Lol Anthony Lowenstein's silly ideas.

Lol he is writing a book! lol I hope he gets the money up front.

Surely conspiracies do not come into the argument when we rightfully condemn little Israel for going martially nuclear back in the late 1970s. Israel's so-called necessary atomic defensive capabilities are regarded by many social scientists as the major cause of the build-up of Arab-Israeli tensions in the Middle-East today. As well, of course, much of the anti-Americanism that has spread around the globe in the last few years.

The only reason that Iran is determined to join other countries like Pakistan and India, is not to point the nuclear missiles their way, but towards we all know who, little Israel.

Furthermore, certainly not much sympathy from university academics for Israel going weaponry atomic and upsetting
the balance of power in the Middle East, and indeed many social scientists, even some in America, justifying the necessity for Iran to more than match little Israel in nuclear capability. Such equality was well-known in the 19th century as reaiistic Realpolitik.

Colin Rubenstein, You claim that "similar views" to those of Antony Loewenstein's, by which I take it you mean anti-Zionist views, or views critical of Israel and its behaviour, "appear in vast numbers...in the media..." I'd be interested if you could cite which articles you think fit into that category have appeared in The Age, The Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald this year. A simple list with titles, source and date will suffice.

Don't insult the intelligent by abusing the term "anti-Zionist".

Zionism concerns the entirely reasonable and legitimate existence of a jewish state. It does NOT concern giving that state the right to commit human rights abuses which would prompt sanctions and/or invasion if carried out by a nation unassociated with Christian mythology.

Crying "anti-semite!" each time someone points out the repressive actions of Israel just gives ammunition to those who would claim the jews are still riding the Holocaust gravy train.

It strikes the same nerve Ali G does when he complains "is this 'cos I black?". Except that it's not funny.

Poor old Loewenstein.
All he as ever tried to do is to get Israel to lift its game, something it has failed to do for many decades and particularly over the last 25 years. And for his trouble he has received non-stop abuse from denialists like Rubenstein. Having followed Rubenstein, Lapkin and other crackpots like Mike Naham in the tabloid press, I have found myself becoming more sympathetic to the unfortunate Palestinians. These have suffered so interminably because of the damage done to the chances of a fair settlement through the propagandists of the Israel right-or-wrong lobby.
I will never forget for example, the disgraceful campaign run against the Palestinian academic, negotiator and peace activist Hanan Ashrawi. Arriving in Australia a couple of years ago to receive a peace award, she received nothing but a truckload of bigoted abuse directed against her by the likes of the above.
The problem in America goes much further of course, as Hollywood has churned out endless tonnes of smear misrepresenting the middle east situation to the detriment of the Palestinians. And who owns or controls much of TinselTown?
The terms of the whole Middle East discourse have been warped by neo cons and Zionists, to the extent that disasters like Palestine, Lebanon,Iran/Iraq and now Iraq continue to happen because of the refusal of the fair go from the rich to the poor, in favour of false nostalgia and sentimentalism as masks for sanctimony and greed.

Colin Rubenstein, You write that M&S "concoct a conspiracy theory about the vast supposed power of an Israeli lobby that has maintained a 50-year 'stranglehold' not only on both major American political parties..." etc Would you like to tell us who won in the contest between US President Ford, who in 1975 sought to 'reassess' US policy in the Middle East, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Israel lobby's arm in Washington? And also which of the two won in 1992 when US President George Bush Senior tried to block US aid to Israel in an effort to halt its settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem?

To me,the most interesting point about the author of this article is his "name".

'Ruben....stein'

Does anyone care to think just how ancient this name is? and from where it came?

"31 When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. 32 Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben,.....(Genesis)

Leah, wife of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham, to whom God said:

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you.
2 "I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing
(Genesis 12)

That Nation,of course became Israel.

I have no illusions at all about the reality of a 'Jewish Lobby' I'm sure it exists, and is devoted to furthering the interestsof kith and kin, politically and economically.

That the author would seem to deny this is rather an insult to common intelligence and a few thousand years of history.

The saddest part of this debate is that there are those who seem to feel there could ever be a human/political solution to the issue of Israel/Palestine.

Please stop wasting your energy.

THE ANTICHRIST IN IRAN ?

Yes,I'm sure that raised a few "Oh nooo...ol Bozo is at it again".

All I say is "note the question mark" :)

Interesting times...indeed.

David Boaz:
The author is not suggesting that there is no Israeli lobby - as in groups that lobby various governments. He is referring to a discredited article by Mearsheimer and Walt that makes repeated use of the phrase “The Lobby”. This as a shorthand for “those Zionists control the press and the government”, and all that this usually entails. This article in turn was used by Anthony Lowenstein as supporting evidence for his usual positions on the matter.

Maybe it would be better to stop arguing about origins, take a bird's eye view of the Middle East without taking sides. We then attempt to reason what a blatant mistake it was for us Westerners to have carried symppathies with the Israelis too far, going against the UN Constitution and letting them retain the captured Arab lands after the two Arab-Israeli wars, and then shutting our eyes when Israel went militarily nuclear in the late 1970s.

It is interesting that the Brits predicted trouble in the Middle East for letting the Jews return to their so-called Promised Land, but all was forgotten no doubt because the US backed Israel.

Since that time of course, when Americans were still regarded highly mostly as a result of the great success of the Marshall Plan, the love for Pax Americana has fallen to a low ebb, especially among our social scientists, who clearly have a better understanding of history than either the corporate owned media or the average person in the street.

The truth of the matter is, that we Westerners have been lately fed with a belief that realism as far as today's Middle East is concerned has much to do with the "survival of the fittest", and because we have God's Own Country well on our side, its Hallelula and let's now knock out Iran.

We are getting such talk in our streets these days, but in more colourful language, the Arabs will never be any bloody good, anyhow, so let's get it over with and back a winner.

Mr P.Pig:
"The author (Rubenstein) ...is referring to a discredited article by Mearsheimer and Wals...".
In what sense is this article "discredited"?
Is it "discredited" because Rubenstein or others of his outlook claim it to be so, for obscurative rhetorical purposes, or merely because Loewenstein employs it. It must be "discredited" merely on the basis that Lowenstein, representing a contrary viewpoint, cites it? Frankly, if Rubenstein attacks it and Lowenstein cites it , this writers' sense is that it must in fact be substantial in nature.
On David Boaz; yes, I have a little sympathy- I'm not quite sure what he is getting at myself. His comments elsewhere do certainly appear to reveal a general commentary somewhat eclectic in nature.

funguy:

It is discredited in the sense that it has been shown to be factually incorrect by several people, over many of its points:

The most comprehensive way to convince yourself of this is to first read the article by Mearsheimer and Walt:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

and then read this reply by Alan Dershowitz:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

So no, it is not a matter of Rubenstein and people of his outlook (come on, you mean the jooz right) points of view that discredit the article. It is the fact that it contains things which are not true.

PPig, As well as hawking the tarnished wares of a certain gin-sodden ex-Trotskyite popinjay, I see you're now peddling those of Israel's leading advocate in the US, Alan Dershowitz, who wrote of his role as a lawyer (in his book 'The Best Defence'): "Almost all criminal defendents - including most of my clients - are factually guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. The criminal lawyer's job, for the most part, is to represent the guilty, and - if possible - to get them off." Anyone who thinks that Dershowitz is doing other than representing the guilty with respect to Israel needs to read Norman G Finkelstein's brilliant demolition of Dershowitz in his new book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

bushbred,

I agree completely with you that Iran's nuclear weapons (if they get them) would be pointed directly at Israel.

However, I take a radical view and think this will be a good thing.

Most experts think Israel is probably a one bomb country. This means one bomb and Israel would be no more. It seems too good to be true. The fact is the world would be a more stable and peaceful place without the Israeli nightmare. But it's not going to happen. The mullahs in Tehran (as with Saadam) may be unpleasant but they haven't embraced suicide on a national scale. They know any attack on Israel would bring an overwhelming US response (not that there's any such thing as a pro-Israel lobby in the US).

With the real threat of MAD (as opposed the hysterical bleatings at present) Israel would be forced to be more reasonable with its neighbours. Importantly, after sixty years, they would actually have a reason to make peace.

Of course, the situation would be much better (and safer) without the brinkmanship, but with a just and negotiated peace. However, when we can't even get past the point of acknowledging the existence of a Jewish lobby, well, chances seem slim.

Not being a person with a full awareness of every little bit of history of the Middle East, I see that people obviously blame Israel (or existence of) for causing much of the trouble. If true then it is amazing that Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in which the Sinai was return to Egypt? That to me indicates that at least Israel has agreed to peacefulness in some part of the Middle East. Also indicates to me that it may be possible for others to do the same. And so if they agree to remove the need to destroy Israel from their philosophy this might help? Also why have most Arab nations not pushed this further. Why did Arafat knock back that deal during Clinton’s time?.
And what about Jordan in all this? Before Israel I believe that the early PLO was brutally kicked out of Jordan? Isn’t Jordan part of the the whole UN deal on Palestine? Why is Jordan’s history in all this been ignored? Why did not the Arab nations help Palestinians at that time. No Jews or Christians around, is that it? I do not know. Sigh! I simply just wonder why people can’t just live and let live

Strewth:

Your insight into the professional nature of criminal defence lawyers is not news, they are slippery and get guilty people off the hook. It would be far more convincing if you were to explain how this makes the paper he wrote incorrect? You know, substance as opposed to character assassination. Chomsky made disparaging remarks about the veracity of the M&W paper as well. I trust you will get to supplying us with the appropriate lurid paragraphs to put him in his place as well.

Also, you glaringly avoid mentioning the virtues of the M&W article. Do you actually believe it is valid and factually correct? A well reasoned, unbiased and important contribution by two respected academics? Anthony Lowenstein fell for it. Perhaps you are more discerning.

Then again, considering how little the authors deviate from the usual talking points, it is hard to see how you could distance yourself from their position without undercutting your own.

eet:

Your comment about the Jewsih Lobby indicates that you have entirely missed the point. As for MAD:

Hashemi Rafsanjani (the moderate one) has threatened Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that an Iranian attack would kill as many as five million Jews. He estimated that even if Israel retaliated, Iran would probably lose only fifteen million people, which he said would be a small sacrifice from among the billion Muslims in the world.

“Confronting the New Anti-Semitism,” Washington Times, July 25, 2004.

Sucks to be a Palestinian sometimes.

Colin Rubinstein fails to deal with the core premise of the article which clearly argues why America’s interests are not served by its egregiously biased support of Israel. It is therefore logical to assume, and as Mearsheimer and Walt clearly show, that there are other forces at work in US policymaking.

Even Ariel Sharon has been quoted saying the US is in the ‘hands’ of Israel. What else could explain the US support for Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine and its continued colonization of the Occupied Territories given the level of human rights abuses which take place daily and the war crimes committed by the Israeli Defence Forces.

Polls may show that most citizens do not see Israel as a strategic liability but this is because most citizens in most places are generally ignorant as to the truth of Israel’s foundation and the State sanctioned terrorism it has used over the past five decades to control the Palestinian people and take yet more of their land. The reason for this is the power of 'lobby groups' who are quick to accuse anyone who criticises Israel, no matter how justifiable, of anti-semitism.

