! Lets have some accountability here. I am talking about the OCCUPIED Arab population. The ones who are imprisoned, deprived and killed wholesale.

DG
27 June 2007 at 23:42

Molly - I have no idea what the "4,000 year-old question" is. Something about God? Jews? Prostitutes?

DG
28 June 2007 at 00:05

Molly,

Israel has indeed killed many women and children. However, the photo at the top doesn't show a Hellfire missile falling on women and children ("!!").

Lying does nothing to help the Palestinian cause (or any other) and only lessens one's credibility further.

Here is the caption that accompanies the photo from AFP/Mahmud Hams.

Nusseirat Refugee Camp, -: Palestinians run as a rocket (C) falls from the sky during an Israeli air strike on the Hamas Executive Force building in Nusseirat refugee camp in the centre of the Gaza strip, 25 May 2007. Warplanes pounded the Gaza Strip for a ninth day today as Palestinians continued to fire rockets into Israel despite a call from Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas for a truce. AFP PHOTO/MAHMUD HAMS

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 00:09

I take it your are denying Hellfire missiles kill Palestinian women and children.

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 00:10

DG

Oh well, I guess my Fascist suppression question will never be answered. Little surprise.

As for the 4000 year (God, Jews, prostitutes?) old question is how are you going to reconcile Orthodox Jewish settlers with 21st century realities. They are not going to be too happy about leaving their little patches on the WB. Another question: I am interested in the Jewish view point on the Al Aqsa Mosque. You always insisted that a Jewish Temple should take its place. What are you waiting for? I am ignorant about these things, Are we going too deep here?

DG
28 June 2007 at 04:48

Molly Brown,

Anybody following these postings can clearly see the way you immediately twist and distort what others say to try to score cheap political points. Or how you pretend you asked questions they haven't answered. Or constantly change the subject to avoid answering the questions you've been asked. And then put words in others' mouths. Quite strange, also, is the way you bizarrely address me as if I speak for all Jews. What's up with that?

Let me repeat, your lies and distortions don't help the Palestinian cause.

On that note, I asked you a very specific and very pointed question that you have not answered regarding the acceptability of strict and oppressive exclusively Islamic states to you vs. the apparent unacceptability and inherent hatefulnesss of a much more loosely and non-exclusively Jewish state.

I'm still waiting for your answer.

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 09:50

DG

I am dodging questions and evading answers? If you don’t speak for all Jews, what makes you think I speak for all Palestinians (by saying my lies don’t help the Palestinian cause)? What lies am I propagating anyway? Scoring cheap political points? Hey, this is only a discussion board not the UN forum, there is no need to get heated up if you disagree with me or cant answer my questions?

Regarding your “pointed” question; if any Arab country ruled occupied land with an ethnically different population, and that population was militarily and economically enslaved, then that country too will come under scrutiny and censure just as Israel is. You can only abuse a population for so long before you start paying the price, and now after 40 years Israel is paying the price. Its a fact, and the sooner they realise this the better for them and the Palestinians surrounding them.

We are discussing the plight of the occupied population, why are you changing the subject to “oppressive” Islamic States? OK, name one Islamic state that is systematically oppressing, militarily suppressing or enslaving a population in the same way as in Gaza and the West Bank. Apart from the very complex situation in Darfur (not an entirely an Islamic or Arab problem), you’ll be hard pressed to come up with an answer. I am not saying that Arab countries have exemplary human rights records, far from it. Additionally, even if you come up with a vague example, as I am sure you will, it is the plight of the Palestinians that is now uppermost in the world’s conscience, so lets stop sweeping the issue under the carpet. Peace.

DG
28 June 2007 at 15:52

Molly Brown,

Yes you are dodging questions, evading answers and constantly twisting and distorting everything.

1. You are the one blatantly lying about what that photo shows. That doesn't mean I think Israel doesn't kill civilians (another of your twisted distortions) , and I never said so. In fact I said the opposite. Can you not read? Israel does kill civilians. With missiles. But that doesn't change the fact that YOU are a liar.

2. I don't think you speak for all Palestinians. Again, I never suggested or implied that you do. (Just another of your dishonest distortions). But you ARE a liar, and I don't believe YOUR lies help the Palestinian cause. There are enough pictures of Palestinian women and children who have been killed by the IDF to show what goes on, without you piling on lies for good measure.

3. You state: "I am interested in the Jewish view point (sic) on the Al Aqsa Mosque. You always insisted that a Jewish Temple should take its place." Have I? Where? What "you" are you referring to here? Oh, you mean ALL JEWS. On whose behalf you seem to be under the illusion I speak. Weird. Just plain weird.

