Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Israel's war queers the pitch for peace


This article of mine appears in The Australian.


FOR Imperial Japan it was Pearl Harbor. For the Soviet Union it was the invasion of Afghanistan. For the "1000-Year Reich" it was Operation Barbarossa.

History is littered with examples of countries and regimes that have destroyed themselves by launching ill-thought-out and over-ambitious attacks on others.

Could Israel, by its invasion of Gaza, have joined their number?

Let me declare my position from the start: I oppose the Israeli military invasion of Gaza because I believe it to be illegal and immoral. But I also believe that from Israel's point of view, Operation Cast Lead is a colossal strategic error.

There's no doubt that Israel's bombardment has inflicted damage on Hamas's military capability. But liquidating Hamas as a political and military force, as Israel's leaders hoped the operation would achieve, is another thing altogether.

Hamas now has the legitimacy of a resistance movement fighting against a foreign occupier and its popularity among Palestinians - and Muslims - across the world is likely to rise accordingly.

That's bad news for Fatah, Israel's preferred Palestinian faction, whose leaders have been denounced by Hamas and its supporters as cowards and Western collaborators.

It's not only the knock-on effects on internal Palestinian politics that should concern Israel. In the past couple of weeks there has been a significant shift in global public opinion towards the Jewish state. Despite the best efforts of its well-oiled public relations campaign and its supporters in the media, Israel's international image has taken a battering.

For many, the abiding image of the past fortnight will be the picture of a Palestinian mother weeping over the death of her five daughters, graphically displayed on the cover of The Washington Post. Israel has bombed UN schools and killed paramedics, and it stands accused of shelling a house full of refugees. We are used to Israel being condemned by radical Islamic clerics: now the condemnation comes from the UN, the Red Cross and the Vatican.

The shift in my views on Israel is, I believe, typical of many. In 1998, I attended Israel's official 50th birthday celebrations.

Last Saturday, along with at least 100,000 others, I took part in a huge anti-Israel demonstration in London. The London march was only one of many similar demonstrations across the world.

In Germany, where for obvious and understandable historical reasons criticism of Israel has been inhibited, protesters have marched with banners comparing Israel's actions with those of the Nazis in World War II. The point here is not whether such an analogy is accurate but that the comparison is now being made.

The global outrage that Israel's actions in Gaza have provoked has also given a powerful boost to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign aimed at subjecting Israel to an international boycott similar to the one that ended apartheid in South Africa.

The European Union, the world's biggest importer of Israeli goods, is under increasing pressure to suspend its recently upgraded trade agreement with Israel, while calls for a ban on arms sales to Israel have also intensified.

This wave of anti-Israel feeling is a far cry from the situation 40 years ago. In the 1960s and '70s, Israel basked in the warm glow of global public approval. Moshe Dayan, the hero of the Six-Day War, enjoyed a level of popularity that rivalled that of the day's biggest film stars, while prime minister Golda Meir was among the most respected political figures in the world.

When Israeli athletes were massacred at the Olympic village in Munich in 1972, there was widespread grief and anger.

This goodwill towards Israel, though tarnished by Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, endured until the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, an event that ushered in a more aggressive era in Israeli foreign policy. In the space of 40 years, Israel has gone from hero to villain: in 1967, 73 per cent of Europeans said they supported Israel; by 2007, 67 per cent were siding with the Palestinians.

And perhaps most worrying of all for Zionists is the fall in support for Israel in the US, where only 31 per cent of Democrats say they support the invasion of Gaza.
Zionists claim that growing public opposition to Israel signals a revival of anti-Semitism. But in fact the reason is simple.

In the wars of 1967 and 1973, Israel was seen as a country defending itself against hostile neighbours. In recent years it has been seen not as the victim but as the aggressor: both in Lebanon in 2006 and in Gaza now.

Some of the more intelligent Zionists realise that the Gaza invasion is a huge own goal.

British writer and commentator Peter Hitchens, a self-described consistent hardline supporter of the Jewish state, argues the invasion of Gaza will make it much harder to persuade Arab states and their people that Israel has a right to exist.

There can be little doubt that Gaza has given the anti-Zionist movement greater momentum.

It wasn't a Hamas spokesman but a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, who declared at Saturday's march in London: "Zionism is bullshit!" When Murray told the crowd he did not accept Israel's right to exist, he received one of the loudest cheers of the day.

Israel's operations in Gaza make a two-state solution to the Middle East problem less likely, as a growing number of people begin to question the legitimacy of the Jewish state.

Operation Cast Lead also undermines Arab regimes that have friendly relations with Tel Aviv. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak's 28-year hold on power is looking increasingly vulnerable, with anti-government demonstrations taking place almost every day.

Thirty years after the Islamic revolution in Iran, the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt would be a disaster for Israel, but it is an outcome that becomes more likely each day the Gaza offensive continues.

Israel's leaders say that they had no alternative but to launch the attack on Gaza in the light of Hamas rocket attacks.

But it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the decision to invade owed less to concerns over Israel's long-term security than to an attempt to secure the ruling Kadima-Labour Party coalition's return to power in the forthcoming general election.

"I have some good news," declared Azzam Tamimi, a Palestinian academic and prominent Hamas supporter, at Saturday's London rally. "Israel has dug its grave."

Some will dismiss such talk as wishful thinking. But there are plenty of reasons for believing that he could be right.

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, we can at least have one ray of hope in all this grisly murder and mayhem: give these Zionists a long enough rope, and they'll be sure to hang themselves with it politically.

Always have. Always will.

Anonymous said...

#these Zionists a long enough rope, and they'll be sure to hang themselves with it politically.#

Having read, A Pretext For War, by James Bamsford, it's not only Israel, zionists will take down with them. Tam Dyall got a kicking when he warned Blair about being surrounding by a cabal. No other country on earth, no other people on earth are supposed to defend themselves or thier interests for fear of being called antisemitic. It isn't jewish people who've died wholsesale since Iraq. We need to get our troops out A.S.A.P. Israel wants to attack Iran, it's anyones guess who fired from Lebanon, one thing we do know, it wasn't hizbulla.

Rgds. Steve.

manne said...

"British writer and commentator Peter Hitchens, a self-described consistent hardline supporter of the Jewish state, argues the invasion of Gaza will make it much harder to persuade Arab states and their people that Israel has a right to exist."

The point Hirchens not has taken is that israel doesn´t have the right to exist AS SUCH, as an racial tribal-etnocratic entity for jews only.

That is a shame as it was in South africa and is in deed a shame now as this nuclear armed to-the-teeth-pariah is trying to fulfill it´s founders goal, a land between the Euphrathes and the Nile.

It´s time to end this evil in our time to a democratic state for every citicen in it, whatever their race or etnicity.

Anonymous said...

this is an excerpt from alex stein on harrys place. January 13th 2009.

"5. The Israeli ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza is absurd. But so is the idea that this somehow benefits Israel. At the moment, the only reporting is being done by members of the Arab press, who hardly have an interest in providing a fair and balanced picture. As much as it’s easier to fight a war without a bunch of journos running around, it doesn’t reflect well on the country. Let them in."

stein doesn't describe these members of the arab press as egyptian, palestinian, jordanian - just members of the arab press who can't be trusted to report without personal agenda. can you imagine what would happen if anyone inferred jews (from wherever and deprived of nationality) "hardly have an interest in providing a fair and balanced picture? much less jewish produced or jewish owned/run press, who obviously are above such things.

so far as i'v been concerned, different media (brit, european) are using palestinian reporters from gaza since israel wont allow their staff in. if anything, far from the reporting from gaza being boilerplate, its been concise with those reporting from gaza having done a grand job deserving of professional credit and gratitude.