Australians may see Israel as a sister democracy but this is because they are ignorant of the truth. In reality Israel is a racist State with preferential treatment for Jews. And, it can hardly have common values while it maintains one of the worlds most vicious occupations and works to deny any hope of freedom to the people it occupies.

The Australian Jewish community does want peace but, like most Israelis and many Jews elsewhere, on its own terms where Israel gets all that it wants and the Palestinians almost nothing they want, or for that matter deserve as human beings.

Israeli peace is predicated on Israel keeping as much of the Occupied Territories as it chooses, locking the Palestinians into Bantustan ‘concentration camps,’ making Palestinian Statehood impossible, keeping all of Jerusalem and removing Arab Israelis from the city as soon as practicably possible and denying non-Jewish Israelis the same rights as Jewish Israelis.

Mr P.Pig, thanks for links to "London Review of Books".
I wish I could say I agree with you concerning Dershowitz.
Having read both the Mearsheimer/Walt article and the responses in the "letters to the editor" column, and then the separate Dershowitz response provided, I can't accept that Dershowitz is able to fundamentally demonstrate that Mearsheimer/Waltz are, in substance, incorrect.
Sorry.
The editors themselves felt moved to comment that some people had misread Mearsheimer/Walts as "anti-semitic" either gladly or fearfully; these having:
"... something in common, they appear to come from people who have not read the article, and seem incapable of distinguishing between criticism of Israeli or US foreign policy and anti-semitism".
They suggest that Mearsheimer/Walts will return to answer queries and points raised in the next edition, so patience must now be exerted to see if the process then yields further clarification.

Mr P. Pig.
You refer to 'threats' made against Israel by the Iranian President as if this were justification for Israeli and American aggression toward iran. Apart from the fact that Iran does not have a nuclear capability, and there are numerous leaders, George Bush included, who 'threaten' other nations without it being taken as a real threat, why should this posturing .... the general view of many people with a deeper understanding of Iran is that it is posturing, and more for public consumption than anything else ... be a reason to 'nuke' Iran as George Bush posits?

The United States defends Taiwan against Chinese 'aggression' and yet makes little comment about Chinese threats to bomb Taiwan.

Why is there one rule for the Iranians and one for the Chinese? Could it be because of the power of the Israeli lobby in the United States? Just possible don't you think?

Tony Judt, http://www.nyu.edu/fas/Faculty/JudtTony.html writing in an op-ed in The New York Times on Wednesday about Walt's and Mearsheimer's essay:

QUOTE
How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have been most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the liberal daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was Israel's impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel." Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?

The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when discussing Israel is threefold. It is bad for Jews: anti-Semitism is real enough (I know something about it, growing up Jewish in 1950's Britain), but for just that reason it should not be confused with political criticisms of Israel or its American supporters. It is bad for Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans encourage Israel to act heedless of consequences. The Israeli journalist Tom Segev described the Mearsheimer-Walt essay as "arrogant" but also acknowledged ruefully: "They are right. Had the United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better ...the Israel Lobby in the United States harms Israel's true interests."

BUT above all, self-censorship is bad for the United States itself. Americans are denying themselves participation in a fast-moving international conversation. Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Mearsheimer-Walt essay should be a wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to both nations. But I would go further. I think this essay, by two "realist" political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the Palestinians, is a straw in the wind...
END QUOTE

funguy:

The snide ruffling of the plumage is duly noted, but I am afraid all you have managed to achieve is the laying of an egg there. Read the last paragraph of page one of the PDF version of the paper. It refers to the updated and edited version being available online at LRB. So yes, there are two versions available.

I disagree with you concerning Dershowitz. Each to their own. I would have thought that the examples of selective quoting and so on would be cause for some concern though? If the onus of proof were placed on M&W to show that they are correct then it becomes a different proposition. Do you really believe the main thrust of their arguments and where they inevitably lead to? Do you think it at all plausible?

rhoss:

"You refer to 'threats' made against Israel by the Iranian President as if this were justification for Israeli and American aggression toward Iran."

Actually I said no such thing. I made reference to comments by eet on the virtues of MAD. He believes it would force Israel to negotiate and the quote was an example of why the deterrent power of MAD may be lost on Iran. Of course your understanding of things Iranian leads you to the obvious conclusion that it is just a rhetorical flourish, that overly florid Persian turn of phrase, nuclear annihilation as a diplomatic gambit. You could be right.

As for the China thing, ever wonder why they haven't invaded Taiwan already? There are other differences that you might consider, you know: China already having nukes, a huge army etc. Practicality might play a part, as opposed to malign Israeli influence.

Beyond which, could you provide a better reason for anyone to lobby Washington than the threat of nuclear war from somewhere with a regime like Iran?

Mr.P.Pig

Colin Rubensteins's article is titled "The 'Israeli lobby' mirage" so it's not unreasonable to assume he would like us to think the Israeli lobby is a mirage.

If you want proof of what is surely the the wealthiest, most powerful and well connected single interest group in the US today, then you could just publish a report along the lines of Mssrs Mearsheimer and Walt. Like them you will receive a tirade of personal abuse, character assassination and invective from some of the most powerful people and institutions in the US.

Then you'd really be convinced there's no such thing as a Jewish lobby :)

As for Mr Rafsanjani, well, I feel sorry for the millions upon millions of Muslims that are saddled with this sort of poor leadership. However, poor leadership on the Muslim side is no excuse for criminal leadership on the Israeli side.

Well PP, "Your insight into..."? Whose insight? Dershowitz's. As for attributing "substance" to the latter, I again urge anyone who wants to understand how Propagandists of Zion such as Dershowitz (and Rubenstein) work to cloud any meaningful understanding of Israel's relentless and ongoing erasure of Palestine to read Norman G Finkelstein's 'Beyond Chutzpah'. "Character assassination"(by alliteration, no less)? Your specialty, PP. Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W? Document it! And while on M & W, listen to Israeli commentator Uri Avnery: "The findings of the two professors are right to the last detail. Every Senator and Congressman knows that criticising the Israeli Government is political suicide. Two of them, a Senator and a Congressman, tried - and were politically executed. The Jewish lobby was fully mobilized against them and hounded them out of office. This was done openly, to set a public example. If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the Ten Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government...Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi."

Strewth,
You ask for

"Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W? Document it!"


chomsky says:

"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999

Meredith: "Veracity" means TRUTH, not 'comvincing'. Next time reach for your dictionary (if you have one) before exposing your ignorance.

Strewth

Chomski says:

"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."

he also says:

"They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)."


look mate he's saying its dodgy, deal with it hey.

[Deleted for abusive language]

BOAZ David,

I wondered what you may have to say about this. It always is pleasing to read your writings on Christ.

`BRUSSELS (Reuters) - More than 80,000 people marched in silence through Brussels on Sunday in memory of a teenager stabbed to death by two suspects of North African origin in Belgium’s biggest protest in 10 years, police said.

Joe Van Holsbeeck, 17, was stabbed five times in the chest during the evening rush hour on April 12 when he refused to hand over his MP3 player to the men in the central railway station.

On the request of Van Holsbeeck’s parents, marchers did not carry any political banners but Van Holsbeeck’s death triggered an uproar over crime and racial tension in Belgium.

The federal prosecutor’s office said on the basis of video footage from security cameras, two men of North African origin were suspected of carrying out the crime.

Leaders of the Muslim community in Brussels said they were disturbed by the stabbing and immams called at Friday prayers for people to turn in the suspects if they knew who they were.`

http://www.dhnet.be/dhinfos/article.phtml?id=148286

click on the link at the top of the linked to page for CCTV footage of the murderers at the scene - `La vidéo de leur fuite`

rhross,

One rule for fanatic islamists who threaten to `wipe Israel off the map` and to end Israel in `one storm` (IraN or any other lunatic regime)

and one rule for other states who do not threatn nuclear armagedon such as china and note also pakistan (also a muslim country you may like to note so as to calm your zionist plot fears - a muslim nation who does not threaten mass murder and the `wiping out` and genocide of an entire group of people in `one storm` as amadeenejahd stated publicy.

its not about zionism, its about the underlying politics and `risk` to ALL of us, jews christains and muslims.

Meredith, your quotes to support the accusation of ‘dodgy’ are not only out of context they are inaccurate.

Chomsky is not saying the ‘Lobby’ does not have power, he is saying, in his view, that the thesis does not hold up because the Lobby is not the major power-broker in US policy as the authors suggest.

He disputes, not the existence of the Lobby, nor its power but the level of power it wields in terms of US policay.
To quote: “M-W make as good a case as one can, I suppose, for the power of the Lobby, but I don't think it provides any reason to modify what has always seemed to me a more plausible interpretation.” That there are forces other than the Lobby which manipulate US power.

To quote again:” Notice incidentally that what is at stake is a rather subtle matter: weighing the impact of several factors which (all agree) interact in determining state policy: in particular, (A) strategic-economic interests of concentrations of domestic power in the tight state-corporate linkage, and (B) the Lobby.”
Chomsky’s view is that the Lobby does not predominate. But he also says:”To evaluate the thesis, we have to distinguish between two quite different matters, which they tend to conflate: (1) the alleged failures of US ME policy; (2) the role of The Lobby in bringing about these consequences. Insofar as the stands of the Lobby conform to (A), the two factors are very difficult to disentagle. And there is plenty of conformity.”

When he says they have a ‘highly selective use of evidence and much of it is assertion’ he refers to their argument that the Lobby is the predominant power-force in terms of US policy.

He is not saying that the Lobby does not exist, that the Lobby does not wield power, merely that he disputes how much power it wields. Chomsky’s view is that the energy corporations for instance play a much larger role than discussed in this thesis.

Meredith: You can wriggle and squirm all you like but Chomsky has still not questioned the "veracity" of M-W's thesis. "Unconvincing", yes, a less plausible interpretation than his own, yes, but nowhere does he speak of lying - that's reserved for the likes of Dershowitz and Rubenstein where he (Chomsky) says, "[A]ny attempt even to bring up plain facts is either ignored (M-W can't be ignored), or sets off the most impressive tantrums, slanders, fabrications and deceit" - which leads me directly to PP who's convinced I'm a "Chomskyite" and "convulsed with cognitive dissonance" at your antics. Sorry to put your snout out of joint PP, but in the debate between Chomsky and Blankfort over whether the tail wags the dog or vice versa I find Blankfort far more convincing than Chomsky. Now, your knickers are obviously in a knot over P of Zion. You mean you're not a propagandist, not a Zionist, not a Propagandist of Zion? And as for "turning people off", have you perhaps noticed how the majority of contributors to this thread are somewhat turned off with respect to the discredited object of your affections? A world-wide turning off I'd say and most concerning for Likudniks such as yourself. Concerning also is your disturbing obsession with bodily fluids. Now I know a good doctor...

Yoyogitoj: You clearly subscribe to the ‘never let the facts get in the way’ school of argument.

You said: One rule for fanatic islamists who threaten to `wipe Israel off the map`

Even the Jerusalem Post reported the quote in context: Iran repeated its threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ IF ISRAEL ATTACKED IRAN’S NUCLEAR SITES.

Would you like to explain how that differs from Israel’s threat, before the invasion, to use nuclear weapons to destroy Iraq if attacked? And, isn’t it kind of standard for a country to threaten retaliation if attacked? Or is that only if you are not Muslim?

