Final acts of settlement…?

ISRAEL is going through a painful, but essential, step at the moment, according to its leader Ariel Sharon. As Israel dismantles settlements built on Palestinian land seized in the Six-Day War in 1967 for the first time, troops have encountered hardline Jewish resistance to the Gaza pull-out, although the lack of extreme violence (at present) would seem to indicate that this is a last gasp act of defiance.

  • aquifer

    “All buildings are to be demolished after the withdrawal.”

    Big fans of zero sum politics then.

    The Israeli state’s resolve to carry this difficult decision through is impressive, so far.

  • emmett

    Israel deserve no commendation for dealing with a monster they created. They have illegally occupied this land for almost 40 years.

  • Jo

    I support this solution, and also the words of, I think, the Israeli ambassador (?) on Radio Ulster the morning who was very reasonable and addressed the Palestinians by saying:

    “I know you want more than Gaza, but show that you can govern Gaza and control it effectively and we have every reason to think that can be done well – and we can move further down the roadmap.”

    The man was also questioned about the West Bank and defended this by claiming that the only building currently going on was within existing settlement – not expansion. I cant udnerstand anyone who thinks that the ME situation is going to be resolved any way aother than this form of compromise – and the extreme nature of those opposing it makes me feel that this is indeed the way ahead.

  • circles

    I’m not in 100% agreemnt Jo.
    Firstly I do think that compromise is essential to resolve the ME (and the 6C) problems – however the withdrawal from Gaza is not really a compromise.
    It is the decision of the Israeli government fulfilling only a part of what was contained in overall agreements, now being sold as a great act of reconciliation rather than a move to consolidate control.
    And the fact that the Israeli ambassador goes on to defy logic by claiming that building more in an existing settlement does not qualify as expansion does not really convince that the necessary sacrifices for peace are or will be made.

    The fact is that for now, a few settlements in Gaza and a big concrete wall cutting them off from their lands is an “all ye git” for the Palestinians.

    Hats off to Scharon though – he’s played his hand well here. Although against a society so fractured he’s also living dangerously. He should remember that increasing desparation amongst Palestinians will sew a crop that islamic extremist will be more than happy to harvest.

  • felix quigley

    It is with not a little amazement that I discover Sluggerotoole touching on a subject with no connection to Northern Ireland. All the same I welcome this if it means that this potentially important site will break out and expand its horizons and deal with the real world. And that is NOT to minimise the importance of the situation in Ireland one bit.

    In response to a piece written this morning by David Vance on The Tangled Web I have just a few minutes ago written the following. I hope it is self-explanatory and relevant here also:

    “Yes, these are indeed sad days for humanity. My heart does bleed for these people, I believe the oldest people and race on earth, and as we see in the pictures on our televisions people who are essentially religious.I can think of no other religion that is older than the Jewish.

    This whole thing is subject to so much distortion but it is many months now since I first took up this issue on your site. Both you (ie David Vance)and myself have been alone and consistent in pointing out that in essence this is the creation of another area of Arab and Islamic land that is Judenfrei.

    Every word that you have written above applies but especially:

    “A Palestinian state is being formed on the basis that it must EXCLUDE Jews, and as such it a monstrosity in the making which I utterly condemn.”

    I think that I am right in saying that only you and myself on this site (ie Tangled Web)have taken a position of opposing this historic betrayal by Sharon without equivocation.

    Thinking about it over the weekend it struck me that that balance of opinion on this site more or less reflects the situation in Ireland as a whole.

    Also reflected is that a Chris Gaskin, who I believe is a republican member of Sinn Fein on this site also just last week referred to the Israelis as “the new Nazis”.

    Unbelievably, it would seem to me, this was being allowed to go by without condemnation. It was necessary for me to insist before a few others came in to condemn this.

    Yet that too is reflected throughout Ireland. This is a common technique of the writers on the anti-Israeli “Blanket” website and on sites such as Danny Morrison´s. To call Israelis Nazis is the most studied insult possible to the Jews after the Holocaust.

    Now to a Judenfrei Gaza, then to a Palestine state campaigned for by Bush and Blair of the British “Labour” Party.

    Will this “Palestinian” state live in peace with a truncated Israel? As I keep repeating the answer is there for all to read – in the constitutions of the Fatah and Hamas organisations.

    Immediately Gaza will be a breeding ground for Islamic terror and not just directed against Israel, but primarily of course against Israel for these are complete Jew-haters, having been set up in the first place by that notorious Nazi Hajj Amin el Husseini. “Palestinianism” is a recent concoction, coming just at the time that the Arabs attacked in 1967 and were then militarily defeated. The Occupation came about because of Arab hostility in the first place. And what has changed?

    So those people on this site who have campaigned in print for a Judenfrei Gaza, then bring on the Palestinian State and watch what happens.

    Meanwhile Sharon will go down in Jewish history as the greatest traitor the Jews have ever had. But Sharon really expresses a terrible sickness at the top of Israeli society which can not be easily solved and which will be exploited to the full by Bush and Blair in the months ahead. It is summed up yesterday by Emanuel A. Winstone in a piece he wrote “What have we learned?”

    “We learned through experience that one man who is elected Prime Minister can, if he wishes, turn the power of his office, into a seat of dictatorship.

    We learned that there is no law that restrains this and past governments from imposing their will upon one or another segment of the population.

    We learned that the Knesset is hopelessly weak (except for a handful of courageous Members) and makes little effort to protect the public against a tyrannical Prime Minister.

    We learned that crooked politicians in Israel do not get indicted for their crimes, nor go to jail.”

    Apart from the youth who peacefully took on the Sharon paid police I can see no light at the end of this tunnel.

    And lastly the contributors who supported this should this morning be feeling thoroughly ashamed but I doubt if they will because a goodly number of them are really supporters of the Bush Blair projected Palestinian terror state. I know that on this site I will be following closely what exactly these Arab “palestinians” get up to in the months and years ahead. I have not forgotten that their progenitor was Hajj Amin!”

    I contend also to that sorry bunch of contributrs on Slugger who are almost totally anti-Israel that the above is very relevant.

    Let me take up this character “Emmett”. Firstly can I suggest you get a new pen-name, there WAS an Irish hero called Robert Emmett and you are not he, nor are you a hero to anybody. You write above: “a monster they created. They have illegally occupied this land for almost 40 years.”

    Your knowledge of history, “Emmett”, is on a par with your arrogance in choosing the name of Emmett. But leave that aside. The “occupation” is precisely the point. Sharon and a section of Israeli society want rid of it, but the whole point of the occupation was that it took place as a response to Arab hostility in 1967. Six Arab armies attacked Israel in 1967, Egypt moved into the Sinai buffer zone, U Thant of the UN pliably removing the UN forces to facilitate the attack on Israel, and Nasser pledged to destroy Israel’s existence.

    Emmett, you also seem to be unaware that Palestine which then included Jordan and Gaza, as well as Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and present day Israel, all that was promised as the Jewish Homeland back in 1921 by the League of Nations. Britain immediately sliced off 80% of that projected League of Nations Jewish Homeland, gave it to the Arabs with Abdullah as King, this state became Jordan and is now a Palestinian Arab state.

    Who was the country which betrayed that Mandate which it had been given by the league? Why, none other than our “old friend” Britain. Yes , Emmett, it WAS perfidious Albion which has done such harm to the Jewish Homeland.