Anonymous said...

Pathetic really, given Israel isn't even a European country and that Israel had to agree to "time out" - perish the thought Israel is denied political and cultural ties to Europe and access to Europeans markets.

EU says Israel agrees "time-out" on upgrading ties http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LE236027.htm

Bolivia displays more integrity than the craven EU - Bolivia breaks Israel ties, claims Gaza 'genocide'
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLTSznbGc16HfDctEwf8sc1iEZTQD95N1040B

Matt.

Anonymous said...

Something called "Hope Not hate" is running a campaign against the BNP on Harry's Place, nothing wrong with that? follow their link it takes you to searchlight. Trouble is, Searchlight is a zionist group, that means they're opposed to anyone elses nationalism while protecting their own, agressively.
You'd think "Zionist anti racists" would spend thier time worrying over Shas, a racist party that has political clout in Israel. Or those racist gun totting settlers who shoot Palestinian kids, beat up elderly Palestinian Shepard's while nicking their homes, land and water.
This is Searchlight
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Searchlight

Searchlight is a project of the Capital Research Center (CRC), a conservative Washington D.C. think tank.

Don't neocons make you want to puke.

Anonymous said...

Doing the right thing: latin america continues to prove its new moral superiority to Europe and US.


Bolivia breaks Israel ties, claims Gaza 'genocide'
5 hours ago

LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) — President Evo Morales announced Wednesday he was breaking relations with Israel over its invasion of the Gaza Strip and said he will ask the International Criminal Court to bring genocide charges against top Israeli officials.
Morales' ally Hugo Chavez of Venezuela broke ties with Israel last week.
Morales told the country's diplomatic corps that the Israeli attack "seriously threatened world peace" and he called for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Cabinet to face criminal charges.
Morales chided the United Nations' "Insecurity Council" for its "lukewarm" response to the crisis and said the U.N. General Assembly should condemn the invasion.
He also said Israeli President Shimon Peres should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize for failing to stop the invasion.
Israel launched the onslaught in Gaza on Dec. 27, seeking to force the ruling Hamas militant group to stop rocket attacks on southern Israel. The offensive has killed more than 940 Palestinians, about half of them civilians, according to Palestinian officials.
Morales and Chavez have worked to cultivate ties to Iran, which supports Hamas. Morales met Tuesday with visiting Iranian officials, who gave him a letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thanking Morales for his previously voicing supporting for the Palestinians.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLTSznbGc16HfDctEwf8sc1iEZTQD95N1040B

Gibepregiba said...

The mountain shook, (but only) a mouse was born.

Sadly, but I think, this is the case with Israel. They will successful finish their genocide.

Whole world is against it, and what? One guy was kicked from Venezuela.

Ordinary people will hate Israel for some time, but at the end, they will forget murdered innocent Palestinian kids.

I am sure that BBC, CNN... will give them, soon, some fresh topics to discuss them at dinner time.

When you add to that in future, one Hollywood blockbuster on that subject... Case closed.

jock mctrousers said...

" can you imagine what would happen if anyone inferred jews (from wherever and deprived of nationality) "hardly have an interest in providing a fair and balanced picture? much less jewish produced or jewish owned/run press, who obviously are above such things."

Well, we don't have to imagine - look at the reaction of the 'left' to Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir, Mear and Waltheimer, James Petras, even Norman Finkelstein (to an extent). Why is it beyond the pale to notice that jews form about 30% of America's millionaires, about 50% of it's billionaires (see Yuri Slezkine's 'the Jewish Century' for a kosher source), that these billionaires etc are on record as funding many right-wing think tanks, which are all pro-zionist, that they fund generously the major jewish organisations, which are ALL pro-zionist - and to wonder if there's a connection between this and the number of pro-zionists (or even Israeli agents) in high-ranking government positions, and also to wonder if this might have something to do with the enormous pro-Israel bias in the Western Media. The usual answer is that there are more Christian evangelical supporters of Israel than jews. I shouldn't need to spell it out, but are we really supposed to believe that Israel is a Christian evangelical project? Could it not just be that zionists have bribed the snake-oil vendor charismatic leaders, and their flocks would follow them anywhere, including to gas the jews, if they should change their mind.
And, of course, it's definitely beyond the pale to ask how the 30% and 50% got in this position, in the first place?

Anonymous said...

I have one question for you. What would you do if someone was firing rockets everyday into Qxford or wherever you live? Such that your kids could not play outside? what would you do about it?

jock mctrousers said...

Still too many anonymoustachios on this thread. Anyway, in response to one of them who posted.

" http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Searchlight

Searchlight is a project of the Capital Research Center (CRC), a conservative Washington D.C. think tank. "

Wrong 'Searchlight', mate (doll?). Elementary mistake. No-one likes a smart-ass, but there you go.

And where did you get the info that either of these Searchlights were zionist organisations? But, now you come to mention it, I think you're onto something re the British Searchlight organisation; I've long had the impression that it attracted a lot of zionist jews, hence its extreme over-emphasis on anti-semitism, and hysteria about nazism. It seems to be well established that UK Searchlight has strong links with the security services, including MI5 - see the work of Robin Ramsay of 'Lobster' Magazine. You can access back issues online (for a price) or buy the cd-rom. Larry O'Hara (conspiratologist) of 'Notes from the Borderland' magazine (and website) has also written on this.

And I think you're onto something with this:
"...opposed to anyone else's nationalism while protecting their own.."
The writer, Kevin MacDonald (Culture of Critique), has a lot of interesting things to say on that, although I must note, I have big reservations about him.

neil craig said...

If the media really is stuffed with Israel's friends why is it possible for you to be hired to write an anti-Israeli article while it is virtually impossible to get the British media to report, even as a news item, that the British government has been involved not merely in killing more civilians by criminal civilian bombing of Yugoslavia but has even been involved in kidnapping & cutting open more Serbs, while alive, to steal their body organs than the total number of people killed in Gaza. Clearly somebody in the media is lying & censoring in the Nazi cause & it is not Jews.

Also you have no suggestion of what else Israel should have done to stop Hamas rocketing civilians. The logic of your position, if the war is actually going to strengthen Hamas in the public relations area is that Israel must therefore ensure that it is destroyed on the ground. It is arguable that thet the "lets you & them fight" attitude of the anto-Israel movement towards the Jews & Palestinians has not been to the benefit, or even intended to be to the benefit of even the Palestinains since it encourages organisations like Hamas to be intransigent & thus get western aid, which has made so many of them personally wealthy.

seth said...

Excellent article Neil. I believe it's the first article of yours on Palestine.

Neal said...

Mr. Clark repeats the theory that, in fact, the Gaza war was not about rockets being shot into Israel - as if that were not, in the real world, justified by the jus ad bellum doctrine - but, instead, about an Israeli election.

How it could possibly be that a coalition government would start a war when its constituent party players could not possibly predict the internal political outcome of their joint action is beyond me. Was the war to help Kadima? or, maybe, to help Labor?

To delve into this theory is to see it as the nonsense - in fact, bigoted nonsense - that it is.

Anyone with eyes would know that, given the failure of the cease fire to prevent rockets from flying into Israel, Israel was going to act. Anyone with eyes knew that a war was coming. This was written about in the US, long before the war began - written by the supposedly ill-informed Americans.