In addition, not only has Israel threatened to destroy Iran if attacked, it has threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons even if not attacked. As has the United States.

To date, Iran’s threat is made only as retaliation. That leaves them one up on the morality scale I would have thought.

And, should you take the time to read the Iranian position more carefully, the point made in regard to the ‘annhiliation’ of Israel refers in fact to Israel as an occupying power. Which it is. The Palestinians understandably also feel this way. Israel as an occupying power should be ‘removed.’ That does not mean to say that Israel when it is no longer an occupier and colonizer should be removed. The world at large accepts Israel as a given but on original borders. No-one gets it all. The Palestinians won't get all of their country back and Israel won't get allof Palestine. But the foundation of Israel was both immoral and illegal and until Israel admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and makes redress to those it has dispossessed and abused it will continue to attract this sort of hatred.

oh stop it who gives a crock what chomsky thinks about energy cooperations hes a known moonbat... just funny how even he distances himself from the m/w article, cuz yeh its dodgy or what ever word you can cope with....like i said deal with it.

now back to the merits of the gas chambers ?

rhross,

"We, the Palestinian People, Are in Favor of Iran Having a Nuclear Bomb"

From MEMRI TV, Palestinian terror gang representatives attend a rally in Damascus to show their support for Iran’s Manhattan Project:

Anwar Raja, PFLP representative in Lebanon: The Muslim, Iranian, fighting people now possess nuclear capabilities. My brother, the Iranian representative sitting here, let me tell you that we, the Palestinian people, are in favor of Iran having a nuclear bomb, not just energy for peaceful purposes.

rhross -

I refer you to the HAMAS Charter which calls for the destruction of Isreal - the HAMAS`terror state` sends suicide bombers into Isreal to blow up cafes and busses and murder women and children goign about their days because Isreal was not established in international law... I don`t think so...

HAMAS wants a genocide - it wants ALL the land... wake up ^

AND

This AP story mentions his genocidal threats, but quotes only three sentences from a very long rant: Iran President: Israel Is a ‘Fake Regime’.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday renewed his criticism of Israel, calling it a “fake regime” that cannot continue to exist.

“Some 60 years have passed since the end of World War II. Why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved?” Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. “We say that this fake regime (Israel) cannot logically continue to live,” he said.

rhross, people like you simply do not understand the realities of islamofascism...

rhross, the islmaimist `rally` reported in the SMH may open your eyes to islamofascism and it seems it is not a religion of peace afterall - well, didn`t we know that already - suicide bombings, beheadings etc...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-on-an-extremist-islamic-mission/2006/04/22/1145344316019.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

But they belong to a political group called Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) that calls for the creation of a global Islamic state, or caliphate, under strict sharia law. The message from these young men is one of division, non-assimilation and rejection of the values of the “kafir” - non-Muslims.

rhoss:

“Meredith, your quotes to support the accusation of ‘dodgy’ are not only out of context they are inaccurate.”

You have missed the point entirely here rhoss. The word “dodgy” refers to the W&M paper. The point that Chomsky is making is the same as that of Dershowitz, Rubenstein, meredith and a great many others, including you. Namely that their article is not credible. Please read it:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

to see what this thread is all about.

They are arguing that there is a more insidious Israeli control over US policy, you know, manoeuvring America into going to war on their behalf, those sort of things. If you agree with the points made by Chomsky then you also agree that those sort of claims are not reasonable. You seem to contradict yourself at times, such as the comments concerning Israeli influence following the equivalence you attempted to draw earlier with China?

Please clear this up for us so that we know where you stand. You cannot be arguing that Chomsky is right and then take the position you argued earlier without questions of consistency arising.

I notice nobody seems willing to overtly endorse the W&M article, only arguing against the detractors.

Also, note the date on the Iranian quote I provided above. Please explain how it is out of context. You pointedly did not do that before, just assertion with the “deeper understanding” statement.

Are we really going to have to get all the Ahmadinejad quotes, all the conferences, the elimination of Zionism and USA rhetoric. All that stuff. You would be well aware how many of them there are. Do you really have time to try and explain them all away as errors of context and emphasis and so on. Do you think you would be convincing?

“In addition, not only has Israel threatened to destroy Iran if attacked, it has threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons even if not attacked.”

Please provide a reference for that.

Yogo,

There is a home recording of that that HuT meeting in Bankstown at:

http://democracyfrontline.org/news/?p=38

Dear rHoss
could you explain to me in simple terms (I must be rather dull) how the current 'Isreali Occupation' of their former homeland is different from the Turkish/Ottoman or the Islamic Empire occupation in days gone by ?

What is the distinctive qualitative difference ?

Or.. the difference between the Israeli occupation and our white 'occupation' of indigenous Australia, or the American 'occupation'of Indian lands or the Turkish 'occupation' of Armenian lands, or Kurdish lands.. or..'you name the country' and "I'll name some mob who is 'occupied'"

If you cannot show the difference.. as opposed to some semantic exercise you argument does not carry much weight.

When the Romans took Israel, or the the Arabian Muslims, or the Persians, or Alexander or the Turks (also Muslims)... and so it goes on.

History is shaped by those with the power to shape it. To whom do you appeal in order to reverse this ? the UN? what a joke. Each time they try to decide on action, at least one or more of the 'Security Council' Objects due to 'interests'...... Often Russia or China.

Look to the Almighty. One might be a pre-tribulation rapture premillenialist, or a post millenialist, or a PAN millenialist (It will all 'pan' out ok in the end) or even an 'a-millenialist' or an atheist... there will be no solutions this side of heaven on this issue.
P.S. there is nothing specially spiritually noble about most modern Jews. Sadly many are atheists. No different from Moses day. While he was on the mountain receiving the 10 commandments, they decided to party. -They were not elected because of their inherrant righteousness. If God is working out His purpose though them now, it is in 'spite' of them rather than because of them.

Still, the call goes out to us all, "Who is on the Lords side, choose this day who you will serve".

meredith: "Who gives a crock what Chomsky thinks"? You obviously do, or you wouldn't have raised the subject. And it's not M-W who are "dodgy", it's you who are dodging. PP: Endorsements for M-W: Uri Avnery, Ira Glunts, Tom Segev, Christoph Bertram, David Aaronovitch, Tony Judt, Justin Raimondo are some I've come across.

Boaz-David
Palestine is no more the ‘former homeland’ for Jews than England is for Italians since both invaded and conquered the original inhabitants to take it.
In terms of difference to the Islamic Empire it is more recent and this puts it in the same category, as you suggest, of Australia, the US etc. This is my point. Until Israel acknowledges the ‘wrongs’ inherent in its foundation as all other historically recent colonizers have to do (and it is the recent ones because you cannot go back too far…. Just tough luck for the recent ones) have had to do it will not have legitimacy. The partition was illegal and it was unjust, like all colonisations but redress can be made. This of course can only apply to the original borders unless Israel can reach agreement with the Palestinians on change.
You of course overlook the worst aspect of Israel’s action is the brutality of its occupation and the colonization it has continued to carry out under cover of that colonization…. In blatant disregard of international law, the Geneva Convention, and human rights.

Yoyogitoj,

Israel may be threatened, but it is not under threat. Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. It is armed to the teeth and it has a history of aggression toward its neighbours. In addition, it is backed by the world’s current superpower, the United States. Anyone, with half a brain can deduce that Israel is NOT under any real threat.

There can be no cry of ‘islamofascism’ as long as Israel remains an aggressor in the region. ‘judaofascism’ and ‘christofascism’ are far greater threats because this fundamentalism comes from countries which do have nuclear weapons and which say they are prepared to use them.
When you have finished looking at websites showing Muslim violence you might like to trawl through those which show the murdered and maimed in Palestine and Iraq …. You’ll find plenty of headless, armless, eyeless children there. And they are dead not because someone is fighting against occupation but because someone is fighting to maintain occupation.

Meredith
You were out of context because you missed the basic point Chomsky was making. Chomsky is not saying what the others said but perhaps you see only what you want to see instead of what is there. Denial does that.

I don’t necessarily agree with Chomsky. He has a point in regard to corporate power but I am not convinced he is right that the Jewish lobby does not wield more power. As he said himself, they are so interlinked at times. I thought the W-M article raised salient points and points I might add which have been raised and buried before.

You conveniently overlook the fact that it is one thing to threaten and another to act. Plenty of leaders threaten, many of them at the instigation of the US I might add, but only the US and Israel believe in bombing people because of what they say instead of what they do.

In addition, it is hardly surprising for a nation to be threatened when it acts like a thug. Israel is the regional thug and the United States is the world’s biggest thug at this point in time. Most people respond to the threats of bullies with their own threats.

Israel of course plays coy in regard to its nuclear capability but it is accepted that it has nuclear weapons, in spades. Israel threatened to use neutron bombs against Iraq: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html and has threatened Iran with pre-emptive strikes….. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,396791,00.html. Israel has said in the past it is prepared to use all of its capability. By extension, its nuclear capability.

rhross.. may I know why one cannot go back 'too far'? I think the destruction of Jerusalem and exile of pretty much the whole population in AD 70 can be laid today at the door of the Italian Parliament ! I am surprised Jews don't mount a massive class action against the Roman government of today for untold compensation.

Lets face it, the evidence is well documented.

You seem to be suggesting the Israelites took it from the indigenous..well they actually took it from some tribes which were in many ways related to themselves, (back to the sons of Noah) but the point was, the land was promised to the descendants of Abraham, and not so they can sit on their deck chairs and enjoy it.. but that they might share the Salvation of God with the world.

I think you are battling uphill to seek a human and 'humane' solution when there really isn't one. The Italians/Romans started it, now the Israelis are finishing it. They were removed by force of arms, and they are now re-establishing it by force of arms. The Palestinians are seeking to remove them 'by force of arms' so it all seems pretty even to me. "Last man standing gets the prize."

When it comes to tribes, nation-states (i.e. hyper-tribes) etc, and land/resources, there is only one means of establishing peace.... "power". Once a power framework is established, they can get on with the niceties of civil codes etc. But lets never 4get it all rests on power.

It should never be about the last and bloodiest outburst of brutality, because human nature is the same. Read Josephus on the conditons leading up to the destruction of the Temple. It will make your ears tingle. The current crisis is kiddie school compared to those days.

P.S.is your surname 'Ross' ? if yes, we are probably related :) or at least share ancestral land connections in Scotland. Remember the highland clearances ?

rhoss:

That link you provided had better not be to a regular source of your information.

http://www.globalresearch.ca

A more concentrated seam of total moonbattery I have not seen for a long time. Really, I am impressed. Being a long-time fan as I am of Pilger and his ilk and having a soft spot for the sort of rhetoric that makes use of phrases such as "puppet regime" and "stooges of the US industrial militarist complex".

From the front page:

Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"
- by Michel Chossudovsky

Pentagon implements Global Military Policing
Second 9/11 to provide an "Opportunity" to Intervene
- by Michel Chossudovsky

Rumsfeld accuses bin Laden and Zarqawi of Manipulating the U.S. Media

Starve the Racist Prison Beast: Review of America's System of Mass Incarceration
- by Paul Street

Dead Cities
Some of the key players are urging that the "Fallujah Option" be applied to Baghdad.

Real tasty this one.

