Free speech - except if you believe in the Jewish State

PSC are a joke. Their reaction to the Panorama documentary marks them out as deluded extremists who will follow Palestinian extremism over the cliff.

They are part of the problem, not the solution.

What Clair is saying then, is that I wouldn't have been welcome because I live in Israel, therefore I am a Zionist. Hold on a minute, Levy lives in Israel. How does she define, and then judge, who is a Zionist and who is not? Would she have given me a questionnaire and let me in only on the basis of my replies?

Uncanny, isn't it, that someone like me, who actually lives in Israel, can see the grey in this conflict, while Clair and a number of contributors to this site (if indeed there are several people rather than one or two using pseudonyms) can see only black or white.

I can only repeat for the umpteenth time that these shrill, extreme positions (on all sides) will bring us no closer to a solution.

If the UN decided that a "Jewish" state would be established at the end of the Mandate (which it did), and that august body was not a council of synagogue sextons, would not that mean that if you are anti-Israel, you could be anti-Jewish in a broad sense (sorry for the broad pun if it isn't clear enough).

The PSC people are fanatical extremists alright. When I went to the Rod Cox meeting hosted by them and they found out I was a Zionist through my throwing Cox a googly their sweet temper changed in the twinkling of an eye as did the old rascal's. And there's always an "anti-Zionist Jew" among them, it seems. Pathetic.

Well, let us see how important free speech is right here, right now.

Below is a paper written by Colonel Desmond Travers for An Cosantoir- The irish Defence Review. The latest issue was launched today at McKee Barracks in Dublin. The Irish Chief of Staff, Gen.Sean McCann attended the launch. The paper covers with forensic detail the responses to the original Goldstone Report and makes interesting reading.

It confirms that War Crimes were committed and it also names a few Israeli Generals and other officers in connection with the Dahiya Report. Gen.Gabi Eisenkott and Gen.Amos Yadlin in particular have been mentioned, as has a Ms T. Livni who is reported as saying that "The Israeli Army behaved like hooligans and that is what she wanted them to do!!

http://attachments.postoffice.net/tpl/Attachment/623KVOWUC/Gaza-Op.Cast%...

This is a very frightening document and I would think that the tourism traffic from Israel to Europe will decline sharply from today on.

Sorry, the attachement should be here!

http://attachments.postoffice.net/tpl/Attachment/623KVOWUC/Gaza-Op.Cast%...

Hopefully, here!

http://attachments.postoffice.net/tpl/Attachment/623ULHUZA/Gaza-Op.Cast%...

Sorry, Jonathan, the full report is above-taster below!

The Israeli minister for foreign affairs, Tzipoura Livni, the day after claimed:

“…Israel demonstrated real hooliganism during the course of the recent operation, which I demanded…”.

Inky_Flag: Free speech means you are able to post your link, and people are free to read it and discuss it, and you could also turn up to a pro-Israel meeting if you wanted to, and provided you didn't shout or behave badly you would be welcomed. If I were to post anything on a pro-Palestinian website that didn't tow the line it wouldn't get published. People who are supportive of Israel get barred or forcibly removed from pro-Palestinian meetings. That is that antithesis of free speech and stifles debate and it is why you don't get listened to.

As for your link, this is what I get:

"The following error has occurred with your USA.NET session. If this is a persistent error, please provide us feedback on this error. Otherwise, press the "Back" button to return to the previous page to try again. We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Attachment access failed. Security check failed."

And the trouble is your crowd have distributed so much disinformation and hysterical nonsense about Arab-Israel conflict that nobody apart from the rag-tag lefties and Islamists that share your dangerous obsession take anything you say seriously. And you wonder why nothing changes.

And what is "postoffice.net"? It's not even a proper domain name.

Well it is 0n the 17:12 link above and should also be here. Remember we are talking about a trip to the Hague here!

http://attachments.postoffice.net/tpl/Attachment/623ULHUZA/Gaza-Op.Cast%...

It works now. And I have to say that that document is far more reasonably phrased than the majority of the discourse regarding OCL at the time.