It might be added that Hamas was told by Fatah and by Egypt, among others, that its policy was suicidal but Hamas chose to ignore it - believing, perhaps, that if the Israelis attacked, stupid Europeans would only see dead bodies and not care that Hamas had forced Israel to make war. The question is whether the world, in its inability to think - which is remarkable -, will keep Hamas' strategy afloat. What then, my friends? Will Hamas learn its lesson or will it continue the same policy? And, if it does, at what point are the Israelis really going to say, "We've had enough of the Palestinian Arabs" and do the sorts of things that Israel's enemies falsely claim Israel does?

In any event, average Israelis disagree with Mr. Clark. They believe that their war is a just war and that the media has, as it has over and over again, accepted propaganda that it wants to believe - just as it did with respect to Jenin and the "massacre" that never occurred (other than in British and European newspapers). In the US, by contrast, the Arab Israeli dispute is seen as a war in a distant region of the world that is not likely to solved, at least not soon. And, the reason, two groups with a dispute that is not subject to being mediated. Not all of the fault is on one side. But, to most Americans, hearing assertions by Europeans of alleged Israeli crimes while Hamas does its best to shoot rockets at Israeli civilians is defined by a word: BIGOTRY.

In the real world, those who shoot rockets can expect a violent response, one directed to destroying the capacity and/or will to shoot those rockets. Ask the British what they did in response to German rockets. It was a whole lot worse than what the Israelis have done - on several orders of magnitude worse. Yet, no one calls the legitimacy of any European country - NOT EVEN GERMANY - into question. So, I judge those who call Israel's legitimacy into question - even if Israel is in the wrong - while not calling any European countries into question by the term that fits: BIGOTRY. Bigotry directed at Jews, not Israel's behavior, is what separates Europeans from Americans.

Paul D said...

Jock McTrousers - Well is that where you keep your brain then? Or have you been reading 'Mein Kampf'. This is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion gone mad !!

And as a matter of information the Jewish anti Israel people you mention are extremist in their views (like Galloway, Respect and the SWP)and not anyway close to even more mainsteam Jewish opposition to a lot of what Israel does (e.g Jews for Justice for Palestine).

Oh deary me!

Anonymous said...

Paul D said...

Jock McTrousers - Well is that where you keep your brain then? Or have you been reading 'Mein Kampf'. This is the Protocols of the Elders of Zion gone mad !!"


What has he said which is given to blatant untruths? Are you saying Jews are not over represented in say, media? Politics? Law? commerce?


I remember crap like yours used to subvert the subject of the Jewish ness of most Russian thieving oligarchs. The fact so many of them are Jewish resembles the protocols, Paul D, did you write to them and demand they stop perpetuating classic antisemitic tropes/ Protocol type antisemitic conspiracy theories ? How did you get on, pal.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;
The Zionist entity hve done nothing in the past to prove its existance as a peace loving country, all we see is a gang of thugs and murderers of women and children practicing what they do best.

I have to remind you, that Zionist entity membership in the UN was conditional, and tied to it's acceptance of the UN resolutions.

After 60 years of occupying palestinian land, you have failed to fulfill the condition upon which you have been accepted as a member of the UN.

Hence, there isn't a thing called Israel, it's an illegitimate collection of gangsters and killers of women and children. and one day the world will have the carriage to kick you out of the UN.

Neal said...

Dan,

And what, sir, does it take for a country to prove its bona fides to you?

Israel has the same right to exist as any other country. It is a member of the UN. The "conditions" to which you speak have no legal significance. I should add that the Arab states all voted against the UN resolutions because they, at the time, thought they could beat Israel in a re-match on the battle field.

The peace loving Israelis, I should also remind you, ceded a very large plot of land to Egypt. For what? A peace treaty. That was a big deal. It represented land much, much larger in size than Israel. Moreover, it was a leap of faith by the Israelis, where the Israelis gave something quite tangible - land - for something entirely intangible - a mere promise of peace.

Ceding land to Egypt was something the Israelis did not have to do. In fact, the Israelis might have been better off - so far as state security is concerned - had they not ceded land.

In any event, so far, the Arab side and, most particularly, Hamas, has not resigned itself to making peace, preferring religious ideology, such as your "Zionist entity" garbage talk, to the need to accept Israel and end the dispute.

The bottom line in the current dispute is that the rocket fire into Israel was an act of folly by Hamas. Anyone other than a complete moron - i.e. anyone who knows better than to suggest that shooting rockets at the Israelis is basically only an annoyance - knew what was coming in reply.

I might say, since even Hamas pays attention to opinion in Europe, that had Europeans condemned Hamas' rocket fire into Israel as loudly as they now condemn Israel for taking care of the problem, a thousand lives might have been saved. But Europeans, in their bigoted stupor that makes Israel into the devil, were blind to the problem. They are, in fact, a major part of the problem - a major reason the dispute does not settle.

Anonymous said...

neil craig says ...
"even as a news item, that the British government has been involved not merely in killing more civilians by criminal civilian bombing of Yugoslavia but has even been involved in kidnapping & cutting open more Serbs, while alive, to steal their body organs than the total number of people killed in Gaza. Clearly somebody in the media is lying & censoring in the Nazi cause & it is not Jews."

Where's your evidence that British Government were involved in kidnapping and butchery of Serbs? It's acknowledged Western press covered it up. Who planned the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, who and how was the war sold, Mr Craig?
Some Jews are genuine critics of Israel in media, some are vanguards against losing control of the argument. But under no circumstances will those who 'criticise Israel' allow discussion about the murder of Christians or for that matter, Moslems, in the Balkans any more than the fact that Jews were predominant in the Cheka when its victims were predominantly Christian. Facts are, during the Russian revolutions there wasn't a group not victimised, however, Jews are given special suffering status despite their group predominating in several spheres, political and financing, read up on American Jacob Schiff , "Kuhn, Loeb & Co." Again, facts that are only ever discussed by 'antisemites' whether subject is Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq.
What you rant about being anti Jewish, is frustration that victims, whoever, whatever they were, are not clearly acknowledged while perpetrators dependent on who and what they were, get off scott free.

jock mctrousers said...

Paul D. - that " Oh deary me " suggest someone who is confident that his views have the backing of the powerful, reminiscent of the look of fleeting distaste ( as if they had smelt a fart) that crosses the face of BBC tv presenters should someone mention the word 'occupation' in relation to Israel. Nice try.

" ...jewish anti Israel people you mention are extremist in their views (like Galloway, Respect and the SWP)and not anyway close to even more mainsteam Jewish opposition to a lot of what Israel does (e.g Jews for Justice for Palestine). "

These 'extremist groups' you mention are a core part of the Stop the War Coalition; do you consider Jews for Justice for Palestine to be the only acceptable opposition to Israel? That only jews have a right to comment?
Anyway, Galloway, Respect and the SWP are part of the left I referred to above (who regard the writers I mentioned beyond the pale), who in my opinion bend over backwards to pretend that zionism is nothing to do with jews.
Personally, I disagree with, for instance Gilad Atzmon, who considers groups like Jews for Justice to be racially exclusivist and an example of the mindset that led to zionism; I think it is a worthwhile project to try and show that the zionists don't speak for all jews, but these groups have had sixty years and only managed to come up with a few thousand prepared to lay it on the line, compared to the millions who actively support the zionist organisations. And I DO have doubts about the sincerity of at least some of the people in the 'mainstream jewish opposition'. I have heard Jews for Justice speak at many rallies, and I find that they always give more emphasis to stopping suicide bombing ( for plausible reasons, admittedly), and fighting anti-semitism, than they do to calling for the end of the jewish racist state. If you support its continued existence, you're a racist, and you're beyond the pale.
The point of contention between the leftists you mentioned, and the writers I mentioned, is about where lies the wellspring of US support for the zionist project. Getting this right is, I feel, the first step to sorting the problem out. Anyone who considers the question of jewish support for Israel to be beyond the bounds of civilised discourse is, I feel, at best half-hearted in their opposition to zionism.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;

The so-called Israel is not a legitimate country, the Jewish people have the right to exist and live in dignity and security in their own countries, US, UK, Russia… etc.. but not on land occupied by force and ethnically cleansed of it’s people.