The War Lovers
- by John Pilger

Rachel’s Words Live On: Each Palestinian has a special place in their heart for Rachel Corrie. - by Remi Kanazi

You succinctly eliminate any hopes of credibility. Sad. That is the largest mother-lode of paranoid conspiracist brain spasm I have seen since Joe Vialls passed on (he of Israeli micro nukes caused Asian tsunami fame). Amazing.

Beware the black helicopters.

Strewth,

You bought it up, I answered.

Chomsky questioning the "veracity" of M & W?Document it!
Posted by Strewth, Monday, 24 April 2006 4:49:09 PM

chomsky says:
"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9999
Posted by meredith, Monday, 24 April 2006 6:12:06 PM

Meredith: "Veracity" means TRUTH, not 'comvincing'. Next time reach for your dictionary (if you have one) before exposing your ignorance.
Posted by Strewth, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:00:04 PM

Strewth
Chomski says:
"But recognizing that M-W took a courageous stand, which merits praise, we still have to ask how convincing their thesis is. Not very, in my opinion."
he also says:
"They also have a highly selective use of evidence (and much of the evidence is assertion)."
look mate he's saying its dodgy, deal with it hey.
Posted by meredith, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:23:16 PM

meredith: "Who gives a crock what Chomsky thinks"? You obviously do, or you wouldn't have raised the subject.And it's not M-W who are "dodgy", it's you who are dodging
Posted by Strewth, Wednesday, 26 April 2006 11:22:56 AM

Your resorting to splitting hairs over the word truth and unconvincing... I say dodgy and for you to deal with it, like cope hey, cuz your hero Chomsky is even not with you here on the MW article. (me dodging?)Like the posts show, it was you that bought it up mate, I just answered u

IRAN SAYS, "THE MUSHROOM CLOUD IS ON ITS WAY."

The threats that Israel faces from Iran escalate daily. First, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boldly declares that Israel should be “wiped from the map,” then he audaciously announces that the Holocaust is a myth perpetrated by guilt-stricken Europeans. Now he is exporting that hatred globally.

Reports have surfaced that Islamic militant recruiters are enlisting homicide bombers in England because of the ease with which they can enter Israel. As many as 70 attacks have been threatened in coming days.

When faced with total annihilation of her kinsmen, Esther was challenged by Mordecai with these words: “For if you keep silence at such a time as this, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another quarter, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14)

Esther rose to the challenge, proclaimed a day of prayer and fasting, and was an instrument in God’s hands to deliver her people from destruction.

In a recent rally in New York City (yes, the same New York City attacked by terrorists on 9/11) a group calling themselves “Islamic Thinkers Society” waved banners and flags symbolizing the desire to bring the entire world under Islamic rule. Here are just a few excerpts from this chillingly radical group:

The leader of the group cries in Arabic, and those gathered respond in kind:
“With our blood and our lives we will liberate al Aqsa!”
Leader: “Israeli Zionists, what do you say? The real Holocaust is on the way. Takbeer!”
Response: “Allah Akbar!”

And another verse of this demonic chant issues this warning:

“Zionists, Zionists, you will pay! The Wrath or Allah is on its way!
Israeli Zionists you shall pay! The Wrath of Allah is on its way!
The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real Holocaust is on its way!”

This diabolical tirade ends with:

“Islam will dominate the world. Islam is the only solution!
Takbeer…Another mushroom cloud right in the middle of Israel!”

If there is no pro-Israel lobby in Australia it should be created because factual anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish sentiment hardly excusable with speeches of equal attitudes towards all minorities, either Christian or non-Christian and racially various, could practically affect Australian-Israeli relations and politics towards a Jewish State.

However, Holy Book herself is to present a very example of a Jewish freedom of thinking and speaking noticed since the dawn of human history recorded:

Jewish-Iranian PM Supports Iran Nuke Program

In interview at TV channel “Al-Arabia” a member of the Iranian parliament, Mr. Maurice Matmad, an ethnic Jew, has highlighted his support to a national nuke programme “targeting peaceful goals”, informed on a local Jewry positive overwhelming commitment to nuclear activities, spoken of good relations between Iranian Jewish community (25-30 thousands people of Jewish origin live in Iran, 80 synagogues functioning), and characterised Iranian president’s anti-Holocaust declarations as “redneckness and political speculations”.
Source:
http://www.alarabiya.net/

Yes, meredith, right for once. It was actually your cheerleader, PP, who led you astray with the word "veracity", which you ran with clueless of its meaning. Have you purchased a dictionary yet?

Now Philo, that "mushroom cloud" suggests only one thing - that you regard readers of this thread as mushrooms and would trot out any old nonsense to keep us in the dark. I find it endlessly fascinating, the way the likes of PP, meredith, Philo and (groan) Boaz come together to throw up as much of a smokescreen as possible whenever anyone (such as Mearsheimer and Walt) dares to throw some light on what's really going on in the Middle East. I admire your dedication, however I'm concerned about the toll this constant denial of reality must be having on you. To quote meredith: you guys/gals really need to "deal with it"!

New Video by Al-Qaeda Commander in Iraq Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi
Special Dispatch - Iraq/ Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project April 27, 2006 No. 1149

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD114906 .

On April 25, 2006, the Islamist web forum www.alsaha.com posted a video by Al-Qaeda Commander in Iraq Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. The video culminates in footage of Al-Zarqawi with masked fighters, firing an automatic weapon, and the firing of what the leader of the fighters claims are new missiles developed by "the brothers."

The following is the translation of this clip:
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT:
http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1118 .

"We are Fighting in Iraq, but Our Eyes are Set Upon Jerusalem"
[Graphic of hands holding up a black banner.]
Screen: "The Shura Council of the Mujahideen in Iraq"
Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi: "When the Crusader enemy entered Iraq, it intended to gain control over the [Islamic] nation, and to strengthen the state of the sons of Zion, from the Nile to the Euphrates. But Allah has given the mujahideen sons [of the nation] the strength to face the cruelest Crusader campaign, invading the lands of the Muslims. They have withstood this invasion for more than three years." [...]
"My dear nation, we in Iraq are but a stone's throw away from the place of the Prophet's ascension. We are fighting in Iraq, but our eyes are set upon Jerusalem, which will only be restored to us through the guidance of the Koran and the support of the sword. Allah's guidance and support suffice." ..............

See what I mean?

Boaz-David.
One cannot go back too far because it is simply not practicable. As you say, everyone has been invaded and occupied at one point or other. But, as humanity became more enlightened the wrongs in this were recognized and more recent colonizers have been called to account as they should be. Israel is one of them. Even more so because Israel continues to colonise while maintaining a brutal and often vicious occupation.

You quote a ‘history’ of the Hebrews which is Biblical. The Bible has no legal basis. It is a collection of myth, fantasy, history, propaganda and story-telling. There is in fact little or no archeological evidence for Jerusalem as the Bible presents it. The ‘hard’ evidence is that it was probably no more than a small ‘camp.’ But, even if you believe the Bible stories they cannot be held as evidence in law.

And, while you may find it credible that a God worth believing in would ‘give’ someone else’s lands to the Hebrews, and encourage genocide against the inhabitants, most people in the world do not. Immoral, illegal and unlikely.

Interestingly, recent advances in translation of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs show that the Torah, and Bible by extesnsion, are sourced in Egyptian religion. The Ten Commandments, word for word, and many of the parables. There you go, the ‘original’ Jewish ‘homeland’ is Egypt. Should they take that back?

And while ‘power’ may have done the talking for most of our history, in a more enlightened world we no longer believe this which is why occupation and colonization are deemed to be wrong. Unless you would have us return to more barbaric times when strength tramples justice and tyranny strangles dialogue as happens today in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

I am not a real ‘Scot’ as the name suggests, despite having a Scottish great-grandmother, who married a Greek fisherman who ‘shortened’ his name to Ross. I also have Jewish ancestors on both sides, thankfully ‘lapsed’ which leaves me as an Australian with a great deal of time for God and none at all for religion.

Philo,
If you wanted to trawl the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian sites, which you probably don't, you would find the same sort of thing. The fanatical Christians believe all of Palestine has to be rid of Arabs and be Jewish for the second coming ... at which point the Jews who don't convert get obliterated; and fanatical Jews believe that all of Palestine should be ethnically (genocidally if need be) cleansed of Arabs because it belongs to them. Nutters of course.

The difference is that the Muslims have a reason for their rage and ranting and the Jews and Christians do not. That's because for half a century Israel has occupied and colonised Palestine, threatened its neighbours, bombed its neighbours, invaded its neighbours and the United States has interfered, backed tyrants, propped up dictators, bombed and invaded Muslim nations.

Now, if there is any threat out there guess who has the 'street cred' for attacking and invading. Spot on. Israel and the US. And, next guess: Who has the nuclear weaponry. Right again. Israel and the US.

Just using a bit of rational thought for a minute and not the paranoid propaganda prating which comes from Israel and its supporters, as in they hate us(and for good reason), they will destroy us (we know they won't because they can't but its a good cover for colonising) who is more of a danger: those who have a record of aggression and are nuclear armed (Israel and the US) or those who don't (Muslim nations)? It's radical I know but a bit of rational thought can be useful at times. This is one of them.

GrahamY,

If u are around whats the process for bans on here, does someone complain and the staff check the one post complained about or are all posts constantly watched.

Dear Rhross

A great deal of time for God...but none for 'religion' ? well said in a way.

But the 'religion' you speak of, which repulses you so much, is probably the same 'religion' which repulses God, as expressed in the prophets of the Old Testament, and Jesus rebuke to the Pharisees, Sadducees, scribes and lawyers of His day.

"True religion cares for the fatherless and the widow" is found in James I think.

I feel you are apportioning far to much guilt to Israel and too little to PLO terrorists. Much of what you describe as 'Israeli brutality' is in response to specific terror attacks. The PLO always claim that their attacks are 'in response to' some Israeli attack which turns out to be a response to the previous PLO attack, and so it goes on. I've watched very carefully the cycle of violence over there, and can identify specific times when the PLO have broken cease fires etc, saying "But the occupation".. but the.. but the.. etc...

You would have noticed that when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, the response was not less but MORE violent attacks.. rockets etc....

You have an unfairly negative spin on the unfolding of last days issues. Jews.."Those who don't convert will be annihalated"
You use this in a sense of suggesting the Christians will 'rejoice' over such a tragedy ? No.. if you read Revelation, you will see clearly that it was only those incredibly stubborn unrepentant people who, in the face of the unmistakable reality of the Judgement of God STILL chose to live a debaucherous ungodly life.

[6Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. 7He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. (Rev16)

Human response ?

[and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.]

Will you curse or bless ?

What's the matter, meredith? Want to shoot the messenger? Mearsheimer and Walt have something relevant to say here: "[T]he Lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts -or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites - violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case* and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned." [*Such as it is.]

Strewth,

Shoot the messenger? No not at all... I was just wondering who/what shot Mr. P Pig he's been banned from the forum for a previous comment all of a sudden and I quiet liked his imput.

As for Chomsky, rather let him do it to himself as he usually does.

Sorry I wish the Isrealies well in their fight for a voice, will you be okay? Shame freedom choice isn't more illegal hey, but as you say "efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned."

Sorry as well for any spelling mistakes to incase that was going to be your next reply to me.