4. I'm not changing the subject. You brought up the subject of being opposed to the very notion of Israel as a Jewish "exclusivist" state (which it is not, whatever its other many faults). And you demonized the entire population of Israel, not even allowing for any of them to be genuine peace activists. So I'm curious to see how you feel about other places where there's no question about the existence of a racist, fascist, exclusivist state, to see whether it's just the notion of a Jewish state that you dislike so intensely, or whether you really are opposed to those things. I don't see anything unfair about that question, which you still have not answered.

4. In a typical evasion you try to define yourself away from having to come up with an answer to the question. In your view, you now claim, countries must occupy land with an ethnically different population to come under your scrutiny and censure. That's a nice twist. How different do they have to be? Do Kurds count? I'm sure you'll define that one away. Otherwise clearly fascist, racist, exclusivist religious states with slaves don't require anyone to "chip away" (as you put it) at their "ideology. And Darfur. Or is that too "complex" an answer that doesn't fit into you definition of something worth censure or scrutiny.

5. Apparently there's only one country that fits your definition. How surprising.

I don't believe I have ever come across an individual who debates in such an utterly dishonest style. I really hope, for the sake of your students, that you are not a teacher.

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 17:36

DG

You are so mad its choking the oxygen supply to your brain (Yes I will get personal because you insist on calling me a liar and dishonest).

(1) Does it matter if I said that missile was falling on "women and children", when it clearly wasn’t? Hello? However, it does not detract from the fact that

very type of missile was fired many times on many Palestinian women and children. I am wondering why you are getting bogged down with semantics… it’s a

SYMBOL not a picture. I have seen better feedback from a 4 year old.

(2) I am not a liar and you, sir, are a neurotic and paranoid, guilt ridden moron because you, by your own admission, cannot rationalise the pictures of

injustice you see all around you.

(3) Again, I am not saying that you speak for Jews, but if you know nothing about the Al Aqsa subject just say “I don’t know”. How difficult is that? Maybe

someone else on this board can answer that question. I didn’t say it was a fact, I didn’t say it was fiction. I just heard it said. All I did was ask for clarification. Isnt that allowed?

(4) Your paranoia is getting the better of you. I did not demonise the entire population of Israel. I am sorry if you perceived it that way. It was not intended. There is good and bad in every human race. You are confusing me with Remi Kanaz who mentioned “chipping away” at Israeli fascism in the OCCUPIED LANDS. He presented a good argument for distrusting the Jewish Left. Dont rage and rant at him like a baby, answer him with reason and prove your point. Otherwise we will just have to assume he is right. By the way, do you approve of what is going on in Gaza and the WB? Uh oh, I am diverting again... against the rules!! Tut tut. You are right, Darfur is worth every censure and scrutiny, but its not the result of Arab and Muslim policy. Educate yourself on the subject please. Besides, how can you compare democratic, advanced Israeli society with backward feuding African tribes? It doesn’t make sense. Yes Saddam was dishing out atrocities on the Kurds and Shia, but for that he swung from a rope. That was another big change in Middle East history. Maybe its time now for another change; lets turn the spotlight on Israeli occupation. After all, that is what was promised by Bush and Blair before the Iraq invasion wasnt it?

(5) I don’t know of any other country treating so many people so badly on a daily basis, no. I am not lying, maybe you can enlighten me.

I wish there were enough Israelis with the courage of Rabin and enough Arabs with the foresight of Sadat to thwart the extremists on both sides. They both

paid with their lives. Until then, the future looks very grim.

I don’t debate dishonestly DG. I mention facts.You seem to have a problem with that. If you want to turn this into a personal slogging match, I am not

interested and you can talk to yourself.

DG
28 June 2007 at 19:13

Molly Brown,

Just more of the same from you.

1. If you believe that a lie can serve as a symbol for Palestinian liberation from Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, you are rather foolish. I think it's safe to assume Palestinians would rather use real facts to show the world what's being done to them.

2. That lie shows quite clearly that you do not only, as you claim, "mention facts." In fact you are now defending mixing lies with facts if they can act as symbols to make your point. Dishonest and foolish.

3. I'm "neurotic and paranoid, guilt ridden." Really? Please elaborate. What neuroses, paranoia or guilt have I indicated. Maybe I'm just like Woody Allen or Richard Lewis. Is that what you mean? Or is that just more evidence of my paranoia?