    Not something which the Irish Republicans have ever exposed, much less campaigned on. Their anti-Semitism has always been stronger than their anti-British stance! Your anti-Israel and pro-Hamas and pro-Fatah stance above proves the point also. You are indeed a suitable collaborator of the “Jews are Nazis” Chris Gaskin.

  • circles

    Felix:
    Quite a post (if length is the quality by which posts are assessed) – however it wanders aimlessly, picks out provocative phrases, plays the man more often than the ball, and despite the initial promise of welcoming a broader international aspect to Slugger eventually reduces to “republicans are anti-semitic”.

    Rather than go through your post and separate the chaff (of which there is a lot) from the grain (of which there is little), I would just make a single remark. Not agreeing with the course the Israeli government takes in the middle east, and even criticising this in the harshest possible terms is not equal to being anti-semitic. The charge of anit-semitism is hurled at anybody who would dare criticise what has at time been the bare-faced arrogance of the Israeli government in the face of the real suffering of their neighbours. The charge is cheap, lazy and unfounded – a quick way distracting the discourse from what they are doing and discrediting the critics by associating them with the horrors of the holocaust.

  • Kelvin Doherty

    Whilst it is without doubt a positive step that Israel is taking, i still believe that the primary objective of the Gaza withdraw is for Israel to safeguard its border. ‘Goodwill’ or doing whats right is a distinct second place.

    ” Jews are Nazis “…..’four legs good, two legs bad’….

  • Jo

    Circles:
    We are not in 100% disagreement either! I thought the Israeli amabbassdor seemed much more reasonable and concilatory then previous spokesperson although his West Bank response was equivocal.

    Given that other pro-Israeli voices have appeared on this thread, we may expect Sharon to be labelled an “anti-Semite” for his trouble and perhaps Felix might also answer the question posed to him about whether he supported the assassination of Rabin by an extreme Zionist for other earlier acts of “betrayal”?

  • Jo

    “amabbassdor “…oops disgraceful!

  • felix quigley

    Jo
    What a question! I did not support the assasination of Rabin. I believe that Rabin like Sharon did enormous damage to Israel but the issues must be discussed in a democratic fashion. (I will have a question for YOU later)

    Basically you Jo follow the common formula that if the Israelis are “nice” to the Palestinian terrorists then they will in turn be nice to Israel. This is a very erroneous formula indeed and is on a par with what was tried in response to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia after poor old Chamberlain tried to do a dealwith the Nazis. That was Rabin’s formula and that is Sharon’s also. But the poroof of this pudding will be in the eating and david and I will be watching these Palestinian terrorists in Gaza closely! Will you?

    One thing I may not have made clear above. Sharon is indeed a traitor and will go down in Jewish history as such. But Sharon is very small fry indeed on the world stage. Israel is too with its 5 million or so souls. Sharon and Israel have been buffeted continually by none other than our old friends Blair and Bush. The pressure that the US administration places on Sharon to do a deal with the terrorists is enormous and is in direct proportion to the extent that his strategy in Iraq falls apart. You see, Jo, who from Tangled Web I know NEVER answers a point, but ALWAYS introduces a Red Herring, that is perhaps the main lesson to draw from all of this. Of course, I know you will ignore that point as you normally do!

    Circles (very original name)

    The grain and chaff man (or woman) above. The above actually goes like this “The charge is cheap, lazy and unfounded – a quick way distracting the discourse from what they are doing and discrediting the critics by associating them with the horrors of the holocaust.”

    So the “Chaff” of my piece Circles let me spell it out for you covers these points:

    1. Is Sluggerotoole breaking out of its Northern Ireland only policy which was argued to me here before?

    2. I made the point “that in essence this is the creation of another area of Arab and Islamic land that is Judenfrei.”

    A Jew cannot live in Saudi Arabia, only a handful remain in all the other Arab lands, since the British created Transjordan in 1921 not one Jew has lived there or been able to. Now Gaza is a Judenfrei area as well. Soon it will be the West Bank if Bush, Rice and Blair have their merry way with Sharon.

    You call THAT chaff.

    3. I quote from Manny Winstone who deals with the corrupt nature of Sharon’s coalition governent, coalition with Peres which Sharon has no right and was not elected to do.

    Chaff again, I suppose!

    4. I refer to Britain’s historic betrayal of its league of Nations Mandate. I could have went on and showed the anti-Semitism, YES ANTI-SEMITISM, which existed in the British Government down through the Mandate Years, a policy which had at its base Imperial interests and interest in Arab Oil.

    Ah yes, more chaff.

    Mick Fealty will know that I have played a little football in my time, and I always then did play the ball. In politics I always back up assertions with evidence.

    As in the above points which you cavalierly call chaff. So YOU prove before you try pontificating to me from your grand anonymity that the above points are insignificant (chaff).

    By the way Circles there IS a great deal of anti-Semitism in this world today and it masquerades on the neo-Left as hatred of Zionism..(see below, immediately)

    Kelvin
    You do support then the slander that “Jews are Nazis”. So what do you call that Circles if not anti-Semitism.

    Finally, Jo, let me pose as I promised a question for YOU. It is NOT a Red Herring.

    The creation of an area of the world where Jews cannot live? What name do you give that? Gaza?I maintain that this whole thing IS very definitely anti-Semitic and that Sharon and his cohorts under the direct control of Bush and Blair is engaged in an act which is indeed anti-semitic.

    I ask you, Jo, will this area now be Judenfrei or not or am I imagining things?

  • cirlces

    Firstly Felix,
    Your persistent use of the German phrase Judenfrei deliberately draws parallels between the Arabs and the Nazi regime. Added to that your assertion that “being nice to Palestinian terrorists” (I mean really Felix – has anyone ever suggested this?) “is a very erroneous formula indeed and is on a par with what was tried in response to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia after poor old Chamberlain tried to do a dealw ith the Nazis.” So Felix are you really trying to say “Arabs are Nazis” but in a round-about way?

    Secondly, given the impassioned nature of the posts here it is quite clear that the ME conflict does have particular relevance to Ireland. A brief tour of neighbourhoods in Belfast a few years ago, where union flags and tri-colours were abondoned in favour of the Israeli and Palestinian flags is clear evidence of this, and also clear evidence of how each side here identifies with the position of sides there (which does not necessarily mean we understand it).

    Thirdly, I think the fact that Jews and Muslims lived together in the middle east before British intervention (and further catastrophale interventions from the states), is clear evidence that the segregation that occurs now is a result of the bitterness resulting from the conflict. It is not a one way result of arabs hating israelis – but also of israelis not wanting to live with arabs.

    Finally (as I don’t have the time to go through the lot – I’ll just cut to the chase) –
    “I maintain that this whole thing IS very definitely anti-Semitic and that Sharon and his cohorts under the direct control of Bush and Blair is engaged in an act which is indeed anti-semitic.”
    Are you honestly accusing Bush and his government of being anti-semitic? Why then don’t they just go in and do an Iraq? Why do they continue to offer military support? Why do they veto any attempt at the UN to curb Israels actions?
    I’m sorry but such an unfounded and paranoid claim stinks of international conspiracy theories that belong more in a Dan Brown novel than on Slugger.