Boaz-David
Religion does not repulse me. I merely find it to be more about man (in the masculine) than about any God. Wicca aside, virtually all religious expression is patriarchal, misogynistic and lacking, in general practice, in deep spiritual expression.
Your quotes come from writings which have been propagandized throughout the ages, burying still deeper, the core of spirituality which exists in all religions. The fact is, the ‘best’ of religion has nothing to do with religion but can be found in all human beings.
If I apportion more ‘guilt’ to Israel as you put it, that is because this situation would not exist if Palestine had not been partitioned in the first place; if the Zionists had not used terrorism to establish the State; if Israel had not sought to take yet more of Palestine; if Israel had not become a brutal occupier; if Israel had not continued a policy of dispossession and colonization; if Israel had not refused to treat those it dispossessed fairly; if Israel offered full rights to it’s non-Jewish citizens; if Israel had not carried out a policy of theft, aggression, imprisonment, torture, collective punishment, assassination, willful murder, willful destruction of homes, agriculture and infrastructure; if Israel had not committed human rights abuses and war crimes …. You get the picture.

The PLO, and remember, they are under occupation not the occupiers and they are fighting for their freedom while Israel is fighting to prevent them having freedom….a technicality perhaps but why is it that the French partisans fighting against German occupation were freedom fighters and the Palestinians fighting against Israeli occupation are terrorists? Why is it terrorism for people to fight against occupation and not terrorism for a State to use bombs and bullets to maintain occupation?

The ‘cycle of violence’ you watch so carefully began with the injustice of Palestinian dispossession when the Jews used terrorist tactics to take someone else’s land to establish their State. Absolutely everything else has followed on from that wrong.

Boaz_David 2
So, the finger of blame is pointed clearly at the UN and the international community for allowing the partition against the will of the people living there and against the Zionists who used terror to remove people from their land.

How many Australians do you think would sit back and do nothing if the international community divided our country in half and ‘gave’ it to say the ‘gypsies’(who are stateless) after it was ‘found’ that their ancestors had had a homeland here some thousands of years ago? And yet you expect the Palestinians to sit back and say: Sure you can have it!

And you have to be kidding about Gaza. It is a concentration camp. It is surrounded by an electric fence. We use that to keep cattle in. When Israel ‘left’ it merely threw out a few illegal settlers and locked the prison gates. It kept control over entry in and out, that’s what happens with prisons; control over air and sea….

The Israelis, despite a ceasefire which Hamas has kept continued to bomb and shoot the people of Gaza. Oh yes, that’s because the Palestinians fired a few pathetic home-made rockets into enemy territory.The people of Gaza are not only imprisoned and abused, they are starving. And you think they are unreasonable for ‘responding.’

The Palestinian attacks are always in response to the wrongs of dispossession and colonization. Until Israel admits to those wrongs and makes redress there will always be a Palestinian ‘response.’ Just as other colonized people like American Indians, New Zealand Maoris and Australian Aboriginals ‘responded’ until they were given justice….

Either full citizenship, which Israel won’t do because it is a racist State and wants to maintain a Jewish majority or a separate, viable, contiguous State with reparation paid to all the Palestinians thrown out of their land by the Zionists and compensation paid to the Palestinians for the suffering, murder and destruction Israel has carried out against them for half a century in order to maintain its occupation and colonisation.

I have a personal friend David working among refugees in Austria. Most are seeking to learn English and German, and are 100% Muslim none are Jews. Compare this proposal by:

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Elaborates on His Plan for the Jews to Leave Israel and Return to Germany and Austria
The following are excerpts from a speech by Iranian President Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that aired on Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on April 24, 2006.

The following are excerpts from a speech by Iranian President Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that aired on Iranian News Channel (IRINN) on April 24, 2006.
TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1116

Iranian President Ahmadinejad: "The greatest problem from which humanity suffers today, the main problem facing the countries of the Middle East, is the continuation of the processes that took place during World War II."

Good God, He's at it AGAIN!

With North Korean assistance, Iran could already target Israel with its 1300 km range Shahab 3 (No Dong class) missile. But with the acquisition of the Russian-made SSN6 missiles (known in the West as BM-25s), Iran has extended the range of its ballistic capabilities to now take in much of Europe and parts of the Middle East previously out of reach. Some of the missiles have already arrived in Iran, Yadlin said.

The disclosure confirms a report in the German publication Bild that Iran recently received 18 of the BM-25 missiles from North Korea.

In a lecture earlier this month, Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin - considered the father of the Arrow anti-missile defense system - suggested that German intelligence likely leaked the report to the press out of concern the country was now within Iran's range. Rubin said he also suspects North Korea may just be a conduit for Russian missile sales to Iran.

The purchase of the BM-25s has allowed the Iranians to leapfrog over their Shihab-4 missile program, which has a projected range of 2,000 kilometers and has been under testing for nine years with spotty results.

Ha'aretz adds that American intelligence sources say Iran is at an advanced stage of developing a missile that can carry a nuclear warhead. Washington has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the details of the Iranian missile program.

Mearsheimer and Walt's paper on the Israel lobby says, "On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington Post reported that 'Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq's Saddam Hussein.' By this point, according to Sharon, strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached 'unprecedented dimensions', and Israeli intelligence officials had given Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq's WMD programmes. As one retired Israeli general later put it, 'Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq's non-conventional capabilities.'"

Now we all know where all of this wonderful intelligence led, don't we? No prizes for guessing where bogus Israeli intelligence would have the US go next. And maybe Australia with it. Israel and its lobby were happy for the US to pick off its strategic enemy, Iraq. They'd be just as happy for it to pick of their regional rival, Iran. Must American (and maybe Australian) soldiers again be sacrificed to ensure that Israel remains top-dog in the Middle East?

Strewth,
Your intelligence on WOMD is poor. Saddam Hussein's chief of Air Force was recently in Australia doing a tour and he stated the weapons were in existence and were moved some three months before the strike to Saudi Arabia. Arial survelliance showed this was the case. I have ariel photographs and copies of reports done by the UN weapons inspectors over a period of a year prior to the entrance of the coalition into Iraq.

It is true the Americans stated they found no evidence that WOMD existed upon their entrance into Iraq. That did not mean they did not have them. They did have them and they had previously used them against the Kurds and Iran.

I would not base any ligitimate intelligence on things you are upholding to be true.

Of course you wouldn't, you're ideologically blinkered. And the only WMD you know anything about are Weapons of Mass Deception. Although, how many times do you think you can get away with crying Wolfowitz, Philo?

Look, even close relatives do not understand each others sometimes – so, nothing new under sun, but existence of a state of Israel, which too many tried to have it being annihilated.

Solution? Love/hate it or leave an idea of annihilation if own lives are of value for these minders.

Do you speak English?

Nazism and Islam

Goose-Stepping Iranians

Conservative Voice, Alan Caruba, April 24, 2006

“An ignorance of history can leave an entire generation vulnerable to threats they may otherwise dismiss as bombast. Most who lived during the 1930s rise of the Nazi’s Third Reich are dead and all that’s left are the images on the History Channel. That’s why the sight of goose-stepping Iranian soldiers is eerily redolent of goose-stepping German storm troopers. In an even more bizarre reflection of the German regime that emerged in the 1930s is the obsessive rhetoric blaming the Jews for the troubles of the Middle East and the threats to wipe Israel off the map. In the midst of WWII, the Nazis diverted important resources to round up and kill six million European Jews, along with five million Christians, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others they deemed “sub-human” or political enemies….”
At: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14087.html#

Philo: Many nations use the goose-step march. Would you bomb all of them for this? Probably.
If you want to do Nazi comparisons: which nation in the Middle East is inherently racist and discriminates against its own citizens: Israel. Which nation, like Nazi Germany imprisons without charge, tortures, assassinates? Israel. Which nation has invaded and holds other under occupation like Germany? Israel. Which nation, like Germany has attacked its neighbours and wants to be dominant in the region? Israel. Which nation concentrates, like Germany, on building up a formidable military? Israel. Which nation refers to those it holds under occupation as 'vermin' to be 'removed'? Israel.

Iran on the other hand, has attacked no-one. It's leader may be a little rabid but then so was Sharon. The Iranians make a valid point that Israel is the cause of most of the problems in the Middle East. If Israel had not been founded illegally and immorally, and instituted a brutal occupation and continued colonisation, there would not be a conflict in the Middle East.

Does this mean Israel should be removed? No, but it should return to original borders and pay compensation for the misery and suffering it has caused. Do Iranians and others in the Middle East have reason to wish Israel could be removed. Certainly. Can they do it? Absolutely not.

Your posts are tired propaganda.

Political Zionism can only survive by constantly conjuring up ME bogeymen, all allegedly direct heirs of the Nazis: Nasser, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, Hamas and now Ahmedinijad. Israel (and its purblind supporters like Philo) does its utmost to scream, shout, and point the finger at one Middle Eastern 'Hitler' after another, while quietly and relentlessly going about its business of grinding the Palestinian people under its jackboot and pulling their land out from under them. The bully's pretense that he is really a victim fools no one anymore. His crimes against humanity are only equalled by his hypocrisy.

The fact is I have five members of family who have or still live in Israel, all Orthodox Jews including Rabbi that might have something to do with my sympathies for Israel. They were all formerly Australian citizens and I will defend their right to life and I will condemn the constant anti-Israeli propaganda that would threaten their life. Not one of them has handled a rifle or explosives, but two have been in the presence of exploding Palistinian bommers.

Philo, I have good friends who live in Israel but that does not stop me recognising the fact that they live where they live because of dispossession and injustice.
Your relatives may have a 'right' to live in Israel of original borders but they do not have a right to live anywhere else. Neither do they have a right to maintain an illegal occupation, support an illegal and immoral colonisation, refuse to compensate those they have dispossessed and to support a State which sanctions terrorism against the Palestinian people.
If Israel had compensated those it dispossessed; had apologised for the wrongs inherent in its creation; had ended theoccupation and paid for the reconstruction of all that they have destroyed ..... Israelis would not be attacked.
Any country which uses violence and terrorism to occupy and colonise will be attacked. The violence which Israelis face is of their own and their supporters making.
Israelis can claim no true 'rights' until they, like other colonising nations have admitted to the wrongs of their foundation and made redress.

Yes, I do, Strewth. I speak English much better than you speak Arabic, for instance, but I am not privileged to post to this page twice per day.

Philo, you're defending the indefensible: the right of some Australians to be given automatic citizenship in Israel while the original inhabitants of the land rot in refugee camps, denied the right of every refugee - to return to their homes and land. Yet another example of your (and Israel's) monumental hypocrisy.

From the article at the bottom we can see the power obsession and neglect of the people of Iran by its Government. Iran will feed Hamas the weapons to attempt the destruction of Israel.

This is a quote from a friend in Israel,"Internally we see Hamas positioning itself in a posture that says they are getting ready to hit Israel with everything they have - in the near future. Possibly when Iran makes its move to destroy the Jewish State. What many of us here in Israel are struggling with is why Israel sat still for weeks and allowed truck loads of weapons to flow into Gaza through the open border with Egypt?"
____________________________

Increased Child Prostitution In The Islamist Regime

Western Restistance, April 25, 2006

“News today from AKI reports that child prostitution in Iran is on the increase, according to sociologist Amanollah Gharaii Moghaddam. He told AKI that the reason for an increase in prostitution as a whole among young people in the nation is a consequence of the widespread unemployment and a failing economy. 28% of young people aged 15 to 29 are unemployed.