4. If you want to read about Jewish views on the Al-Aqsa mosque, go to Wikipedia. Again, however, you did address the question to me: "You always insisted that a Jewish Temple should take its place." Who do you mean by "you"????

5. It was you that wrote "chipping away." You never attributed that to Remi Kenaz. So it turns out that was plagiarism, from which you now are trying to distance yourself? And you did not associate that "chipping away" with the Occupied Territories only. You specifically stated that Remi Kanaz was challenging the notion of a Jewish state.

6. As I suspected, there's always some excuse for why Darfur is different. And your racist comments about "backward feuding African tribes" speaks for itself.

7. What about Syria and its Kurds? What about Saudi Arabia - is that sort of state OK with you, as long as it's only it's own people that are oppressed?

8. Since you seem to be too obtuse to have noticed from what I have written, I am not in favor of Israel's occupation. I am vehemently opposed to it. Probably more than you are. And whoever you are, whatever your motives, lies dishonesty, racism or whatever else, does not detract from the reprehensibilty of that occupation. In fact I agree with a lot of what you write about that occupation. Maybe even most of it. But you are not only opposed to that occupation, that much is clear. You are opposed to something else - and that is what I am trying to figure out, if only I could get a straight answer.

Cybertiger
28 June 2007 at 19:47

Mike, Manchester, 27 June 2007

"Molly Brown - what planet do you live on."

Mike wonders which planet Molly Brown is on - while it could obviously be presumed that he is, in reality, a little green alien from the Planet Zion - within the greater constellation of Manchester.

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 20:27

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms DG

How can you trip on a dumb detail? If you do ANOTHER search on this page (“Control -F” if you are on pc) and enter CHIP, not CHIPPING, you will find that it is first attributed to my posting of Kanazi’s essay, and no where else. It was not me who said it. OK? I dont do plagiarism. You are not for Israeli occupation? Good for you. Lets leave it at that shall we? If you are trying to pin an anti Semite label on me you are going to have to stay on this bord forever. As for your other stuff, I suggest you take time off to reconcile your demons. I am not in the business of psychoanalysis or childish banter.

Cybertiger, go back in your box.

DG
28 June 2007 at 22:19

Nice one Molly. You still can't bring yourself to provide a straight answer. And you've run out of escape routes, exposed yourself at the very least as a liar and a racist, if not an anti-Semite (the jury's out on that, although from your racist comment about Africans it'd hardly be surprising), and now you're going to dismiss everything as "childish banter."

And the most laughable thing about it is that I bet you think you're a Leftist, when in truth you're closer to the other end of the political spectrum.

Cybertiger
28 June 2007 at 22:31

"Cybertiger, go back in your box."

Which box is that, Molly Brown? Don't you mean which planet?

Molly Brown
28 June 2007 at 23:20

DG

In da woids of dat famous wabbit: Duhhh- whats up Doc? You are enough to turn anyone into an anti-Semite.

Outis
29 June 2007 at 01:47

"the universally accepted right of peoples to national self-determination and the establishment of their nation states."

Universally? Absolutely not. In fact, as Popper noted long ago, the nation-state ideal - the idea that states should belong primarily to ethnically defined nations, that is - was one of the 20th century's worst mistakes. Yugoslavia, and the Balkans in general, are excellent examples of why ethnic nationalism is a profoundly bad idea in multiethnic areas; one of America's greatest accomplishments is managing to define its identity in terms of ideas, not ethnicity. But Zionism adds a unique twist to this already very dangerous notion, in that the national homeland it picked did not have a Jewish majority, or even a Jewish plurality, when they picked it - and the people who picked it were all born, as their fathers had been for many generations, on a different continent.

You don't have to believe in ethnic nationalism to believe that countries should be governed by the will of their inhabitants, and hence that natives should have the power to prevent immigration if they so choose. If the Palestinians had not been forcibly denied that power in the interwar period, there would be no Israel, and if the Palestinians were not still being denied that power, there would be no settlements. Israel giving all Palestinians citizenship would be, if anything, an even better solution to the conflict than a binational one; but if it did that, of course, then there would be no Israel, in the Zionist sense of a Jewish ethnic state.

Amihai
29 June 2007 at 13:38

Outis,

It is legitimate to theoretically disagree with the value of the nation-state and I respect such a disagreement.

Yet, the Palestinian Arabs ask for precisely such a state and I don't see you going out of your way to oppose it, or do you?