  • emmett

    Felix,

    I happen to post under my real name and am very aware of the history behind it. I am glad you recognise Robert Emmett as a hero though.

    I have also travelled extensively throughout the middle east and have lived in Israel for periods of time. I do not need a history lesson from you and I am sure that many readers here also could do without it.

    To accuse me of arrogance and to claim that I am anti-Israel, pro-Fatah and pro-Hamas is as pointless as it is stupid.

    Israel, as I said, have illegally occupied this land for almost 40 years. (We can leave the pedants to determine to call them ‘occupied’ or ‘disputed’ territories). Ariel Sharon today said “This plan will be good for Israel in any future scenario. We are reducing daily friction and its victims on both sides,” – seemingly unaware of the issues involved with the dividing wall in the west bank.

    Israel has to recognise the legitimacy of the Palestinian right to self-determination and while this is a welcome beginning, Israel deserves no commendation for their paradoxical approach.

  • BogExile

    I remember meeting a Palestinian in Belfast in the early 90’s who referred to me with a twinkle in his eye as a ‘settler on the west bank.’ – he meant the Bann not the Jordan. In militant Palestinian eyes Protestants who settled in Ireland have as little legitimacy as Jews settling in Palestine. The Israelis should be praised for the difficult and painful decision to vacate Gaza. However they really should not have been there in the first place and you would think a race of people almost exterminated by the Nazi’s would think twice about their hanling of the Palestinians despite the murderous provocation. But now I’m sounding like a repblican so i think i’ll lie down. This heat…

  • Tochais Síoraí

    Felix, you should get the red card for describing Slugger as a ‘potentially important political site’.

  • Jo

    “The creation of an area of the world where Jews cannot live?”

    Actually I’d call it an area which:

    was under illegal occupateion for almost 40 years;

    was deliberately settled by people encouraged to go there by successive governments in order to secure “ownership” of a place where they shouldnt have been in the first place;

    an area used by a government, which like all governments, changes its mind, and which then pays the settlers up to $400,000 to move a distance back into Israel.

    The Jewish people are entitled to their state.

    So are the Palestinians.

    As you, Felix, are by your own admission, not Jewish but atheist, you too are a Judenfrei zone. And as I presume you aren’t German, I would advise you that I am not, either, nor are too many posters here, so theres no need to post in that language.

  • Kelvin Doherty

    Felix,

    No I don’t support the ‘slander that “jews are nazis”‘. I was having a dig at those who would accuse people of having nazi sympathies if you disagree with their analysis of the Israeli state, hence the Orwell quote.

  • Betty Boo

    “Now Gaza is a Judenfrei area as well”

    That would be Juden freie area.
    But isn’t it mind boggling that the Jewish people do to others what was done to them.
    It does not matter who occupies whom and who kills whom. It is still occupation and still murder. And the foundation of a new state should not be based on it.

  • circles

    Betty:
    I think you might not be completely correct – judenfrei (one word) would be the adjective which would then agree with the noun (for example – judenfreie Zone).
    I think though that people should be very careful not to misinterpret what the state of Israel does as being the actions of the Jewish people. It was and is the Israeli government involved in this conflict – not “the Jews”. This has been misusued by both sides in propaganda efforts.

  • martin

    Felix,

    Its a bit pathetic to go playing the race/religion card on people who simply object to Israeli policy re Palestinians.

    Any time I hear about Gaza I always recall a scene on tv I saw involving 2 Israeli soldiers breaking the arms of a Palestinian youth with rocks–because I object to this does this make me anti-semetic.

    Yes the Jewish people suffered terribly during the holocaust and they vowed it would never happen again–maybe they should bear in mind that it was not their Palestinian neighbours who inflicted the 6 million murders committed against the Jewish people.

    The fact that Nazi murderors were atrocious to the Jewish people in the 1930s and 1940s does not give the present day Israeli state a free hand to treat their Palestinian neighbours in what ever way they see fit.

    When Reinhard Hedrich a brutal nazi was killed by 3 Czech resistance fighters-2 of them Jewish in occupied Czecoslovakia–the Nazis bulldozed and killed the entire village of Lidec,the Israeli army would do well not to copy any methods used by Nazis in the past incase comparisons be drawn.

  • Biffo

    “By the way Circles there IS a great deal of anti-Semitism in this world today and it masquerades on the neo-Left as hatred of Zionism..(see below, immediately)”

    Accusations of anti-semitism – the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  • felix quigley

    As expected the responses are only too typical of especially the nationalist Ireland’s support for Palestinian terrorism against the Jewish state of Israel right from the word go in 1948.

    Is there some sort of gene inherent in Irish nationalism that makes it impervious to doing even the slightest historical research on this issue.

    In the posts above there is not a mention, not one, of the reality which Israel faced in 1948, and that the day after the state was founded it faced an invasion by 6 Arab Armies. It was the first of many defensive wars that Israel was forced to fight.

    Fast forward through many attacks to the 1967 War. Are NONE of your contributors prepared to look at that War and that the ensuing “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and Gaza was the result again of a defensive war forced onto Israel. It seems that some Irish nationalists are incapable of dealing with that.

    However it does seem that on SluggerOtoole we are dealing with a bunch of contributors who for whatever reason or from whatever political background are unable to look calmly at the events surrounding the League of Nations giving to Britian the Mandate to creat a Jewish Homeland, at the same time that the League of Nations was setting up 3 vast Arab state which covered a vast area of territory.

    I think, actually, that people in Ireland and I am one of these who decided to take up a study of this issue deserve better.

    On the issue of Gaza I have just written this and I think it is more reflective than any of the above “squabbling”.

  • felix quigley

    As expected the responses are only too typical of especially the nationalist Ireland’s support for Palestinian terrorism against the Jewish state of Israel right from the word go in 1948.

    Is there some sort of gene inherent in Irish nationalism that makes it impervious to doing even the slightest historical research on this issue.

    In the posts above there is not a mention, not one, of the reality which Israel faced in 1948, and that the day after the state was founded it faced an invasion by 6 Arab Armies. It was the first of many defensive wars that Israel was forced to fight.

    Fast forward through many attacks to the 1967 War. Are NONE of your contributors prepared to look at that War and that the ensuing “occupation” of Judea and Samaria and Gaza was the result again of a defensive war forced onto Israel. The occupation was the result of Arab hostility and not the other way around. It seems that some Irish nationalists are incapable of dealing with that.

    However it does seem that on SluggerOtoole we are dealing with a bunch of contributors who for whatever reason or from whatever political background are unable to look calmly at the events surrounding the League of Nations in 1921 giving to Britian the Mandate to creat a Jewish Homeland, at the same time that the League of Nations was setting up 3 vast Arab states which covered a vast area of territory. So much so that Israel now makes up one hundredth of one per cent of all Arab lands. Yes 0.01%!

    I think, actually, that people in Ireland (and I am one of these who decided to take up a study of this issue) deserve better.

    On the issue of Gaza I have just written this and I think it is more reflective than any of the above “squabbling”. It deals with the reactioinary side of “secularism” in Israel and the hatred there for the Jewish religion.

    “On this issue I always go back to the ideologies which were at the beginning of Israel. Many of the early leaders in Israel came out of the European Stalinist and Social Democratic movement which by the 40s already had historic betrayals draped around their shoulders, especially that of 1933, when the Communist and Social Democratic parties in Germany pre-Hitler had millions of members, absolutely huge party aparati, yet allowed Hitler to WALK into power without a shot being fired. It was an ideological collapse.