Other factors include restrictions on women, along with drug addiction and domestic violence, causing many young women to leave their homes. Amanollah Gharaii Moghaddam claims that girls as young as 12 are now selling their bodies on the streets of Iran's cities. There are an estimated 300,000 prostitutes in Tehran, the capital, but the sociologist states: "the number isn't so high when compared to the four million unemployed only in Tehran and the five million drug addicts today in Iran."…”

At: http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002018.htm

About as relevant as the following in yesterday's Australian Jewish News: "SEX SCANDAL ROCKS AIF: The Israeli Air Force was rocked by allegations of serial statutory rape at one of its bases...allegations that as many as 30 airmen at a base in southern Israel had sex with a local girl when she was 13 and 14." Like I said, Philo, monumental hypocrisy.

Strewth,
I don't know if you recognise the difference? What the Israeli military did was a criminal act and will be brought to justice. What is happening in Iran is from poverty and Government neglect. Their society did not get that way because of Israel. Israel has had no impact on Iran, except Iran's obsession with Israel's destruction. They are more concerned for the pride of Allah than for the people of Iran. Israel is a wealthy country with laws that will deal with criminal acts against children. This is not the case in Iran. Mohamet had sex with a nine year old girl, so they see nothing wrong with having sex with children.

"What the Israeli military did was a criminal act and will be brought to justice." Awesome! Now what about those 700 odd Palestinian kids murdered by your heroes? When will those criminal acts be brought to justice? Take the case of 13 year old schoolgirl, Iman al-Hams, first gunned down, then finished off at point blank range by Captain 'R' in October 2004. He was recently acquited, awarded 80,000 Israeli shekels compensation for his troubles, and promoted to major. Justice in Israel doesn't get much better than that. But those 700 aren't a problem for you, are they Philo? They're not Jewish, so they don't count. "Laws that deal with criminal acts against children"? Pull the other one. As I've said before - truly Monumental Hypocrisy.

Israelis believe that Arabs are inferior. They like to believe that they are superior and the only democracy in the region despite the fact that it is Israel which commits the greatest human rights abuses in the region, and that's saying something given the tyrannical regimes which run most Arab countries.
Fact is, Israel is the only one using State sanctioned terrorism to maintain an occupation and colonisation programme. Israel is responsible for the wilful murder of men, women and children; for the refusing access to medical treatment which results in the deaths of babies; for imprisonment without trial and torture; for attacks on its neighbours.
It is also a declared racist State which refuses to give full rights to all citizens.
Tom Hurndall and James Miller were murdered by the IDF as was Rachel Corrie so the IDF is happy to murder non-Arabs as well as Arabs. Thanks to British law the last two might get justice because the case is being pursued to bring not just the murderers to justice but their military superiors

http://www.aviransplace.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/03/israeli-hackers-hacked-iranian-government-sites/

“Unlike Islam’s Koran, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land. Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel “expansionist!” And how dare anyone believe them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide?”

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/WThomasSmithJr/2006/05/01/195455.html
"The only thing standing between Western Civilization and the anarchy of Islamo-fascism is the fact that there is a Western country in the Middle East, namely Israel,” says Linder. "If Israel did not exist, all of the energy and attention of the Islamic World would be focused on Christian Europe."
My friend, Gary Goldstein, a New York-based books editor and fourth-generation Jewish American, agrees.
"Strategically, Israel is a major deterrent to the spread of radical Islam throughout that part of the world,

Putting to one side MIB's irrelevant nonsense about Islam and Judaism (as if they had anything to do with the colonial issue of Palestine), and dealing with the twisted 'logic' of his central argument - a commonplace of Zionist propaganda - we find that because the Palestinians are 'Arabs' there should be no problem with them decamping permanently for somewhere else in the Arab world, abandoning their land, homes and businesses to European, American, and Australian Jews, most of whom incidentally have voted with their feet and remained in Europe, America, Australia etc. By the same 'logic' I could just as easily make out a case for Australian Jews decamping to New York.

As for MIB's second 'contribution', a clarifying quote from Mearsheimer & Walt is in order: "[S]aying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."

Martin,

"How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide?”

yup man totaly puts a lil perspective on it all, btw on anti Jew propaganda a visit to the site http://www.memritv.org/ is worth the effort, it's just translations of the hatred to Jews nothing more nothing less.

And for anti-Arab/Muslim propaganda you need go no further than the ludicrous and hysterical contributions of meredith and his mates on this very site.

How many on the Earth non-Anglos were murdered while upon generations British subjects “imposing civilization and democracy” on still seemingly less delighted? What about Britain-originated iron-clad land rights in Africa, Australia, America and wherever round “third world”? -and biologically motivated intellectual genocide still dominating the Australian reality?

Your instantly racist anti-Semitic stances on this page sound usually because you repeat them around this forum and eventually day-by-day at the Adelaide Institute or any other Australia’s university / any place you have been to.

Is it expressed in plain English enough you to consume?

Do you speak English?

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made a reply to their critics at the following:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/letters.php

If anyone is still interested.

Rick Richman:

“In their reply, they acknowledge not a single error in their paper. Instead, they have repeated and compounded their factual mistakes. So, unfortunately, here we go again.”

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/05/walt_mearsheime.html

Also of interest at that link above are the references to the Bantustans, as raised earlier by rhoss.

Also of note is this cross posted article by Benny Morris:

http://www.yourish.com/2006/04/28/1158

who was a source that M&W used in their article. As he says:

“Yet their work is a travesty of the history that I have studied and written for the past two decades.”

Sort of sets the general tone really.

Mr Pig,
There was some interesting reading in those links and most of it brought out in defence of Israel has been regurgitated time and time again.
Much of it is so weak it is funny. In defending Israel's 'weakness' we are expected to believe that a massively armed State, with nuclear capacity, is threatened by population numbers. On that basis then the United States is not a superpower at all, but, because it is hated by most of the world, really, a weak nation in need of defence.
Beyond all the he said, I said, they said, we said hyperbole and propaganda, stirred in with some facts, there is a stark reality which reaches beyond all of it:
1. Israel was founded illegally and immorally through the dispossession of others.
2. That wrongful dispossession has created this conflict.
3. The conflict has been exacerbated by the fact that Israel is not only a barbaric occupier it is a brutal coloniser. It is guilty of human rights abuses daily and war crimes frequently.
4. It is the Palestinians who were originally wronged and who continue to be wronged. Israel was and is the aggressor and the Palestinians are the victims. Israel, as the occupier and as the stronger party has the obligation and responsibility to act to free those it holds under occupation. If it does not, the Palestinians have every right to fight for their freedom.
5. Israel is hated and has enemies because of all of these things. Until Israel admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation, ends the occupation, returns to original borders and makes redress, there will never be peace and Israel will never be anything other than an aggressor.
These are the simple facts beneath, behind, above and around the entire conflict. Sure, there have been wrongs on both sides but the wrongs of Israel far outweigh all others simply because the State uses terrorism to maintain an occupation and colonisation.

rhoss:

Assertion is the weakest for of argument.

“Live Chat with Shlomo Ben-Ami”
http://blog.oup.com/oupblog/2006/02/live_chat_with__1.html

A primary source, so if it comes to he said she said then… you have to admit it is a pretty good source. He was there at the time.

Go on, admit it. The Bantustans thing was propaganda, wasn’t it.

Propaganda Pig - thought you'd been put out to pasture. Benny Morris eh? Now look, you're getting me a bit confused here. I once quoted Benny to Big Ted, in his earlier article, An Enterprise of Fools, and before you knew it Big Ted was telling me: "...the scholarship of Benny Morris has been ripped to shreds by Ephraim [sic] Karsh"! Now I thought that was a bit harsh, but he then went on to say that "Ephraim" (sic) had "eviscerated Benny's "theses". Eviscerated, PP! So tell us, PP, end the confusion, is Benny IN or OUT?

A well balanced in the Washington Post looks at the conflict from both sides:

"It's been often noted that a key reason for the intractability of the conflict between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East is that both sides operate with a mutually exclusive set of assumptions about the history of the dispute.

Jews view the state of Israel as the triumph of a dispossessed people who waited 2,000 years for a return to their homeland. If violence has accompanied that return, it is solely because of Arab intransigence; Jews were willing to settle peacefully among their Arab neighbors, but the latter were hostile to a sovereign Jewish entity in the Middle East and declared war against it from its inception.


Muslims view the state of Israel as the most egregious example of Western colonialism and imperialism, a foreign body inserted into the Middle East for the purpose of furthering Western domination. Any violence is solely the fault of the Jews and their Western allies. The Jews were able to take possession of the land by violently displacing its inhabitants, and they have succeeded in holding on to it with the help of Western military support."

Read on at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/08/AR2006050801388.html

I would be interested to hear from other posters their opinions on the conclusion to this article.

Interesting article Scout.

By extrapolation, the Aboriginals of Australia have the same right to ‘recolonise’ the continent and force out the ‘white man’ into enclaves, etc. - as would the North American Indian (and the South American!)have the right to do the same to ‘white man’ on those continents.

I wonder if, down the path of time, when the Caucasian has lost it’s sway of this world, some other State will assist these two peoples to achieve this in 'their national interests'?

Makes us whites think about things a little perhaps? Maybe should make all persons desiring power think a little perhaps?

It is fine to notice that among discussants at least Mr Reason demonstrates some understanding of the issues already highlighted with my posts. Of course, no reference to my mailings as biologically inferiors non-Anglos AND in this part of an English Dominion have not been supposed to even a slight sign of any intellectual / professional activities but serving a higher race, as a British subject of an Australian residency, Strewh, and alike factually express with their mail on these Australian forum pages. Do not vast your time, Mr B.Pig, he et all understand you perfectly which just irritates them more.

Long life to Israel, a place the Jews can stay on their own.

And “Palestinians”, that is the Arabs from Israel, are welcome: the more they have been to Australia or other still English feudal enclaves, the bigger a nonsense of a local Anglo-racist reality to be pushed to a positive change long overdue.

Does anyone have any idea about what MichaelK wrote means?

Eisen puts a Jewish perspective to this of course because he is trying to see something of both sides through a biased prism.

It is interesting when he talks about ‘threats’ and says that ‘what matters here is Jewish perceptions of reality, not necessarily the reality itself,’ admitting that there is no true threat in reality.

He displays the weakness of his case for the Muslim side by not talking about Palestinians, but instead citing the killing of American peacemakers as well as American soldiers in Iraq as evidence of a lack of perspective ….. completely ignoring the fact that America is an invader and brutal occupier and any American, or American ally for that matter will be targeted.

Can anyone here say that the French did not have a right to target the non-military Nazis who came to create ‘peace’ after invasion and occupation? I doubt it. Nor would any American choose non-military targets if they were occupied, after all, they happily targeted non-military personnel when they were fighting the English and that was not an occupation per se: At this point Reise becomes not only hypocritical but tasteless.

He tries to equate the resorting to violence of a people who have been dispossessed and who are living under occupation with the resorting to violence of a people and a State who were responsible for dispossession and who use violence to maintain an occupation and a colonisation programme which is turning Palestine into a series of concentration camps. It is a farce.