Nor do I see you going out of your way to oppose the establishment in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century - during the past decade and a half - of several nation-states in Europe based on the demands of those peoples, e.g. Slovakia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Montenegro. And presently even the small territory of Kosovo demands the status of a nation-state, and the peoples of Chechnya in the east and the Basques in the west of Europe are willing to kill and be killed for the same concept.

Yet, you choose to be obsessively critical of a single people that set out to establish its own nation-state towards the end of the 19th century, before Popper even knew what a nation-state was!

Eretz Israel (Land of Israel), or what you call Palestine, was at the time under Ottoman rule and later came under British rule. These, for better or for worse, were the sovereign powers of the Land, and it was with the sovereign powers that the Zionist movement dealt, as is and has been the norm in international relationships. The Zionist movement, armed only with ideals and without a mother-country to back it up, set out to establish a home for the Jewish people within its historically ancestral homeland that was a neglected and desolated part of the world in general and of the region of South West Asia in particular; a place with no natural resources and with little prospect of any economic gain what-so-ever.

To now, in the 21st century, after a very dynamic period of history through which our country (I am an Israeli Jew) and people have gone, single out the Jewish state of Israel and demand that it should be the first one of the hundreds of nation-states worldwide, including Europe of course, to shed off the concept of a nation-state is absurd, and it smells of much worse than just absurdity……!

Amihai
29 June 2007 at 14:00

Having been asked, verbally, what I meant to say in my post above using five dots, the answer is RACISM.

When a person singles out a specific people, a specific race, in the way Outis has, this is in my mind a manifestation of racism, pure and simple.

DG
29 June 2007 at 17:07

Molly Brown - well there we have it. Say no more.

Cybertiger
29 June 2007 at 18:19

DG

Are you playing the race card again? You think you're an ace poker player. I think you cheat.

DG
29 June 2007 at 19:40

Cybertiger - your posts are almost entirely incomprehensible. If you have something to say, state it clearly, please.

However, Molly Brown made some blatantly racist comments about Africans, which speak for themselves.

As for anti-Semitism, I never accused her of that. I wanted to know why she demonized the entire (Jewish) population of Israel, refusing to allow even that Israeli peace activists might be sincere in their desires for peace. This was followed by a bunch of stupid and unecessary lies about other stuff.

But I did ask some clarifying questions about why she only seems opposed to a Jewish state, and not other, much more exclusivist and racist states. She replied with some odd unrelated stuff about guilt and neurosis that were totally out of left field, and reminiscent of certain silly popular sterotypes about Jews, albeit ones that I don't find especially offensive (although she certainly meant them in an offensive way).

And now apparently the discomfort of debating with me is "enough to turn anybody into an anti-Semite." If all it takes is (losing) a debate, it clearly didn't take much.

As for you, do you tell other minorities they are cheating when they smell racism and try to get to the bottom of it? I'd like to know the answer. Certainly the Far Right accuses minorities of "playing the race card." Are you on the Far Right?

Cybertiger
30 June 2007 at 09:19

DG

Unhook those circled wagons and break free ... I fear for the mental health of those cornered by unhelpful defensive strategies. I see confusion, delusion, racism, aggression, denial, guilt, victimisation, dishonesty, ptsd, neurosis and psychosis in florid profusion. The laager mentality is desperately unhealthy - a challenge to psychiatric services of enormous potential.

PS. I hate injustice and cheating. I hate persistent lawbreakers and honestly think that serial offenders should be locked up for their own safety.

PPS. I don't believe in G-d.

Stuart
03 July 2007 at 13:46

I thought this article was about the unsypathetic portrayal of the plight ordinary Gazans in the mainstream Israeli media and the subsequent ignorance of the "chattering" classes in Israeli that their leaders behave so undemocratically and that this isn't helping to calm the situation, improve the climate for reasoned debate or, most importantly, cease a general slide into further pointless but politically or career motivated conflict which can only worsen the situation for the long term.

I'm frankly astounded at the poor and desperate tit-for-tat debate respondents above have resorted to in reflection of this article.

I would suggest Nadav Katz finds a more suitable outlet for his views than to hijack a media comment page to then attack all comers who disagree with his rather narrow and partisan point of view.

I don't require any responses thank you.

Amihai
03 July 2007 at 19:42

Stuart,

I fully respect your right to disagree with my view of that which has been taking place in my - not your - back yard.

Being unwilling to read about the various perspectives about these events, and there are many, is perhaps indicative of the person who does not wish to consider different such perspectives rather than the subject matter and the discussion that it generates.

I am sorry I can't engage you in a discussion.