    As evidenced in the history of Mapai this type of ideology lingered and in fact Sharon’s parents (his home environment) were out of that ideology also. Peres also has not materialised out of thin air, he also has a history and ideological genetic code. This historical aspect is rarely touched on but it is real.

    This explains why the left in Israel seems to be those who court a deal with terrorism while the right are those who want discussion, are opposed to state repression, want to open up the way to a more democratic government. It is a reversal of roles.

    Israel can do little until it deals with this internal enemy. Secular in the hands of these Lefts seems to be not true secularism, but a crude attack on ALL religion, and on Judaism in particular. They do not worry, such is their bigotry, that they are attacking the very Judaic ideology and faith that held the Jews together through millenia of suppression by the Christians and Muslims.

    What is happening in Gaza, and if Sharon had sent Rice packing as he should have done it would not have happened, is an absolute catastrophe.

    It is not the numbers it is the principle.

    The young Jewish people who campaign on the streets, talk to soldiers about what they are doing, know far better than the above “analyst” what is involved and what is needed.

    I repeat again there are millions and millions who will respond to the Jewish people’s plight. But the anti-Semites and anarcho-fascists on the Left have had a field day.

    This reactionary Left in Israel, these secularists, have failed totally over the past half century in putting Israel’s case.

    Same now this very moment! For example, there is now huge distrust among the youth of this world towards Britain the EU and America. Yet we have these Americans like Ward and Rice urging surrender to terrorists and galivanting about in the most arrogant way inside Israel itself doing so. We have Blair and his wife doing the same. Meanwhile they CLAIM to be fighting terror.

    Do these Israeli Mapaistas bother to explain to the world what is happening in front of their eyes. No! Why not? Because they are reactionary, tied to public opinion, tied to what the world media think etc.

    No! Sharon to my mind does epitomise all of this. I am convinced he is a narrow-minded conventionalist, tied totally to world opinion, hangs on to the coat-tails of Bush.

    A proper Israeli Government would now be focussing on Iran, propagandising the Iranian intentions for their nuclear bomb, one or two would solve the Israeli problem a Mullah leader said.

    But what did Sharon do? He attacked his own people, and even more serious presents that picture to the youth and intelligentia of this world, ie non-Jews. Jews must realise that we are all in this together. Sharon and this whole layer in Israeli society will never take that approach. They have never broken from those and that ideology that opened the door in 1933.”

    Where does this leave us today in Ireland? There is a very strong pro-Palestinian state movement in Ireland. Yet the catch to all of this support is that these people are supporting an Arab movement which if you bother to read the constitutions of both Fatah and of Hamas will have as its central aim the destruction of the Israeli state. Yes, that is written there for all to see and it will determine what happens now in Gaza as terrorists flood in and it also going to determine what will happen in the West Bank also.

    But the bottom line is that all of the contributors on Slugger take an anti-Israeli line. I cannot believe that Mick Fealty can be entirely happy with that! I also think that trading insults, without historical research and perspective, is going to do anybody much good, much less the readers of these websites.

  • Betty Boo

    Felix,
    The right of a state does not give you the right to force someone else out to make space for yourself. Otherwise the excuse of Germany for more territory for its growing population in the 1930’s could be seen as relevant. And we all know how this one went.

  • circles

    “Is there some sort of gene inherent in Irish nationalism that makes it impervious to doing even the slightest historical research on this issue.”

    Yes Felix. Just like those genes that make Jews money-lenders.
    I’m sorry but serious though this topic is, I do not believe that it is one that should be discussed with somebody who proposes racial genetic differences – particularly when it infers a lack of wisdom. And particularly when it comes from somebody who claims to have a sympathy for the nation of Israel. It doesn’t get more contradictory than this.

    It may have been interesting if your rants weren’t so one dimensional Felix – but its just not interesting trying to debate issues with someone who has closed his mind long ago. Its not just about the occupation of land, its about humanity. Which apart from self-congratulatory interest in the well-being of the Jewish peole of Israel, is lacking in your posts when you mention Arabs. By the way, you never did answer my questions from yesterday:

    “So Felix are you really trying to say “Arabs are Nazis” but in a round-about way?”
    and
    “Are you honestly accusing Bush and his government of being anti-semitic? Why then don’t they just go in and do an Iraq? Why do they continue to offer military support? Why do they veto any attempt at the UN to curb Israels actions?”
    (see my 12:58)

  • circles

    Sorry – noticed a little bit of man not ball there in this part of my last post .
    “It may have been interesting if your rants weren’t so one dimensional Felix – but its just not interesting trying to debate issues with someone who has closed his mind long ago”

    Apologies Felix – I know neither you nor your mind, so that remark was out of order.
    I stand by the rest though

  • Betty Boo

    “But the anti-Semites and anarcho-fascists on the Left have had a field day.”
    And if you give out about the IRA and Sinn Fein, calling them Nazis, comparing their methods with those of concentration camps, you are properly the Justice Minister of Ireland.
    Now that’s confusing.

  • Betty Boo

    PS:
    If you are left wing you’re sure can be extremist, single minded, radical and totally wrong. But how you can be left wing and fascist is beyond me and it seems to me that more and more this type of name calling has become a convenience to hit out at your opponent really hard if you ran out of arguments.

  • micktvd

    Thanks to jo and circles and the others for their reasoned and calm response to very provocative Felix Quigley. I have been to the Tangled Web site and found the thread starters very abusive and indescriminately anti Moslem. Lots of hatred and anger.

    The Gaza pullout solves little, unfortunately. The big issues are the large West bank settlements and East Jerusalem, as well as the refugees with titles to land in Israel. Water is also a crucial factor in the future negotiations. For the Palestinians there is very little to bargain with. The U.S. regularly vetos the regular(overwhelming) calls by the UN General Assembly for a settlement based on the 1967 borders. A viable Palestinian state as opposed to discontiguous, Bantustan-type dormatories for cheap labour, is not going to be offered. So resistance will continue, good and bad.

    By the way, I don’t know the exact detail, but is it not illegal under the UN treaty to occupy (and populate) territory aquired through war, even if that war was defensive to begin with? I know that the hypocrisy of the US and Israel in this matter is regularly raised when discussing the UN resolutions about Saddam Hussein.

  • Betty Boo

    “By the way, I don’t know the exact detail, but is it not illegal under the UN treaty to occupy (and populate) territory aquired through war, even if that war was defensive to begin with?”

    Anyone out there with information about it or the time to research?

  • micktvd

    I remember a speech Noam Chomsky gave in 1995 to the Press Club in Canberra, where he talked about Australia’s key role in drafting UN laws in 1949. The reference in that speech was to East Timor, which at the time was occupied by Indonesia. Australia had signed the Timor Gap treaty with Indonesia, effectively dividing the oil deposits off the Timorese coastline with the Suharto regime- a crime against the international law that says states cannot benefit from another state’s agression. I might be getting this mixed up with the Six-Day war situation.

    A bit OT for slugger, but then this whole thread is a bit of a standalone.