Before Zionists resort to terrorism in palestine, the world has promised the Jewish people a homeland, Not a country, read the Belfour declaration which is not legal anyway, all you can claim according to it is a place to stay, no more.

In legal terms, on admitting Israel to the UN, the G.Assembly said the following:
-----------------------
Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations
Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
-------------------
The Zionist entity didn’t respect the conditions above upon which your membership was accepted to the UN, it didnt honor it’s resolutions? Are you really a peace loving state as you claimed and the General assembly expected you to be with one 1100 civilian/women and children you have just murdered in Gaza? Not while dreaming can you answer yes.

Regarding Egypiton land.
You have occupied, Egyptian land from 1967 to 1978, it was illegal, and you pay no rent, then you said you return it just like that, how nice of you.
Did you pay rent? Did you compensate the families of Egyptian prisoners of war you killed? does Egypt has full severity on it’s land? can the Egyptian army do exercise in Sinai for example? The answer is no for all the bove.
The Zionist entity has even broke it’s peace treaty with Egypt with all these bombings on Rafah; You suppose to keep 3 miles of demilitarized zone on the borders… but looking at the news yesterday, Homes in Egypt had been cracked and people forced to flee due to shrapnel falling on them, this is inside Egypt.

Regarding Hamas, they are resistance movement, have the legitimate right to resist occupation. when they occupy other's land I will condemn them.

The world can ask Hamas not to target civilians... Nothing more, and before making demands they need to recognise Hamas, and this is coming..

neil craig said...

ASnon 10.22 demands "Where's your evidence that British Government were involved in kidnapping and butchery of Serbs?"

It is a matter of record that Britain was part of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia & occupation of Kosovo. It is a matter of record that the government knew they were going to war to help the ones engaged in genocide because the foreign secretary told Parliament that about the KLA 2 months before starting bombing. It is a matter not so much of record as of common knowledge that NATO organised & armed the KLA recruiting them from gamgsters, drug lords & sex slavers & as has now been found, of people already dissecting local Albanians, including babies to sell as parts. It is a matter of record that, in complete breach of their occupation agreement, NATO enrolled the KLA as their "police" & allowed them free reign. It is a matter of record that the British military HQ was in Dragidan at the time of the Dragodan massacre of 210 unramed civilians by these "police" & must thus have been done with their approval. It is a matter of record, because the prosecutor said so, that the NATO funded "court" along with western journalists & intelligence, were perfectly well aware all along that these "police" were being allowed to kidnap thousands of Serbs & dissect them while still alive for western hospitals.

It is also a matter of record that all this has been censored. This means that it is impossible for any of the journalists involved to be anything other than corrupt accessories in genocide & worse or that ANY UK journalist or even moreso any politician who supported genocide in Kosovo alleging vastly lesser crimes, even if the were crimes, of the Israelis, can be motivated in any way whatsoever by any concern for human rights or indeed by anything other than Nazism.

FoI enquiry on Dragodan massacre, a matter entirely censored by our Nazi media http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2008/01/dragodan-massacre-freedom-of_23.html

Neal said...

Dan,

Clearly, you have your own facts.

But, note: Israel has never been held to be holding any land illegally. In fact, the ICJ opinion regarding the barrier said exactly the opposite, namely, that Israel was holding land, as occupier, legally and that Israel is a legally constituted state under International law.

Further, your contentions regarding the history of the dispute are simply wrong. Had the Arabs not started a war to prevent the implementation of the UN resolution to partition historic Palestine, there would have been no displaced persons. That was a poor political decision on the part of the Arabs, one that has led to most of the problems that have occurred since.

You speak of Israel as if it has done something unique. But, consider, Greece was created by the ethnic cleansing of many millions of Greeks of Muslim background, beginning in the 19th Century. Modern Turkey cleansed the country of people of Christian background. Poland, after WWII, cleansed more than a million Sudetenland Germans from what became modern Poland. The same for the former Czechoslovakia. The same for Egypt, which cleansed Christians of Greek heritage, in the 1950's, along with much of the country's Jewish population. The worst example of the creation of refugees was India and Pakistan, where 14 million people fled based on religious heritage, with up to a million people dying.

Of course, I am not even going to begin to note that all countries in North and South America ethnically cleansed their lands, to one degree or another.

The issue with Palestinian Arabs who became displaced is a problem perpetuated by the Arab side, which refuses to do what Germany did for the Sudetenlanders, what Pakistan did for Muslim Indians, what India did for Hindus from Pakistan, what Greece did for expelled Christians from Turkey and Egypt, etc., etc.

Your comment that Jews should return to their former homes belies the fact that Israel is the actual origin (i.e. place of birth) of a great many of the country's population. Such people know no other home and, according to all principles of International law and morality, they are in their place of origin. As for those who migrated, whether due to being displaced (e.g. from Arab countries or from Europe) or otherwise, to what became Israel or to that country after its founding, they acted according to the basic human right - and International law - that permits people to settle permanently wherever they can find such manner of refuge.

Citing points out of context regarding Israel's founding, as if there were no war by Arabs with the expressed - as in not only privately but publicly expressed, intention to massacre or expel the country's Jewish population - may be good politics but it is, frankly, dishonest.

Lastly, the Balfour Declaration spoke of a national home, not merely a Jewish homeland. The pertinent passage read: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

Dan, your lack of basic facts is astounding.

olching said...

@Neal:

Whatever your opinions, please don't twist facts. You say:

Israel has never been held to be holding any land illegally.

This is nonsense, so don't say it. Resolution 242 states that a prerequisite was the "[w]ithdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict".

Resolution 259 "deplore[d] Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

Resolution 452 "call[ed] on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

So whatever your opinions, don't place half truths and lies in the public domain to win an argument. So while the Israeli state is clearly not an illegal entity, some of its 'acquisitions' have been and continue to be (even if no longer as widespread). This is at the heart of the matter. Everything else is just a loud clamour.

Neal said...

olching,

My friend, you have not read UN 242 very carefully.

The resolution states two principles directed toward resolving the dispute. As your then Ambassador to the UN said on the floor of the UN, both sides' - not just the Arab side's - demands were to be met and according to your country's then ambassador, one of Israel's requirements was that it not be forced to return to boundaries which had made the country insecure.

The USSR ambassador complained bitterly about the approach adopted - stating, once again on the floor of the UN, that such would allow Israel to retain land it had captured. He favored a binding - i.e. Chapter 7 - resolution that required Israel to withdraw. Your country and the US, however, prevailed.

The language you refer to, moreover, was one of two principles. It was not - and UN 242 states the point - to be considered in isolation. Rather, Israel's demands were also incorporated, namely, that it would have both "secure" and "recognized" boundaries. A secure boundary is something very different from the accidental boundary in the Armistice that ended the 1948 war. Otherwise, the document would have stated otherwise.