To be continued.

When you read the attitudes of the Muslim Arabs you will find that they believe that Israel must be wiped off the face of the Earth. It is authorised in the Koran. Compare this attitude with the following news report from Israel.
________________________

"The PRC is a network of local Palestinian terror militias in Gaza with close ties to the Hamas government, and is responsible for many of the Kassam rocket launches on Israel. Its leader, Jamal Abu Samhadana, is number one on Israel's most wanted list but was recently appointed by Hamas to be inspector general of Palestinian security forces.

"Labor party leader Amir Peretz officially assumed his position as Minister of Defense at a ceremony in Tel Aviv on Sunday, replacing 40-year veteran of the IDF and defense establishment Shaul Mofaz as the leader of Israeli armed forces. In his speech during Sunday's ceremony, the new defense minister addressed his "Palestinian neighbors" saying, 'Not through the path of terror will you accomplish your goals. You must abandon the terrorism, combat incitement, and then you will again find the hand of the Israeli government extended towards you with a readiness to reach agreements, with ... concessions'."

After 40 years of vigilant service in the IDF and the defense community, Mofaz was visibly shaken during his address to the incoming defense minister. He urged Peretz to work to lower the level of terrorism so that Israel's citizens could go about their daily lives feeling secure, and added that the security bodies of the State must also prepare for tomorrow's challenges by turning over every stone in order to reach negotiations with the Palestinians.

And the Christian Arabs not much better -from Israel surely.

Is it clear, those-playing-the-words-here?

Scout: I'm afraid that Eisen's piece is just another obfuscating Zionist apologetic. As has been the fashion of the Zionist propaganda mill since 9/11 a colonial struggle between a European settler movement (Zionism) and an indigenous population (Palestinians) over land is caricatured as a conflict between all Jews and Christians (representing civilization) on the one hand and all Muslims (representing barbarism) on the other. It's designed to throw us off the track. "Every Palestinian teenager lifting a stone to throw at an Israeli soldier will be viewed by Jews...as a threat" says Eisen. This attitude of course is one cultivated by Zionism, but to assume that "Jews" (that is, all Jews) feel/think this way is surely an insult to them. No one in all honesty could be that stupid. Any attempt such as Eisen's to suggest a balance between oppressers and oppressed, rapists and raped is morally bankrupt.

DM Peretz, FM Livni supports aid to PA
NIS 50 million will go to health, education services

Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz has persuaded Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to support his plan to transfer some NIS 50 million in withheld tax funds to the Palestinians - under Livni's condition that the money not be used to pay Palestinian Authority salaries. The offer - made to the Quartet of international peace brokers (US, EU, UN, Russia) following its Tuesday decision to renew humanitarian aid to Palestinians - is an extension of the policy of using the withheld money to pay Israeli electricity and sewage companies for services rendered to the PA.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Gideon Meir told Channel 10 that the money would only be used to buy "goods and services for medical care that can help the Palestinians." Since February, Israel has frozen approximately USD 50 million a month in taxes and tariffs collected on behalf of the PA and refused to transfer the funds until the Hamas-controlled government recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and accepts all previous signed agreements.

Likud MK Yuval Steinitz heaped criticism on both Israel and the Quartet for their plans to restore aid payments. "If we want to make clear to the Palestinian people and everybody else that nobody can support a terrorist government, then we cannot support the Palestinian Authority by other means," he said. "The Quartet decision was wrong and very damaging, and if we proceed in this direction, the next result will be that we will in fact be supporting a terrorist regime."

Against the wishes of Israel and the US, the mechanism under development by the European Commission to relieve the humanitarian situation in the PA territories may be used to pay the salaries of some PA officials, EU external affairs spokeswoman Emma Udwin told The Jerusalem Post. Speaking from Brussels Wednesday, Udwin denied that the system would funnel money through the offices of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as initial reports suggested

For those who try making others being fools for not-so-perfect accents: providing PA bureaucrats as health officials is one-two-three for terrorists: any recent payment to the PA is hypocrisy of assuming non-assumable.

To those who try making others being fools for not-so-perfect Aussie-English accent: providing PA bureaucrats as health officials is one-two-three for terrorists: any recent payment to the PA is hypocrisy of assuming non-assumable.

Michael K,

Your comment “And Palestinians, that is the Arabs from Israel,” Is a mythology and one of the reasons why we have a living breathing problem.

- The country partitioned in 1948 was a country called Palestine (Not Israel).
- Israel have never been a country or a state…ever..Israelites they livede everywhere in the middle east including Medina and Mecca as merchants and business people. ‘they lived there’ does not mean they have the right for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
- Israel to non-Israelis is a separatist movement of Jewish people wanting to have their own country / home to live in. I don’t have a problem and many Arabs Muslims have no problem except for your above statement: why would you want Palestinian arabs (Muslims or Christians) to live there and forget their identity? Just give them their land back and have a good life and let them enjoy theirs…Simple really..

Food for thoughts...

Continued: And again there is the same propaganda that really the Jews just wanted to live in peace and were happy to be Palestinians if they could just have a home in the land where some of their ancestors lived a few thousand years ago. The Italians could make the same claim on London and southern England. The fact is, the Jewish and Zionist plan was ALWAYS for a State, not peaceful co-existence with Palestinians as part of Palestine. It is not just hypocritical to say otherwise it is a lie and the Palestinians knew it. That is why they resisted it and why their allies came to their defence.
And as for the clergy coming into it, well, if he means the moderates on both sides, sure, but the fact is you could not single out clergy in this way and both sides have fanatics who have less capacity to reason and negotiate than the politicians.
The real issues are not between Jews and Muslims, nor between Muslim supporters of the Palestinians or Jewish supporters of the Israelis, they are between Palestinians and Israelis.
And those ‘real issues’ remain what they have always been: the violent and wrongful dispossession of the Palestinian people and their unjust and brutal treatment at the hands of Israel.
Settlement will only come when Israel gains a perspective which equates with reality: Israel was established illegally and immorally and while the world at large can accept its existence as a given that is only on original borders. Israel must also admit to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and make redress to those it dispossessed. It must apologise to the Palestinian people for its brutal occupation and pay compensation while working for a viable Palestinian State.
In the real world, this represents a true perspective of justice and human rights.

rhross is absolutely right. I would only add that, for Israel to be truly accepted by world public opinion, it must abandon the discriminatory and racist concept of a 'Jewish' state, rescind laws which enshrine discrimination between Jews and non-Jews (ie abandon its own form of apartheid) and implement the right of return of the Palestinian refugees of 1948-49 and 1967.

Reason, Strewth & rhross

Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.

I appreciate your responses to my question.

My personal opinion is that although the state of Israel was created on controversial terms, none the less it is here. And casting blame is not going to solve anything.

Time for compromise, rather than coercion.

However someone has to make the first move. And the onus has to fall on Israel. It was created on spurious terms - as Strewth, Rhross and Fellow Human have made clear, Palestine was invaded Israel has the power to redress that.

As for the clergy being involved I agree with Rhross - the issue is about Palestinians and Israelis NOT Muslims and Jews. There are many Jewish people who do not hold with the Zionist POV. As someone with Jewish heritage, I have given this careful consideration, reconciliation will require compromise on the part of Israel. Israelis have the opportunity to create peace, however I fear they are more interested in power.

Scout: Re "Israelis being more interested in power", this is not something new. Nor did it begin in 1967, or even 1948. The idea of forming a state of any kind presupposes a desire for power. The idea of, push for, and creation of a Jewish state (and what I say here applies equally to a Christian or an Islamic state) presupposes the desire for and exercise of power for and by Jews. It is and cannot but be, by its very job description, inherently discriminatory against non-Jews. A bi-national Israel/Palestine representing all of its citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, rather than some abstract entity known as 'the Jewish people' (think 'the Christian people' or 'the Muslim people' and you'll see just how absurd the idea is) is the only morally defensible and just solution to this problem, although a complete end to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories would be an excellent start.

Hamas is shipping in arms by the Egyptian Sinai Desert to Gaza to arm the soldiers with Russian made Kalashnikov Automatic machine guns, and handguns for hand to hand combat. These weapons enter Gaza without any problem as the Egyptian security guards are turning a blind eye to the smugglers.


Abu Mazan is supposedly a partner for peace with Israel, but the truth is his al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade part of the Fatah terrorist group is still run by Abu Mazan, and he's bidding for illegal arms coming across the Egyptian border along with al Qaida and the Islamic Jihad.

The Prime Minister’s office will agree to divide Jerusalem, and evacuate most of the Jewish Settlements in Samaria and Judea. What he is talking about is 200,000+ Jews from their homes much like his hero Ariel Sharon did in Gaza. George W. Bush is applying pressure on Israel to do this. Olmert wants to continue with the Sharon plan and even go one step further, to divide Jerusalem.



Jordan’s King Hussein and Egypt’s President Mubarak are waking up to the fact that al Qaida and Hamas are a serious threat to their Countries. Just a few hours ago 20 Hamas Terrorists were arrested with hundreds of weapons and explosives in Jordan and have confessed of plans to terrorize the Jordanian people. With terrorist bombs killing so many in Dahav, Sharm and Taba Egypt has come to the conclusion that they face the came Islamic enemy as Israel faces. But still can’t bring themselves to join into the fight with Israel because of their strong belief in the Koran.


This Iranian President believes it's his calling from Allah to usher in the Moslem Messiah who will in turn conquer the world for Islam. He believes that's duty to acquire nuclear weapons to destroy the enemies of Islam.

Iran is using the criminal Palestinian gangs along with Egyptian, Sudanese and al Qaida Terrorist. All three are taking orders from the Iranian RG intelligence. Daily Sudanese infiltrators are caught coming into Israel by way of the Negev Desert

Gosh Philo those Kalashnikovs are really going to make Israel quake. There jet fighters, missiles and nuclear weaponry are absolutely no match for a few machine guns!

You are still overlooking the core point: None of this would be happening if Israel were not a brutal and aggressive occupier and coloniser. Ergo: end the occupation and return to original borders or you cannot complain about the Palestinians arming themselves to fight you.

Or do you not think that the French had a right to fight the Germans? Or that the British, if the Nazis had triumphed, should not ave fought back in any way they could?

Of course you don't. You believe everyone has a right to fight for their freedom except the Palestinians because you believe Israel has a right to colonise all of Palestine. That's why this terrible conflict keeps on going. It is tragic. You defend human rights abuses and war crimes committed by Israel in a way you would not defend them committed by anyone else.... maybe except the Americans... Israel's 'twin.'

Philo, your mate Abba Eban once said "Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what one does not believe oneself." The problem with your posts is that they simply aren't persuading anyone. Sorry, I know you're trying hard. 10 out 10 for industriousness, but mate, it's just not working.

Philo,

This comment proves to me you are into repetitive propaganda:

"These weapons enter Gaza without any problem as the Egyptian security guards are turning a blind eye to the smugglers"

Wrong, the facts are: The limited number of Egyptian policemen (including equipment and armament they use) in Sinai is decided by Israelis and Americans according to the peace treaty with Israel.
Egyptian army is not allowed in Sinai and the limited number of police there have to guard a territory 3 times the size of Israel

It can be treated as a usual example of an Australian illiteracy – this time on history of the Jewish State. In this case, lucking of elementary knowledge (or simply decepting naive not-educated locals with personal agenda)could definitely be forgiven, as this topic did not belong to local school curriculum explicitly:

<<Michael K,

Your comment “And Palestinians, that is the Arabs from Israel,” Is a mythology and one of the reasons why we have a living breathing problem.