  • Millie

    Betty, that’s it in a nutshell. In other words, it’s illegal under international law to do what the old imperialists did in settling their own populations in occupied territories gained through defensive war or conquest. I suppose it’s a good thing for Britain, US, France, Belgium, Holland and a host of other countries that the law’s not backdated 😉

  • Betty Boo

    Felix is very quit now. Maybe he could give us an inside.
    And than there would be this moment in history he skipped and I can’t remember correctly anymore, ships full with Jewish refugees leaving and no one was prepared to take them in, wouldn’t allow them to go ashore.
    Felix, maybe you can refresh our memory and let us know what happened next.

  • Betty Boo

    Millie,
    Thanks, that’s what I thought.
    Where does that leave Israel?

  • Jo

    I think it is perfectly possible to be left-wing in orientation (I am unapologetically so) and still unequivocally support a 2-state resolution of the conflict between the Palestinian and Israeli people. I dont believe the evacuated territory will be a base for attacking Israel any more than existing territory is. Any moves towards reconciliation – such as the pull-out may not deter suicide bombers, but it is a sign to them and to us all, especially moderate Muslims, that a process other than a constant violent and bloody conflict can change things for the better.

    Wars can end by processes other than the complete victory of one side and the utter annihilation of the other.

    We HAVE to believe that that is true – otherwise we have not progressed one iota since that ape-man, triumphant and exhilarated by the first murder, hurled his bone-weapon skywards at the start of Kubrick’s “2001.!

  • Millie

    Betty

    morally, without a leg to stand on; practically, as a racist settler state.

  • Biffo

    Felix

    “I think, actually, that people in Ireland and I am one of these who decided to take up a study of this issue deserve better.”

    I would imagine that your historical research is a tad on the selective side.

  • felix quigley

    Firstly, there seems to be an acknowledgement that Israel was forced to fight the War of Independence of 1948-9 as a defensive war. That is progress. The history shows that Israel was attacked the day after declaring its independence by 6 Arab armies.

    Secondly there seems to be a reluctance to discuss the 1967 War. Again this was a war forced upon Israel by the Arab states.

    Think about it, why all these Arab wars against tiny Jewish Israel. (And by the way why on earth should a Palestinian state, and Gaza, be rid of Jewish people)

    There are a couple of questions that flow from these wars. Firstly why have the Arabs never been prepared to accept a small Jewish state in the Middle East, the area of which comprises only 0.01 per cent of the total land area. Second why on this site there is no support whatsoever in defence of Israel as a small beseiged and buffeted nation?

    There is also a reluctance to take up my challenge, which is to understand the nature of the proposed Bush Blair Sharon Palestine state, look at the constitution of Fatah. So I will!

    Under the goals section there are these clauses:

    “Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

    (If you are a new reader here please think for a moment what is being proposed her, often hidden by those wh support the proposed Palestinian Arab state)

    Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city, and protecting the citizens’ legal and equal rights without any racial or religious discrimination.
    (Again think about this…no mention of 2 states, no mention of Israel)

    Article (14) Setting up a progressive society that warrants people’s rights and their public freedom.”

    Articles 12 and articles 13 spell out that the aim is all of Palestine, ie the historic Palestine we talked about above.

    In the Fatah intentions there is no room for Israel.

    This is the content of the Arab Palestinian movement – to end the state of Israel and replace it with a state in which Jews, if they exist at all, and that is problematic, would be a minority with dhimmi status.

    The reference to Zionism is telling. My researches shows that Zionism is an authentic nationalism, as authentic as is Irish nationalism, or Protestant Ulster nationalism, or Scottish nationalism, or Polish narionalism etc etc.

    But the centre of this Palestinian movement is clearly to end the nationalism of the Jews.

    You can place whatever label you like on this. Abbas was and is a Holocaust denier. The Arabs did link up with the German Nazis in the 30s and 40s. That is historical fact. I think this is a fascist ideology based on Jew-hatred. (No need to get up on your high and mighty moral horse here, Slugger posters, just prove me wrong)

    In the Palestine Authority schoolbooks maps of the area omit the state of Israel.

    So we have a movement for a Palestinian state whose stated aim is to destroy the state of Israel, the state of the Jewish people.

    Can you challenge what I am presenting on this. If you do then you have to challenge the Fatah constitution which is the foundation of the Palestine Authority.

    I do notice also that nobody is prepared to enter the debate with me on the level of my interpretation of history. For example on the issues surrounding the 1921 League of Nations Mandate to Britain and how Britain systematically betrayed that Mandate.

    Anyhow that is how it must be. I am interested in examining this history and will always be staying on that ground. This is what is infuriating to Circles and co. They cannot answer me and then get really personal – personal attacks from you lot, not from me.

    If my facts of history are wrong it is open to other scholars to challenge them.

    On one point I do not know about UN international facts of international law, I am no expert, but it stands to common sense that if a group of nations gang up to liquidate another then there should be a price to pay if they fail in that essential fascist and deadly endeavour. Of course, smartasses on Slugger may have different interpretation. I say there should be a price to pay. Take a poll from say 100 NORMAL people!

    Even then though, it is a documented fact that immediately after the 1967 War, Israel offered the whole lot back to the Arabs. All it asked was to recognise Israel and live at peace. The Arabs refused and vowed unending war.

    I must say I really take no pleasure in debating on this site, or indeed on The Tangled Web. I find the hostility to Israel is so intense (Never the same intensity of hatred say to the Sudanese Islamists who have murdered at least 1 million Africans in Darfur most of them of the animist religious philosophy. I could go on -totalitarian Cuba, China and Taiwan, Morocca and Sahara, the Berbers, especially the Kurds, very little intensity towards the Kurdish struggle for the Homeland they so deserve. You get my point.

    Frankly I find these discussions disturbing.

    Understanding the history of this Jewish Arab struggle is in my view vital. Again I may be wrong in that but show me why.

    One of the features of the Irish pro-Palestinian movement is a constant distortion of History and a consequent refusal to come out in the open and debate this.

    Finally I want to state my opposition, and make an appeal to Mick Fealty, to the biased and anti-Israel lead in from Belfast Gonzo to this discussion. A reference to violence from the settlers, Palestinian land seized due to the 67 War, lack of violence, in brackets added YET.

    Somebody should tell Gonzo that he shouild get his historical facts correct when he refers to “Palestinian” land in 67.

    In fact Gonzo really mirrors the whole media campaign against the young Gaza Jews, whose main activity has been to congregate where the troops are, and wait for it PRAY WITH THEM, TALK WITH THEM.

    The media is always a big problem. We saw the role of the media in the dismemberment of Yugoslavia a few years ago. A biassed start by Gonzo but then Gonzo knows the anti-Israeli bias of the posters on Slugger.

  • Alan McDonald

    Felix,

    I am not Irish and I am not anti-Israel. I enter this thread reluctantly, but your comment that there seems to be a reluctance to discuss the 1967 War made me look back at some of the things you have written.

    You have claimed that the Arabs attacked in 1967 and that Six Arab armies attacked Israel in 1967. I was a college student during the Six Day War in June of 1967, and I can tell you, without fear of contradiction, that it was Israel that attacked the Arab states, not the other way around. I was a political science student, and I followed all of the debates in the UN during May of that year regarding Israel’s access through the Straits of Tiran from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Red Sea. I later wrote a paper on it.

  • Jo

    Alan:

    This site and most others agree with you:

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/six_day_war_1967.htm

    It was a pre-emptive strike.