Further, the English language - meaning, the official version - of UN 242 intentionally - as your country's then Ambassador to the UN and as the then US (i.e. my country's) Ambassador to the US both stated, consciously excluded the article "the" before the word "territories" in the noted principle related to Israel withdrawing. Both ambassadors stated at the time that such language was excluded to clarify that, in fact, the boundary to which Israel would withdraw would be one that is secure and recognized, not the Armistice line, which was neither secure nor recognized.

If you want to have a rational discussion about this matter, I suggest you investigate it more carefully. And, by the way, my view also appeared in The Economist, which stated that UN 242 does not require Israel to withdraw to the Armistice line. Consider that The Economist is no friend of Israel.

olching said...

Neal, there is no discussion. You've narrowed it down to a wankfest over the article 'the'. I don't care much for lawyers debates. Every resolution ever issued is ambiguous. Such is the nature of the beast 'law'. Needless to say, I do not share your interpretation of 242. But regardless, moral judgement and indeed humanity dictates that Israel does indeed have responsibility to bear for the situation in the ME over the past 60. Only ideologues such as yourself try obfuscate and obscure the issue.

Ah, well, The Economist has published all sorts, so I'm not sure how impressed I'm meant to be. Has your view been published in a serious journal dedicated to academic rigour and peer-review? Exactly. Now if you'll excuse me, it's "peace-loving" Friday night.

Neal said...

olching,

You can read the debate that occurred on the floor of the UN. It is posted online. My view is that held by most people, including the ICJ, which have the resolution. That is why they take the view that the land is occupied and say nothing about it being illegal.

My argument, by the way, is not limited to the article "the." I mentioned that the UN 242 specifically provides that Israel is entitled to a secure and recognized boundary. Were it the case that the boundary for Israel to withdraw to were the Armistice line, there would be no reason to include such language.

The language I have in mind reads: "to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

That, too, is one of the principles and it is not consistent with requiring a full withdrawal. Which is to say, your version of the resolution makes the noted language superfluous.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;

I’m not sure if you play intelligent, I will suppose you don’t’ know…

1. Zionist occupation is illegal, and Kofi Annan described it as illegal occupation of Palestinian land back in May 2002.
Read this for legal explanation.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

2. The ICJ has never described Zionist occupation as legal, NEVER, I shouldn't accuse you of trying to pass a lie here, but I have no other explanation.

Here is the ICJ conclusion, where did they say It’s legal occupation? ??????
http://www.nad-plo.org/inner.php?view=facts_wall_f20p

3. Since you have mentioned the ICJ, it also said the right of “self-defense” as provided in the United Nations Charter can’t be used to justify attacking palestinians, so stop using self defense as a pretext for murdering palestinian women and children.

4. Regarding the Ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Thank you for your admission, and I didn’t say what you have done is unique, obviously you are not the only criminals or terrorist authority; and since you admit ethnically cleansing Palestine of it’s people, then the thing about Arab countries prevented the application of partition is rubbish.

Belfour declaration didn’t promise a state, or a country, but a home land, in other words place to stay. And it was made when Palestine was under Othmani authority, neither Belfour nor the world has the right to promise you anything.

I like the thing about Jewish population born in Palestine, I don’t think that give them the right to stay in Palestine under Palestinian law…

Avigdor Lieberman who has migrated to Palestine at the age of 21, and became deputy prime minister, he has called to finish off Gaza the way America has sorted out Japan.

http://ramallahonline.com/content/2751-lieberman-do-to-hamas-what-us-did-to-japan-who-is-the-extremist-barghouthi-wonders

How humane and peace loving you are, if this is the sort of politicians you have, it will be another reason for the world to wake up and put an end to your crimes against palestinians.

Bye the way, the thing about revoking Israel membership to the UN is not an argument here. it's news.. International lawyers are working on it.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Olching & Neal;
resolution 242 does have the word THE ( occupied territories ) in the French text.

Withdraw, then argue.

jock mctrousers said...

" Had the Arabs not started a war to prevent the implementation of the UN resolution to partition historic Palestine, there would have been no displaced persons." - Neal

That is just a barefaced lie. The facts are well known and indisputable now. The UN's recognition of Israel was not complete; Israel was bound, by a UN resolution, not to do anything to prejudice the outcome of the final negotiations; Israel breached the UN resolution by declaring independence unilaterally and initiating massacres and expulsions of the Palestinians; the Arab nations were obliged by treaty to intervene if the UN resolution was breached. The Arab nations had only been free from colonial occupation for three years; their armies were badly equipped, totally inexperienced, and with totally inexperienced commanders excepting the British-trained, Jordanian-based Arab Legion trained, in the last days of the mandate, by Sir John Glubb; the Israeli army had trained for a long time, was led by commanders who had considerable experience, and had the most modern equipment supplied by the zionist-friendly Czech communist party. The Arab assault was little more than a desperate, hopeless attempt to protect the Palestinians - Benny Morris, Israel's most lauded historian and an extreme zionist, has proved conclusively that most of the Arab armies never entered, or attempted or intended to enter, the area allotted to the jewish state - the exception was the Arab Legion which briefly entered Jerusalem, and then withdrew but held the West Bank ( which was why the West Bank was under Jordanian suzerainty till '67. These facts are not controversial, just, of course, absent from MSM coverage.

Anywa, the partition of Palestine was illegal under the UN's rules at the time, in the first place

neil craig said...

Countries making war are (assuming the war was lawful) allowed to invade & oggupy their enemies' territory - a little thought will show it could hardly be otherwise. They are allowed to occupy these lands until the war is over & the final disposal of territories agreed in a peace treaty. That is the situation in international law. In its peace treaty Sinia was returned to Egypt which had also been ruling Gaza. They gave up all claims thereunto. Syria refuses to sign a peace treaty as did the PLO & as does Hamas currently, indeed they refuse to recognise Israel. That being the case Israel is at war, albeit under a ceasefire which Syria would break any time they thought they could win & which Hamas have proven they will break any time they think they can lose & then get lots of EU money for the kleptocrats running the place. As such the occupation is undeniably legal & the wishes of the UN of no legal effect.

Paul D said...

Neal,
you are doing a very good job in putting forward facts and considered argument in the face of opposition that is mostly not considered nor fair nor frankly knowledgeable enough but are stuck in a groove that says Israel should never have existed; ergo everything the Israelis (i.e. the Jews) have done in the last 60 years has been evil, genocidal; zionist (a word they simply don't understand) is synonymous for Nazi etc etc etc.

And these people scream unfair if the allegation of anti-semitism is ever raised. I don't like to push anti - semitism as a weapon but have sadly become increasingly perusaded of the awful venomous feelings by a lot of people to the Jews.

Anonymous said...

Israel has NEVER supported peace...you can tell that my a list of its friends and allies, as well as its continual blitzing of ceasefires...who ended the cease fire in 2006 by shelling Gaza beach? ISRAEL

Brian

Anonymous said...

Question: how far does a zionist supporter have to bend over to get satisafaction?


Brian

Anonymous said...

Neil C:

'If the media really is stuffed with Israel's friends why is it possible for you to be hired to write an anti-Israeli article while it is virtually impossible to get the British media to report'

why havent the media pundits openly and on the front page called Israels illegal war a war crime and genocide!
Thats because the media is full of israel firsters.

'Also you have no suggestion of what else Israel should have done to stop Hamas rocketing civilians'

what a nitwit! Hamas (?) rockets (are you sure they were from Hamas??) only took off AFTER Israel ended the cease fire by killing 6 palestinians in Gaza...