- The country partitioned in 1948 was a country called Palestine (Not Israel).
- Israel have never been a country or a state…ever..Israelites they livede everywhere in the middle east including Medina and Mecca as merchants and business people. ‘they lived there’ does not mean they have the right for ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
- Israel to non-Israelis is a separatist movement of Jewish people wanting to have their own country / home to live in. I don’t have a problem and many Arabs Muslims have no problem except for your above statement: why would you want Palestinian arabs (Muslims or Christians) to live there and forget their identity? Just give them their land back and have a good life and let them enjoy theirs…Simple really..

Food for thoughts...

Posted by Fellow_Human, Friday, 12 May 2006 4:56:11 PM>>>>>>

Look, Lol: ALL this rubbish of "identity" is a food for ANY gescheft-macher regardless of their identity and contributes local racist mafia the most: Muslim girls wearing headscarf play with boys, as witnessed plenty times on beaches round any Australian city, regardless of what they told during schooling by mullah or parents at homes in Australia. And reality is either people are in society or they are tourists targeted for cash-in-hand black market Australian opportunities, just to increase their hostile attitude towards each others and between so-called "multicultural communities".

Love it or hate it but that is a reality of any country established by land grabbing.

Hello MichaelK,

I just corrected your comment with basic facts....

I can't see whats common between Australia and Israel: Your 'land grabbing' and 'ethnbic cleansing' is still happening today and not during the land grabbing centuries.
Problems cannot be solved with denial and we can either recognise the complexity and deal with it or keep 'lobbying'.

What’s common between Israel and Australia?

Diversity of people and cultures and democratic principles are in common.

Significant differences: Israel was reinstated as the Jewish State in a place where the Jews had got their state and no Arabic political entity was never existing since the history recorded, whereas Australia, a part of a British Dominion (Commonwealth more recently) had been established in an imaginary “terra nullius” by annihilating the indigenous population as it was done in an already established similar colony in Northern America, because of U.S. newly acquired independence from common London masters.

Wrong Michael. The Jews did not have a State as you suggest because the concept of State is historically modern. Even Germany was not a State until the beginning of the last century.

What the Jews had in what we now call Palestine was land that they conquered and settled after defeatingand slaughtering the Canaanites. Actually, the land of Israel, as established then, in archeological terms, that means the evidence for, was not much more than a succession of camps. The Bible of course being more myth than fact.

But, on the basis that this represents something meaningful .... that means the Italians have rights to southern Britain and London because they conquered and settled in the same way and were then forced to leave. One could relate countless other conquerors from ancient times who did exactly the same thing and who are now considered to have no rights.

Ditto followers of the Jewish religion.

MichaelK,

Re-read my comment above: the only 'state' recognised under the UN as a state under occupation is the state of Palestine.

The ‘land grab’ concept you keep comparing to is different:

- Australia and the US the land grab did not happen under the new recognised legal system. Ie there was no country called ‘aboriginia’ or ‘Tomahokia’ that the birtish settlers destroyed their sovereignty.
- Israel’s case is a separatist movement (a combination of Palestine Jews and European Jews) decided to have a jewish state to avoid future persecution.
-
Don’t give me the historical piece because until early 1900 Israelites didn’t have a plan where Israel as a country should be. The British count of Jews living in Palestine in 1905 was less than 10% of the population.
Here is an interesting article:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

My point is simple: having a Palestinian state is in Israel's best interest and you should 'lobby' for that.

If historically proven then existing state-predecessor of modern Israel was not a political entity for playing English recently, so Roman and Greek empires were not eventually, the modern Italians have got no rights on British Islands developed upon centuries by invaders from continental Europe, outside the UK among whom even a Slav known as the most famous English king Arthur.

Do you speak English?

Strewth,
Perhaps the problem is not speech, but reading and writing.

Or in the mind.

Strewth,

I am hopeful I wasn't the target of your comments.

MichaelK,

One last attempt:

Before 1948 there was no such a thing a state of Israel ..ever.
Jews always lived everywhere in the middle east as a part of that fabric: Moroccon Jews, Egyptian Jews, Iraqi Jews, etc..
The 'state of Israel' is a reaction to the persecution and discrimination against Jews since the late 1800's.
The UN partitioned Palestine in 1948 to accomodate a separatist state (like Pakistan and similar scenarios).
There is no historical rights.

FH: Follow the thread. No.

Yeah, it’s really a problem

<
Perhaps the problem is not speech, but reading and writing.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 22 May 2006 7:04:47 PM>

for at least a million of native speakers in Australia, but in my case it is rather unwillingness to comprehend a reality as demonstrated by a few persistent anti-Israel forum participants.

Reinstatement of Israel had started at the dawn of a last century and was then substantially derailed by a colonial master – the British Empire playing an Arab card in the Middle East. Eventually, energetic actions by the Jews in Palestine stipulated a diplomatic game at the UN where post-WWII beginning of a desecration of the empire has still been presented to a world as a gift of nations allowing the Jewish sovereignty.

Spell and grammar checking shows no mistake.

Well done, Michael. Your English is coming on. As for your comprehension of reality, there are still problems. So here we go: the British gave Weizmann the Balfour Declaration and backed Jewish immigration to Palestine, but when the idiocy of what they'd done finally dawned on them and they woke up to the fact that the Palestinians (who found themselves facing a settler movement which wanted to create a Jewish state at their expense) weren't happy having their right of self-determination compromised, they tried to cut back on Jewish immigration. The Zionist movement therefore turned on their British backers, using the kind of terrorism they now hypocritically condemn when practised by the Palestinians, and prevailed upon their new imperial backer, the US, to do a spot of arm-twisting which resulted in the UN partition resolution of 1947. This was followed by the ethnic cleansing of the natives by Zionist forces resulting in the takeover of 78% of Mandate Palestine. Hope that helps.

Strewth,

Michael K and co. support the re-instatement of ancient kingdoms, or homelands because that is all Israel ever was, no matter the cost.

Therefore one presumes they will support the re-instatement of the Kurdish homeland which will involve breaking chunks off, or partitioning bits of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey and the cost of that will be very high indeed.

But, what's good enough for the Jews is surely good enough for everyone else. Then maybe we can support the Italians claiming back London and most of the UK since they, like the Jews, conquered and occupied it thousands of years ago.

I am sure it will keep us all very busy re-instating ancient affiliations. That is if we survive it.

Abbas: Ask the people
Hamas ready to accept '67 borders

In a surprising announcement Thursday, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said he would call a national referendum on the parameters of a Palestinian state if no peace agreement could be reached with Hamas in the next 10 days.

"If you don't reach an agreement within 10 days, I'm going to present the document to a referendum in 40 days. Within 40 days I will ask the people," Abbas told the Hamas leaders gathered at his Ramallah headquarters.

A senior Hamas official told Associated Press reporters that the terror group would accept the proposal from Abbas to hold a referendum regarding the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem if an agreement between the warring factions could not be reached.

Earlier Thursday, Palestinian sources reported that Hamas and Fatah had come to an agreement on the main points of contention between the two factions, with Hamas agreeing to let Abbas negotiate with Israel according to the principles of the PLO. The guidelines of the peace initiative were outlined in a document by imprisoned terror boss Marwan Barghouti, and also approve the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders

Also on Thursday, PA prime minister and Hamas member Ismail Haniyeh said that his group would recognize Israel only after Israel makes a full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and east Jerusalem. He went on to say that until that happened, Palestinian "resistance" would continue.

Despite the negotiations, anarchic violence reigned on Wednesday, when a senior officer of Hamas' newly formed militia group was killed in a car bombing. Although no group claimed responsibility for the assassination, Fatah gunmen kidnapped four Hamas members later in the day, killing one and shooting the others in the legs.

Philo,
Hamas said some weeks ago it would talk to Israel if it returned to 67 borders.... that means, it would recognise them.

The problem is, Israel does not want to recognise its 67 borders. You just watch.

It does not matter what HAMAS or any other less-more terrorist to the date says. It is a matter that Jewish sovereignty is to exist.

If one did not want seeing this reality as it is, xenophobic racist Australia where not being an Anglo-Sax (some prefer using a term “Anglo-Celt”) is already a mark of inferiority.

As mentioned already, so-called “native Aussies" (read: Australian-born, or even not locally born, Anglos) have much less rights on this land than the Jews on Palestine.

Thank you for attention.

On your criteria though, Aussies would have 'rights' to a lot of places across the world, going back a few thousand years. Should we all then return to the places where some of our ancestors might just have lived a few thousand years ago and dispossess the people living there? Of course not. The Jews had no rights to Palestine. Certainly no more than the Italians have to England, which, they like the Jews conquered and settled and were then forced to leave.
And should we, to be really sure, do DNA tests so we can find what is left of the Canaanites and only allow them in Israel and Palestine? On your criteria we should. After all they were dispossessed and slaughtered by the Jews so they have the real rights.

"Aussies" - who?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0506/prager053006.php3

Pakistan displaced 8 million Hindus so a Muslim state could be created, Israel 600-700'000.

The region was known as Palestine there was no Palestinian state when the Jews claimed back their historical home.

I say let them have their tiny little piece of land. Arabs have an enormous amount of their own. If the religion of those Arabs wasn't so virulently anti-semitic. The region would alot more peaceful, they might stop blowing themselves up along with innocent people.

My understanding of 1967 was that after Israel defeated her attackers she was quite happy to give back the land occupied in self defense if Jordan would recognise Israel's border. Jordan didn't so Israel was forced to become occupier.

So much is explained by that ancient hatred of the Jews. Enough is enough.

They are the chosen people, get over it.

Israel’s lament for its woes:

“You have broken us in the haunt of jackals, and covered us with deep darkness…because of you we are being killed all day long, and accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not cast us off forever!

Why do you hide your face? Why do you forget our affliction and oppression?

For we sink down to the dust; our bodies cling to the ground. Rise up, come to our help! Redeem us for the sake of your steadfast love!”
(Psalm 44:19,22-26).

Anyway, the bitterest feuds usually exist between the closest relatives, and the Arabs and Jews are cousins

A feud!!? Dispossession, occupation, slo-mo genocide. I suppose the Holocaust was just a spat between the Jews and the Germans. What a hoot. You Zionists say the darndest things!

Its Muslim Zionists that are the real problem.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0606/pipes2006_06_07.php3

The great Franz Rosensweig argued Islam was a mere caricature of Christianity and Judaism, with its intense focus on the political and world domination, its frequent calls to violence, and the appalling biography of the man Mohammed. I'm starting to see his point.

Yeah, there are milliards of Muslims and just a few millions of the Jews spread round a globe.

Would the increasing number of Muslims of whom majority still exists in the Dark Ages of their civilization tolerate oppression, indignity and discrimination as the Jews do upon millenniums?

Local mullahs professionally divert these feelings towards strange Jewish State and the Jews as not only that clerics (clerics only?) did and do in contemporary Australia inclusively