  • micktvd

    Felix, in reference to your quote from the Fatah constitution,of course the mainstream Palestinian position is that Israel is an illegitimate state. Their name for 1948 is Al-Nakbah,the Great Catastrophe. Of course they reject Zionism. Many Jews do and did. I don’t support Zionism. A multicultural multiracial entity would be far better for all concerned.

    But the fact is that Israel is not going to go away now. It is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and it wants to hang on to captured territory. No different to settler nations of the past and certainly no worse than many a nation in the present. A solution based on the 1967 borders and a fair division of Jerusalem would be accepted by the Palestians tomorrow, and you know that Felix. This is also the position of the vast majority of world nations, including plenty of non-democratic ones. It is not the position of the US, and so it will not happen.

  • felix quigley

    Mick

    A solution based on the 1967 borders and a fair division of Jerusalem would be accepted by the Palestians tomorrow, and you know that Felix. “

    Do not put words or thoughts onto me like that, No I do NOT know that.

    And the real reason why I would never go along with that being I judge a movement by what they put in their constitution and what they do, re things like childrens’ textbooks, what they utter from the pulpits of their Holy places etc. That shows they will NEVER accept a Jewish state in their midst.

    “It is not the position of the US, and so it will not happen.”

    You are obviously totally ignorant of the position of Bush and of Rice, and especially of the State Department which Rice heads, as they prepare to mollify the Arabs by offering Israel as a scapegoat, as I said above, in proportion to the disintegration of the Iraqian adventure.

    Alan McDonald

    I doubt if this will be settled right here and now but no problem on these historical issues I am not going away. But I find what you say about the origins of the 67 War astounding.

    In saying that I note that you leave out the 1948-9 War of independence. I wonder why?

    Back to the 67 War. I read this in just one quick search. Readers can judge:

    “The PLO’s belligerent rhetoric was matched by deeds. Terrorist attacks by the group grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched. The targets were always civilians.(3)

    Most of the attacks involved Palestinian guerillas infiltrating Israel from Jordan, the Gaza Strip, and Lebanon. The orders and logistical support for the attacks were coming, however, from Cairo and Damascus. Egyptian President Nasser’s main objective was to harass the Israelis, but a secondary one was to undermine King Hussein’s regime in Jordan.

    King Hussein viewed the PLO as both a direct and indirect threat to his power. Hussein feared that the PLO might try to depose him with Nasser’s help or that the PLO’s attacks on Israel would provoke retaliatory strikes by Israeli forces that could weaken his authority. By the beginning of 1967, Hussein had closed the PLO’s offices in Jerusalem, arrested many of the group’s members, and withdrew recognition of the organization. Nasser and his friends in the region unleashed a torrent of criticism on Hussein for betraying the Arab cause. Hussein would soon have the chance to redeem himself.

    Terror from the Heights
    The breakup of the U.A.R. and the resulting political instability only made Syria more hostile toward Israel. Another major cause of conflict was Syria’s resistance to Israel’s creation of a National Water Carrier to take water from the Jordan River to supply the country. The Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria’s attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, forcing children living on kibbutzim in the Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. Israel repeatedly protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire, but the UN did nothing to stop Syria’s aggression — even a mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Israel was condemned by the United Nations when it retaliated.

    While the Syrian military bombardment and terrorist attacks intensified, Nasser’s rhetoric became increasingly bellicose. In 1965, he announced, “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand; we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.”(4)

    Again, a few months later, Nasser expressed the Arabs’ aspiration: “[el] the full restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people. In other words, we aim at the destruction of the state of Israel. The immediate aim: perfection of Arab military might. The national aim: the eradication of Israel.”(5)

    Syria’s attacks on Israeli kibbutzim from the Golan Heights finally provoked a retaliatory strike on April 7, 1967. During the attack, Israeli planes shot down six Syrian fighter planes — MiGs supplied by the Soviet Union. Shortly thereafter, the Soviets — who had been providing military and economic assistance to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus false information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt and asked Nasser to come to its aid.

    Countdown to War
    On May 15, Israel’s Independence Day, Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai and massing near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

    Nasser ordered the UN Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai since 1956 as a buffer between Israeli and Egyptian forces after Israel’s withdrawal following the Sinai Campaign, to withdraw on May 16. Without bringing the matter to the attention of the General Assembly (as his predecessor had promised), Secretary-General U Thant complied with the demand. After the withdrawal of the UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs radio station proclaimed on May 18, 1967:

    As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence.(6)

    An enthusiastic echo was heard May 20 from Syrian Defense Minister Hafez Assad:

    Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united….I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation.(7)

    The Blockade
    On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.

    In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State’s right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, the blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.(8)

    President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it. At the same time, he advised the Israelis not to take any military action. After the war, he acknowledged the closure of the Strait of Tiran was the casus belli (June 19, 1967):

    If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations.(9)

    Escalation
    Nasser was aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand, and challenged Israel to fight almost daily. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: “The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.”(10)

    Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.(11) The following day, he added: “We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.”(12)

    King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

    The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.(13)

    President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.”(14) On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.”

    From the Jewish Virtual Library by Mitchel Bard

    Note the language

    the Arabs are arranged for battle.

    Note the occupation of Sinai by Egypt with the UN just removing themselves from what was supposed to be a buiffer zone.

    Why have a buffer zone if not to prevent war so why did the UN cave in without a protest.

    And the chilling words of the Preesident of Iraq and remember Iraq had been a centre for support of the Nazis in the 30s and 40s which the British had to fight to liberate from the Nazis. The Presidents words being

    “Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.”

    I submit to the readers of Sluggerotoole who have not got closed minds that remains to this day.

  • Jo

    Yes but they did not attack Israel – Israel launched a pre-emptive strike and that is NOT, by any stretch of language, the same as saying Israel was attacked by several Arab states.

    Instead of quoted voluminously from the Internet, just answer yes or no, please.

  • Jo

    …so the appropriate reaction to what you call “a war of words” is to launch pre-emptive military strikes?

    By the same reasoning, when Paisley made his infamous call to “Smash Sinn Fein”, that would have justified a pre-emptive strike by car-bombing Ballymena?

  • felix quigley

    Any fair person reading the above report from the Jewish Library would say that if Israeli pilots had not trained and become extremely skilful, thus were able to knock out the iairforces of the enemy, then Israel would be no more. Today we would not be wondering if gaza is good or not or if Sharon has lost his marbles or is some kind of supreme strategist. For if ther Israeli pilots had not struck at those Soviet supplied airforces in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Jordan then Israel would have been wiped out in 1967.

    To link this issue to a quote from Ian Paisley and to the IRA requires some sort of deviousness of mind that I frankly will not even try to fathom.

    Please do not put words in my mouth that I do not utter. You write as an example of your “debating” method

    “so the appropriate reaction to what you call “a war of words” is to launch pre-emptive military strikes?”

    Where did I say that?

    And anyway it was not a war of words. Telling the UN to clear out of Sinai was not that.

    You seem to not like me quoting from the Internet. Well that is what it is there for. And if you want to debate with me get ready for more. And if Belfast Gonzo now wants to air this issue of Israel Arab then get ready to deal with it from an historical viewpoint. I wonder will he follow through.