Try not to bend over too far for israel, Neil: its embarrassing.

Brian

Anonymous said...

Telling it like it is:

'UK MP Sir Gerald Kaufman, son of holocaust survivors: "Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza"'

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/01/uk-mp-sir-gerald-kaufman-son-of-holocaust-survivors-israel-acting-like-nazis-in-gaza.html

Brian

Anonymous said...

'Israel was holding land, as occupier, legally and that Israel is a legally constituted state under International law.'

Israel is NOT a legally constituted land under international or any other law! AS it DOESNT HAVE FIXED BORDERS

The UN also had no authority to grant the jews land in Palestinian or anyway...

Ironically and typically, Israel jews show their gratitude to the UN by bombing them!

Note that Israel has been growing over the last 40 years, like a cancer, stealing more and more palestinian land.

Brian

Anonymous said...

Israel bombed 67 schools sheltering civilians during 3 weeks
GAZA, (PIC)-- Al-Mizan center for human rights on Saturday reported that Israel, during its three-week military aggression, deliberately bombed 67 schools in the Gaza Strip including 36 schools belonging to UNRWA.

In a statement received by the PIC, the center pointed out that Israel bombed several schools turned by UNRWA into shelters for Palestinian families who fled the constant Israeli attacks on civilian areas. The Israeli occupation forces also bombed many UNRWA vans.

The statement underlined that Israel deliberately shelled the UN agency headquarters in Gaza city and its food storage depots.

It pointed that on Saturday Israel bombed an UNRWA school in the Beit Lahiya town sheltering 1,800 civilians with white phosphorous which led to the death of two children and the injury of their mother who lost one of her arms and legs, adding that the Israeli shelling was resumed on the same school resulting in the injury of 14 citizens including six children.

The statement appealed to UNRWA and the UN to prosecute the Israeli leaders who are responsible for committing those crimes in accordance with the rules of international law in this regard.

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/israel-bombed-67-schools-sheltering.html

Even Neil C and the other Hasbara types must be embarrassed by this!

Brian

Anonymous said...

'Israel breached the UN resolution by declaring independence unilaterally and initiating massacres and expulsions of the Palestinians; the Arab nations were obliged by treaty to intervene if the UN resolution was breached'

thanks for that Jock

Brian

Anonymous said...

Paul D doing anal service for Israel:

' but are stuck in a groove that says Israel should never have existed; ergo everything the Israelis (i.e. the Jews) have done in the last 60 years has been evil, genocidal; zionist (a word they simply don't understand) is synonymous for Nazi etc etc etc.'

Given their continued genocidical assault on the palestinians, theyve voided whatever moral right that had to the land.

Sorry but we do understand the word : 'zionist':a form of excluding national psychosis like nazism'

Brian

Anonymous said...

Israel and thos clinically accurate weapons:

'With the media pumping out Israeli propaganda about the clinical accuracy of their weapons, today the Israelis have hit the UN aid distribution centre and a Gaza hospital. The UN Secretary General has expressed "outrage". The UN report that their compound was bombed with phosphorous shells - which the Israels still deny using as part of their "Big Lie" propaganda blitz.'

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/01/lest_we_forget.html

at least now we can understand that is Israel is once again DELIBERATELY targeting UN buildings, with UN help by providing coordinates!

Brian

Anonymous said...

Covering for Israeli war crimes


Two days ago (I think, it's hard to keep the days straight between the non-stop atrocities and the time difference) the Israelis shelled the U.N. headquarters. As it ran, the story was accompanied by the usual Israeli excuse: the AP reported that "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Hamas militants opened fire from the U.N. compound." John Ging, the UNWRA chief who was actually in the compound at the time, denounced that claim as "nonsense." Ging's rebuttal actually did make its way into the article...a full fourteen paragraphs later, although elementary journalism would place it in the very next sentence, or even in the same one, separated by a comma.
etc

LEFT I ON NEWS

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:qbcQyKs44uIJ:lefti.blogspot.com/+left+i+on+news&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

Brian

neil craig said...

Anonymous Brian (?) seems to be out in force tonight.

Neil may I suggest that his disgusting 8.39 remark, while about as honest as anything the filthy Nazis may be expected to say is not a serious contribution to what should be an intelligent discussion. That it will be denounced by every single honest anti-Israeli here & that you should consider whether your blog is enhanced by such.

Neal said...

Dan, portsmouth,

The "occupation" is legal and that is what the ICJ stated. It stated such by distinguishing between what Israel could and could not legally do on the land it occupies. Were your view correct, the ICJ would have stated that Israel needed to end the occupation, which is not stated.

You write: "3. Since you have mentioned the ICJ, it also said the right of “self-defense” as provided in the United Nations Charter can’t be used to justify attacking palestinians, so stop using self defense as a pretext for murdering palestinian women and children."

Not exactly. What was stated is that an attack from land occupied, as that word is defined in the ICJ opinion, is not an Article 51 situation. On the other hand, an attack from land not meeting the ICJ test of occupation - and, to note, Gaza did not meet that test at the time that Israel invaded -, could be an Article 51 situation.

I never admitted that there was ethnic cleansing. That is a misreading of my words. I said that there are innumerable examples of displaced people, which there are.

You write: "Belfour declaration didn’t promise a state, or a country, but a home land, in other words place to stay."

We have been through this before and I have quoted the Balfour Declaration, which refers to a "national" home, i.e. a nation.

You write: "How humane and peace loving you are, if this is the sort of politicians you have, it will be another reason for the world to wake up and put an end to your crimes against palestinians."

I am not an Israeli and have no interest in the country, other than the minimal interest to protect it and any other country from bigoted attacks. In the case of Israel, most of the verbal attacks are a disguised - often, not very well disguised -form of Antisemitism.

By the way, I never said that UN 242 lacks the word occupied. Being occupied does not mean being "illegally" occupied. Note that "illegal" modifies the word "occupied," meaning that there are legal and illegal occupations.

jock mctrousers,

You would have it that the Arabs nations, all of whom having declared war against Israel and having stated that the aim of the war was to massacre the country's Jews, were attacked by Jews. Azzam Pasha, the Arab League Secretary, stated (on Cairo radio) as follows: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." That was at the time that the various Arab states declared their war.

And, in the debate in the UN, the Arab delegations made clear that they aimed to make war to prevent the creation of any state governed by Jews and numerous ambassadors stated proudly that the Arab side had started the war. I suppose, on your view, that they did not know what they were saying.

Moreover, none of this had anything to do with Israel's admission to the UN, which occurred after the 1948 war, not before it. So, the premise of your argument is wrong. Most of your facts are wrong as well. So, there may be many people who think what you think, they are mistaken.

I suggest you read, since you cite Benny Morris, his latest book, 1948, which refutes pretty much everything you have written and notes the mistakes that appeared in his earlier writings. Most particularly, his book shows clearly that there was no ethnic cleansing and that the Arab side was largely pushed into war by religious instigation. He notes that such was even a factor in the thinking of Jordan's king. So, I suggest you check more recent research than you are citing.

Anonymous said...

This may explain Neil Craig and others:

Here come the trolls!


Keep an eye out:
Israel recruits 'army of bloggers' to combat anti-Zionist Web sites

The Immigrant Absorption Ministry announced on Sunday it was setting up an "army of bloggers," to be made up of Israelis who speak a second language, to represent Israel in "anti-Zionist blogs" in English, French, Spanish and German.
As if there aren't enough Israeli apologists running around already. Ugh.
http://lefti.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Neal:

'The "occupation" is legal '

no it isnt..If it wasn theyd still be violating the Geneva Conventions!

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;

You said:
"ICJ opinion regarding the barrier said exactly the opposite, namely, that Israel was holding land, as occupier, legally"

The court didn’t say “legally”, I asked for a proof and you came up with this:

"It stated such by distinguishing between what Israel could and could not legally do on the land it occupies."

Not really,
The court has ruled that the WB and E.Jerusalem are occupied, Israel is the occupying power; as such it is obliged to uphold the fourth Geneva Convention which demands her to protect occupied people and prevent her from changing facts on the ground
.
Israel has signed the Geneva convention, it is obliged to uphold it, and the court is looking in where Israel violated this convention it signed along with other recognized international law. By building the wall. No more no less.

The court didn’t rule on Gaza, because the wall is not being built there. And didn’t rule on the legality of occupation because this wasn’t the question put to her.

Where is the legality of occupation in this?

You are telling a lie here, not surprisingly, you are the third liar for Israel on this blog….

Regarding self defence, The court said the following:

"The Court noted that “self-defense” can be invoked in the case of an armed attack by one State against another State".

This is the courts words, your attempts to twist facts are appalling.

Anonymous said...

WERE ALL PALESTINIANS NOW


Today in Solidarity We're All Palestinians
by Stephen Lendman
World outrage continues over Israeli war crimes and Washington's complicity. Gazans are now immortalized. Hamas is more popular than ever and remains resolute despite everything the IDF threw against it.
Democrats and Republicans share equal guilt. They fund Israeli state terror, are partnered in its aggression, and have collaboratively planned, supported, and/or agreed to it for the past 41 years. Continuity under Obama is assured. The current Gaza carnage is the worst since 1967. In spite of its "unilateral" ceasefire, sporadic Israeli attacks continue. The IDF merely redeployed. Gaza remains under siege, and human suffering is overwhelming and unrelieved.
Since December 27, Israel conducted terror bombings, tank and naval vessel shellings, and assault troop slaughter on the ground. Illegal weapons were used. Neighborhoods are burning and in ruins. Horrific wounds are reported. Civilians were willfully massacred. They comprise 80 - 90% of the casualties according to human rights organizations and medical authority reports. All 1.5 million Gazans were targeted. They still are. There's no place anywhere to hide.
Sporadic fighting continues after Israel's January 17 announcement. Earlier, Israeli Radio reported that more reservists were activated and that IDF operations were in "phase three." Forces on the ground pushed deeper into Gaza where they remained up to now. Attacks on neighborhoods and refugee camps intensified. Death and injury tolls mount. They approach 7000 but exclude potentially hundreds of unidentified bodies under rubble.
A Brief History of Israeli Terror Killings Since 1946
Gaza is full-scale war but just the latest bloodstained episode in Israel's six-decade reign of terror against Palestinians. This section reviews others since 1946, two years before the establishment of a Jewish state. The list is long, way-incomplete, very disturbing, and shows what Palestinians have endured for over 60 years. Their ordeal continues in the West Bank and Gaza under siege, still attacked, and, as always, betrayed by the dominant media.
The King David Hotel July 22, 1946 Bombing
The Menachem Begin-led Irgun planned and conducted the massacre of 92 Brits, Arabs and Jews, wounding 58 others. As head of the Jewish Agency, David Ben-Gurion approved the operation. It was to destroy British-gathered evidence that its leaders colluded with the Haganah, Palmach, Irgun and Stern gangs in a wave of terrorist crimes and killings. Bombing the King David Hotel was the most notorious and followed a pattern before and since of brutal Israeli state terrorism.ETC


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39121

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;

I said:
land occupied by force and ethnically cleansed of it’s people
----------
You answered:

You speak of Israel as if it has done something unique. But, consider, Greece was created by the ethnic cleansing......Turkey cleansed the country.....Poland, after WWII, cleansed more than a million....etc..
----------------

You are clearly admitting and arguing the ethnic cleansing committed by zionists in palestine is not unique.. and gave examples of other similar crimes committed against other people..

What is the point in wasting time arguing with you, when you will go back and deny your words.. it's still in print here...
You see why Israel is, going ..going .... gone.. -soon hopefully- because its' supporters have lost the plot; they have to lie openly to make their case

neil craig said...

Before the mous who alleged I am secretly an Israeli government employee wrote that he should have checked my blog where even the stupidist mind would have been able to spot it is a lie.

Moron. No offence.

Neal said...

Dan,

I find myself facing a person who does not know how to read a legal opinion. According to you, the ICJ indicated that Israel must follow the Geneva Convention on land it occupies. It further indicated its view that certain things the Israelis were doing in the West Bank were, on the Court's reading, illegal.

Now, to anyone who can read, that means that the occupation itself is legal.

You are correct that the Court did not speak about Gaza although, in fact, it did so in passing. For your information, the Court specifically defined the term occupation and, in fact, it would be rather difficult to argue that, post 2005, the Israelis were occupying Gaza, if we go by what the ICJ wrote.

So that any fair minded reader can see what I have in mind, I below quote the ICJ definition of "occupied" that appears in the case regarding Israel's separation barrier. The pertinent language reads:

78. The Court would observe that, under customary international law as reflected (see paragraph 89 below) in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 (hereinafter “the Hague Regulations of 1907”), territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

Note that Israel withdrew its army from Gaza so that the territory was not under the authority of an hostile army. Hence, the territory was not, legally speaking, occupied at the time of Israel's invasion.

Paul D said...

Dear Dan of Portsmouth,

You really don't make any sense. No wonder Jermain Defoe took the sensible decision to flee your town whilst you BNP types are in it.

You are hoping (soo hoping) that Israel will be gone soon. So what will happen to all the existing Israeli citizens - the vast majority of whom are Jewish people.? Or rather, what would you like to see happen to them?

It's not a difficult question to answer now is it?

Neal said...

Dan,

Now you claim I support ethnic cleansing. Again, read what I wrote more carefully. You have it wrong. Here it is in its entirety and, to note, I speak of a variety of situations including cleansing but also people fleeing. Here are my words:

You speak of Israel as if it has done something unique. But, consider, Greece was created by the ethnic cleansing of many millions of Greeks of Muslim background, beginning in the 19th Century. Modern Turkey cleansed the country of people of Christian background. Poland, after WWII, cleansed more than a million Sudetenland Germans from what became modern Poland. The same for the former Czechoslovakia. The same for Egypt, which cleansed Christians of Greek heritage, in the 1950's, along with much of the country's Jewish population. The worst example of the creation of refugees was India and Pakistan, where 14 million people fled based on religious heritage, with up to a million people dying.

I have to go now. I want to watch my country swear in what I hope will be a great president.

Anonymous said...

Neil Craig a secret isreali govt employee? hard to believe.

better to believe he is zionisms useful idiot.

We never do learn why he supports Israels war of terror.

Brian

Dan, portsmouth said...

Paul D;
I tried you before and get uncivilized response, don't come my way.

Neal;

What you are saying is just very wrong. there is noting in the ICJ that renders the occupation legal.

I will try to explain it to you for the last time.

Israel has signed the Geneva convention.
The West bank is occupied by Israel.
Israel should upheld the Geneva convention on this occupied territories.

If it upheld the fourth Geneva convention, it is acting within the treaty it has committed itself to, if it didn't it will be a violation to the treaty.

Now. does the occupation need to be legal in order to apply the Geneva convention?