    So, yes, Israel struck first and thank goodness it did, because it was outnumbered and moving armies up to the border, closing all access to the sea is itself a casus belli.

    If somebody tells me they are going to obliterate me then that also should be listened to. People should be taken seriously by what they say.

    Jo you ignore totally the words and actions of Nasser, and you ignore the words of Iraq’s President.Why? Why on earth would you discuss this and ignore THAT?

    And what Jo do you make of this which I will requote:

    “Syrian army used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria’s attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, forcing children living on kibbutzim in the Huleh Valley to sleep in bomb shelters. Israel repeatedly protested the Syrian bombardments to the UN Mixed Armistice Commission, which was charged with policing the cease-fire, but the UN did nothing to stop Syria’s aggression — even a mild Security Council resolution expressing “regret” for such incidents was vetoed by the Soviet Union.”

    Note, children sleeping in bomb shelters along the border with Syria, ie Jewish children.
    Israel protesting to the UN.

    The UN doing nothing.”

    That is just a little piece of the history that has to be brought forward.

    At another stage, Jo, I hope to deal with your former slander against the name of the Jewish patriot Menachim Begin who you have called a terrorist, and refer to the blowing up of the King David Hotel as a terrorist act. All in good time though. Lets stay with 67!

    In fact I intend to expose your pretensions to be a friend of Israel…So Jo bring on the history. I am ready.

    I await Mr McDonald’s reply

  • micktvd

    Felix, I apologise if my rhetorical device offended you. I just can’t see how a rational person would believe otherwise. Perhaps you are referring to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad when you talk about Palestinian rejection of any two state deal. These groups are still fairly small minorities of Palestinian opinion. The PLO or the PA will make a deal based on a fair two state solution.

  • Jo

    It is a matter of record that the British Government, not I wanted Begin dead or alive (which was your phrase)and which named him as a wanted terrorist.

    It is not possible to slander someone who is dead, like Begin.

    It IS possible to slander someone who is living, like me, and if you repeat ANY accusation here that I am an anti-Semite, I will regard that as being equivalent to being called a bigot and ask Slugger to take appropriate action on such a post and consider any legal action that I deem necessary.

    I feel that in any response to you that I am somehow fulfililing a psychological need for someone who is not fully rational and caution other posters accordingly.

  • Colm

    Jo

    Legal point first. You couldn’t take any action against Felix or Slugger because you are not fully identified here – you are just ‘Jo’ – besides it is better simply to debate your points and ignore name calling.

    BTW – Is there ANYONE either here or on ATW who has tried to engage in debate with Felix and not ended up being called an anti-semitic jew hater who wants to see Israel destroyed.

    Don’t worry Jo. You’re in the same category as a a very large group of people.

  • Jo

    ..just “Jo” ???

    ..afer all we’ve been through, Colm! 😉

  • Colm

    LOL Jo

    You know of course I was only talking in a legal sense (not that I’m an expert).

    Come to think about it, we could do with a nice big juicy libel trial. Me, You, Felix, David Vance, Monica and Troll even Andy Mc Cann , and not forgetting your special friend old USA ( He who cause David to close down THAT thread) all together in the courtroom.

    What a bunfight that would be!

  • Alan McDonald

    Mr. Felix Quigley writes:

    I doubt if this will be settled right here and now but no problem on these historical issues and I await Mr McDonald’s reply

    Since I pointed out that it was Israel that attacked the Arab states, not the other way around, and since you later replied that yes, Israel struck first, we seem to be in full agreement.

    Have a nice day.

  • Neal

    Colm,

    I’ve likely not seen every thread on either site that Felix contributed to. But from what I have seen, anyone who disagrees is, as you say, immediately labeled an anti-semitic, anti-Israel, anarcho-fascist member of the neo-Left. Whatever that may mean.

  • Colm

    Neal

    Yes, and that’s just when he’s being polite to us 🙂

  • felix quigley

    Mick td

    Are you joking when you write

    ” Perhaps you are referring to Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad when you talk about Palestinian rejection of any two state deal. These groups are still fairly small minorities of Palestinian opinion. The PLO or the PA will make a deal based on a fair two state solution. “

    Hamas won the majority in the local council elections in the last poll in Gaza and it looks as if they will control there. Abbas does not want nor could he possibly disarm Hamas

    Do you really dismiss the constitution of Fatah which is the controlling body of the PLO (PA) when they assert they intend to ged rid of Israel?

    Colm
    Do try to keep control of yourself. People may notice just on this thread alone that I am one person who consistently brings this discussion around to historical issues. I am particularly interested in whether the millenia old struggle of the Jews with their longing for Zion was and is in fact a true national liberation movement. yet it has consistently been denounced and denigrated in Ireland. The word Zionist in left-wing circles has often, and you must have met it also, been used as an insult etc etc.

    People also must know that I often bring the discussion to the very origins of the latest manifestation of this issue, which was the Balfour Declaration, the ensuing League of Nations mandate to Britain “to create a Jewish Homeland” on historical Palestine, and above all perfidious Albion and its betrayal of this Mandate, especially the role of our beloved Labour Party of Britain.

    I am intrigued by something else which is always left out … that at the same time vast Arab states were created and the Jewish Homeland area was tiny in comparision, and that Arab opinion at the time was actually favourable to the Zionist project

    And so. 1948-9 has big interest for me. 1967 of course also, so to me Gaza is not an isolated issue at all.

    Now Colm I have a problem with you and it is this: You are a man who continually puts words in my mouth which I never utter and would not think of uttering.

    So you write above, not to me directly, but to somebody else, along the lines of “sure everybody knows” something which is untrue.

    “BTW – Is there ANYONE either here or on ATW who has tried to engage in debate with Felix and not ended up being called an anti-semitic jew hater who wants to see Israel destroyed.

    Don’t worry Jo. You’re in the same category as a a very large group of people.”

    This is putting words in my mouth which I did not say.

    I keep a very cool perspective most of the time because I do root this issue in history. So to call somebody that just does not happen. Nor indeed has it happened on this thread.

    Now Colm if there is any aspect of this issue of Gaza that you like to discuss on an historical level, maybe I can learn from YOU. I am certainly prepared to listen. I intend not to tussle on a personal level with contributors but to tussle with historical veracity.

    Alan

    You are a bit too sensitive about the MR. Not meant to offend.

    The issue is too too serious to be like that.

    But I am disappointed in your answer. In a real way the Israelis were left with absolutely no choice. This I was only able to touch on but really the hostilities never did stop in 1949, that is why the lines arranged by the UN were Armistice Lines and NOT borders. Then the Arabs REFUSED TO MAKE A PEACE AND RECOGNISE Israel.

    You said you were in Israel in 1967, I was looking forward how you would refute that evidence I put forward about the President of Iraq etc, so I am actually disappointed at your rather snitchy reply.

    Back to Gaza. Much to discuss. What will happen in that space. Will terrorism against Israel be stepped up? Tangled Web has provided some answer to this. Is the nation of Israel hopelessly divided now and vulnerable? What exactly is Bush and Rice up to? So many questions…

  • Biffo

    Felix

    “..alone that I am one person who consistently brings this discussion around to historical issues”

    What’s your view on the plight of the thousands of Palestinians who fled in 1948 to avoid being massacred by the Zionist terror groups, such as happened at Deir Yasin?

    It’s a historical issue with important consequences and despite what you say, there was a Palestinian population who had as much right as any of us to live and enjoy their lives in the land to which they belong.

    A lot of those people are still alive and living as refugees today with no prospect of returning to their home areas.

    Israeli policy currently discriminates on religious grounds and these people will never be allowed to return to the place they originate because they are not Jewish.

    Do you think that’s fair?

  • cladycowboy

    Most natural or perverse invoking of Godwin’s law….

    Jewish settlers in Gaza calling the Israeli soldiers evicting them ‘SS’ and wearing yellow tokens evoking Warsaw ?

  • Jo

    Colm:
    I think that would be a bunfight to end all bunfights – I think everyone would be both a defendant and prosecutor and God help the judge!

  • felix quigley

    I am ignoring the insults, the lies and everything else. People who read again this thread will know that I have not called anybody here anti-Semitic. I do contend that the Palestinian Arab movement and organization is based on Jew Hatred. As will the new conceived state of Palestine that Bush and Rice and Blair so much are in favour of , which is one of the reasons I oppose it. That is a political viewpoint which I put forward. It may be wrong but I do give evidence. So it should be argued out. If I am right then just think..a lot of Jewish lives are at stake.

    I want to return to the issue of the 67 War. In doing so what is the connection between the 67 War and the issue of the withdrawal fron Gaza?

    I contend, and I amy be wrong, but prove it, that Israel was forced to fight that war, it was a defensive war, and nobody has showed me differently. Hence the “Occupation” was something that arose from Arab hostility in the first place. It is not a small point nor is the fact that Israel when the War ended offered to hand everything back in return for a promise of peace and recognition of Israel on the part of the Arabs. Again the question is did that happen or is that a lie…

    So I will quote again from the Jewish Virtual Library. Again this is a partisan source but if the quotes are incorrect in any way, factual, then that should be corrected by contributors (To me it is quite remarkable how none of that was discussed, never mind challenged:

    Part of the quote I used above was:

    “The Blockade
    On May 22, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat. This blockade cut off Israel’s only supply route with Asia and stopped the flow of oil from its main supplier, Iran.

    In 1956, the United States gave Israel assurances that it recognized the Jewish State’s right of access to the Straits of Tiran. In 1957, at the UN, 17 maritime powers declared that Israel had a right to transit the Strait. Moreover, the blockade violated the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which was adopted by the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on April 27, 1958.(8)

    President Johnson expressed the belief that the blockade was illegal and unsuccessfully tried to organize an international flotilla to test it. At the same time, he advised the Israelis not to take any military action. After the war, he acknowledged the closure of the Strait of Tiran was the casus belli (June 19, 1967):

    If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Strait of Tiran would be closed. The right of innocent maritime passage must be preserved for all nations.(9)

    Escalation
    Nasser was aware of the pressure he was exerting to force Israel’s hand, and challenged Israel to fight almost daily. The day after the blockade was set up, he said defiantly: “The Jews threaten to make war. I reply: Welcome! We are ready for war.”(10)

    Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. “Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.(11) The following day, he added: “We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.”(12)

    King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

    The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel…to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.(13)

    President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear — to wipe Israel off the map.”(14) On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.”

    I will repeat once more and ask readers of SluggerOtoole to think about what Nasser and Aref is saying here and ask was Israel correct in sending those planes out to knock out those air forces. To me these words mean what they say:

    “”Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight,” he said on May 27.(11) The following day, he added: “We will not accept any…coexistence with Israel…Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel….The war with Israel is in effect since 1948.”(12)”

    I repeat I have called nobody here anti-semitic, I have referred to the Irish Left in its support of the PLO as being anti-semitic because I can prove that the Arab Palestinian movement is indeed so. Again if I am wrong on this that can be challenged

    I am mainly interested in a discussion of these historical issues.

    The areas I focus on are these, but not exclusively so.

    1. The long history of Jewish exile from the last Roman expulsion in 135 ce

    2. The connection even during that 2 millenia of expulsion of Jews with Palestine

    3. The first movements of Jews from the Diaspora back into Palestine

    4. Especially the details of the League of Nations Mandate to Britain of 1921 following the Paris Peace Conference and the role of Britain in betraying that mandate. The evidence shows me that during this Mandate the British were indeed anti-semitic in their relationship with the Jews

    5. The splitting off of Cisjordan in 1921, a unilateral and illegal act by Britain

    6. All the period lreading up to the UN Resolution of 1937 proposing an Arab and a Jewish state (Both) which the Arabs opposed and went to War. Another chance for a state which the Arabs turned down.

    7 The Refugee issue, from both sides

    8. 1967 War and the Occupation

    9. Barak’s offer in 2000 of a state to the Palestinian Arabs and Arafat’s refusal followed by the Intifada and suicide bombing phenomenon.

    I am of course now a partisan supporter of the Jewish and Zionist cause. But in history I maintain there is also such a thing as objectivity, by that I mean that sources can be checked, and other sources can be used, ie not exclusively Jewish sources.

    I do appeal to readers of SluggerOtoole to do some more reading around this issue and to question a lot of what is put about by various groups in Ireland. The necessary material is all available on the Web.

    I do invite all the contributors who have been vocal here to engage in this historical struggle. This is not a personal issue of people being right, or bad people, or whatever. We need to uncover the truth. I maintain it can be done, not so much that I am the one to do it, but that it needs to be done in Ireland. I am just one small number in the grand scheme of things.

    I appeal directly to Mick Fealty. I have some confidence in this site because as I see it, and I may be wrong, it is the main site for nationalist Ireland. I do believe that Irish nationalism has a proud history, not of late, but the name Robert Emmett was mentioned earlier and that is one example of what I mean. Also the traditions of the Presbyterians of 98 probably live on in both sides.

    I agree very much with the policy of this site which uses cards to outlaw people who would disrupt discussions and enter into personal abuse. In trying to raise historical issues that are relevant to the lead in on Gaza I am not at all sure that I have been defended properly on this particular thread. But that principle is correct.

    I do believe firmly in the internet as opposed to the mainstream press. We will see. There is a big challenge ahead to get some meaningful discussion on this issue in Ireland.

  • Jo

    What “insults and lies”?

  • felix quigley

    It is often said that America is the friend of Israel and is the enemy of the Palestinian Arabs. I tend to argue the opposite.

    So I submit this latest:

    “(IsraelNN.com) American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Arab leaders on Thursday that the United States will pressure Israel to conduct further expulsions. She told the New York Times she “empathizes” with the pain of Israelis but “it cannot be Gaza only.”

    Palestinian Authority (PA) national security advisor Jibril Rajoub told a London-based Arab newspaper that Rice assured him Israel will make further concessions”

  • circles

    Felix:
    These “evictions” are simply an extremely well executed publicity stunt that ultimately serve Israels interests in the area more than it serves anybody else.
    8000 settlers being moved, 200 000 settlers staying out – even the Israeli Press have dubbed the shows put on by settlers with ripped shirts and unshaved faces as “a superb piece of yiddish theatre” (I suppose you’ll interpret that as somehow being anti-semitic) and clearly see that its a small move that will not be repeated.
    And in the end all they are doing is giving back land they have stolen (I’m talking about the settlements – not the state of Israel).

    Its a slick piece of propaganda, but thats all it is.