The answer is NO, the Geneva convention apply on any occupied land either the occupation itself is legal or not.

For example, US is occupying iraq illegally, if the geneva convention don't apply, then they can kill all prisoners of war if they choose to.. where is the law that ask for their protection?
It's the Geneva convention. and it applies on any occupied land weather it's legal or not.

Another example,

Iraq occupied kuwait illegally, but it was forced by law to treat prisoners of war within the Geneva convention, in other words protect them and give them the said rights ..etc.. , if the Geneva convention don't apply due to the illegal occupation then no law to protect the prisoners.

Fourth Geneva convention apply weather the occupation is legal or not.

Do you remember when the US protested for showing prisoners of war on Iraq TV? and do you remember when Amnesty protested for showing Saddam sons bodies on TV?

Both parties have to upheld the Geneva convention regardless of the legality of war itself.

But according to your logic, both parties are fighting a legal war.. because both have been asked to observe the law??

Got it?
Not difficult, is it?

By the way I'm just back form the protest outside the US embassy, you should have heard me shouting from the US.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;
I didn't accuse you of supporting ethnic cleansing.

I said you admit palestine was ethnically cleansed,
there is a difference between recognizing something and supporting it.

Your words is available for people to read and judge.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Neal;
I've just noticed your claim of Gaza not being occupied.
You are unbelievable. I'm used of Zionists always twist, pull and try to enforce their own perception of things, but you are very much off the limit.

You can bury your head in the sand as long as you wish. that doesn't make the world as you see it underneath.

Paul D said...

To Dan of Portsmouth

"Paul D;
I tried you before and get uncivilized response, don't come my way."

I'm afraid (again)I do not understand what you are saying (What on earth does 'tried you before' mean?) save you seem to be making a veiled threat against me which I must say is not a nice thing to do.

You have been making various statements about Israelis and Jews and misusing the word Zionist. (Or to put it another way, using the word Zionist instead of Jew to avoid being called a rascist I suppose).

I have asked you a simple question about the welfare and future of the Jewish people in Israel/Palestine region and you are avoiding answering the question.

Well that's up to you but don't expect me to not 'come your way'.

And what on earth were you protesting about at the US embassy on the day of the Inauguration? It seems you people are most motivated most by hatred of America and Jews. Maybe that is why so many of you types are happy to jump into bed with v right wing rascist fascist people who ultimately want to destroy western civilization.

And a little quote from you say to Neal:

"You can bury your head in the sand as long as you wish. that doesn't make the world as you see it underneath".

This comment of course applies to you and what you seem to believe as opposed to the more considered fact based and articulately argued comments of Neal.

Have a nice day!

neil craig said...

I take it that is the US embassy in Portsmouth Dan? I think we have all heard you shouting enough you Nazi.

Neal said...

Dan,

Again, if Israel's occupation were illegal, why did the ICJ not say so?

Dan, portsmouth said...

Brian;
Yes believe it mate,
He is a SECRET agent as well ;-)

Zionist terror state didn't find anyone with a single shred of decency to support it's crimes.. hence they had to make do with craig and his likes....

His monthly salary is what he worth = Nothing.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Craig;

Yes, the embassy is half way from Portsmouth to the Isle of wight.

Wait 15 minutes on the ferry then jump off for good.

Neil Clark said...

paul d:
you ask of dan:

'what on earth were you protesting about at the US embassy on the day of the Inauguration'

well, I'm sure dan can answer that for himself- but I would have thought the US' approval of Israel's brutal assault on Gaza, and the continued presence of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been good reason enough.

Anonymous said...

actually, Dan, zionist state terror is supported by most 1st world governments: from Englands labor, to australias new Labor govt!

Its only govts like Cuba and Venezuela that condemn Israel.

Notice that the govts that support israel, condemn Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe...which for me is very revealing!



Brian

Paul D said...

Dear Neil Clark,

You appear to be taking me to task; and I guess that's ok as it is your Blog.

I'm not suggesting he should not be able to protest. The point I am really making is that a lot of what I would call the unthinking left seem to be primarily motivated by a hatred of America and Americans over and above any genuine desire to right wrongs and see justice for the poor, downtrodden, persecuted, trade unions etc in places like Iraq.

The United States is a democracy (ok there are lots of things wrong as there are in all democracies) and it strikes me people simply do not appreciate the fact that unlike all the other big fish (Chinese, old Soviet Union etc) the people can vote in and out their leaders. What is more the inauguration ceremony shows a sense of unity amongst its people in the way that an outgoing President who may have doctrinally opposing views to his successor assists the newcomer and takes part in the ceremony and gives support to the new President. You simply don't get that kind of thing happening here in the UK.

To regard the USA (as you appear to be encouraging)as evil personified really seems to me to be relativism gone mad.

I am also concerned that you are coming to the rescue of people like Dan, Portmsouth whose views on Jews appear to be abhorrent without ever taking him to task.

You claim not to allow racism on this site but the snarling and hissing use and context of the word 'Zionism' by a number of posters really does amount to a form of anti -semitism (whether low level or worse).

I don't know what they mean when they use the word 'Zionism' other than to express a hatred for Jews. I realise this is strong but I wonder why the word 'Zionism' is used so often. What does it mean ?Use the word 'Israelis' by all means. But who and what are the Zionists? Just the Israeli government; Israeli citizens, all Jewish people who consider Israel should be allowed to exist; a specific grouping like a youth group? What?

You seem to equate 'Zionist' with neocon which is simply nonsense. The people you mention may hold opposing political views to you (and me) and if they are Jewish and support Israel then so what. There are plenty of left wing Jews too - some of whom will support Israel more than others.

'Zionism' has become a bogey word, a simple handle to be used to hide, for a lot of people, behind the irrationality of Jew hatred.

Do you doubt that anti-semitic incidents in the UK have increased in the past few weeks? Just because Melanie Phillips may say so doesn't make it untrue. Nasty attacks on Starbucks which is an organisation that has nothing to do with Israel; and a church in Yorkshire was attacked because it has the word 'Zion' in its title.

Dan, portsmouth said...

Well said Neil clark;

This is an extract from the official ad:
-------------------
Protest at the United States Embassy to mark the arrival of President Obama

President Obama throughout his campaign gave many speeches where he pledged to make America part of the dialogue of the international community not dictating to the world. We must make him live up to those campaign pledges by starting first with the creation of a free and democratic Palestinian homeland.
--------------------

I believe the first few decisions for the new president is the most important.

The first thing Bush did when he arrived to the white house is to disown Clinton peace proposals for Middle East.
In other words the first decision by him was a disaster for peace.

Another decision is allowing the use of F-16 on palestinians. ( not allowed before Bush). that led to massacres, assassinating Salah Shhadeh along with 15 othersm including 9 children, by dropping one tone bomb on his house wasn't possible without the F-16.

We are expecting Obama to initiate contacts with Hamas, let us hope this will be the first step towards justice in Palestine.

neil craig said...

Clearly Dan is lying about being from Portsmouth too.

I doubt if he has the guts to use his real first name either.

Neil you do yourself no honour by supporting such obscene lying genocidal Nazis. It is clear the anti-Israel movement consists entirely of such racist filth & of those who have no quarrel with such Nazis.

Anonymous said...

neil craig:


'Neil you do yourself no honour by supporting such obscene lying genocidal Nazis.'


you do yourself no honor by supporting obscene lying genocidical zionists....
So why do you? Apart from you only the power elite support israel...Strange for a supposed left winger.

Brian