Nonetheless a quick glance through it shows it to be woefully one-sided, agenda-driven and partisan and does not hold Hamas to account for their part of the conflict at all. If I get time I'll write a full critique.

See? Free speech. Wonderful isn't it.

inky flag, colonel desmond travers was one of the members of the goldstone commission

he was selected by the un because of his extreme anti-israel views

he was the only member with military expertise, and he used his postition to advise the commission to ignore israeli evidence

apparently, he has now produced a paper making allegations that even goldstone refused to publish

see this haaretz article (of 10/2/2010) for some more allegations by him, including …

Travers also rejects Israel Defense Forces photographs as proof that Hamas hid weapons in mosques during the conflict.
"I do not believe the photographs," Travers said, describing the IDF evidence as "spurious."
Travers also criticized Israel's past presence in Southern Lebanon, asserting that Israeli soldiers had "taken out and deliberately shot" Irish peacekeeping forces in the area.

Unless i am missing something Gideon Levy IS a Zionist! He was extremely hostile about Israeli policy on all fronts but he recognised its right to exist. Surely he should have been banned from his own meeting!

Jonathan, i love your selective memory, you bang on about respecting free speech when it suits you, only yesterday you were calling for several other bloggers to be removed by the moderators, I guess this is what you call 'selective free speech', you claim the right to free speech when it suits you, yet condemn anyone you disagree with as anti-semitic.

You make a huge assumption about what Linda means by 'Zionist' and indeed 'Zionism'. It does NOT simply mean as you claim a 'Jewish homeland'. By making this incorrect and misleading definition you seek to discredit any opposition to 'political Zionism' as simply 'seeking the destruction of the state of Israel' or its 'Jewish nature'.

Many Jews, such as Gideon Levy, Linda and others are anti-Zionist in terms of opposing the type of 'political Zionism' that believes it has the divine right to occupy the Palestinian territories as God promised the Jews this land.

This has got nothing at all to do with being anti-semitic, its about criticism and opposition to the illegal Zionist colonial political movement, whose occupation has got nothing intrinsically to do with Judaism, it a political motivated land seizure that is thinly disguised in some crazy attempt at a biblical justification.

It is a total abuse of the moral ethics and principles of the bible, when political Zionists use this to try and justify the illegal occupation of the Palestinians, and this is what anti-Zionism means, opposition to this.

mattpryor

you claim:

'Free speech means you are able to post your link, and people are free to read it and discuss it, and you could also turn up to a pro-Israel meeting if you wanted to, and provided you didn't shout or behave badly you would be welcomed. If I were to post anything on a pro-Palestinian website that didn't tow the line it wouldn't get published'

When Jon and Jonathan are routinely abusing bloggers they disagree with and calling from them to be removed

That's right Richard

Ms Clair and the PSC are so bent on demonising Israel that they either cannot see the irony of banning Zionists from a meeting addressed by a Zionist or they choose to ignore it.

You couldn't make it up!

richmillett

Just because someone recognises Israel's right to exist, this does not prevent them from opposing 'political Zionism' as a pointed out above.

Recognising Israel's right to exist, and opposing the Zionist movements so-called biblically justified rights to steal Palestinians land, are separate things. Levy is anti-Zionist due to his opposition to the latter.

But Jonathan you are making it up!

Zionism, like Israel and everything else in the world, can mean different things to different people.

Just because people recognise Israel's right to existence, it does not mean they blindly and uncritically accept its occupation of the Palestinians land.

Anti-Zionism is routinely used as a term by those who are critical of Israeli policies in the occupied Territories and their treatment of the Palestinians.

You may not accept this, or use the term in this manner, but millions of people say they are 'anti-Zionist', meaning they oppose the political nature of Zionism and chiefly oppose the Israeli occupation.

You Jonathan, cannot stipulate what people mean through the language they use, as hard as you try, you must accept these are two separate uses of the word 'Zionism' and in turn 'Anti-Zionism'.

You can try as hard as you like to appropriate the word 'Zionism' to suit your bigoted Israel-hate agenda.

But you are living in La-La land.

'Zionism' has one meaning only: a homeland for the Jews. It was achieved in 1948.

Banning Zionists from a meeting addressed by a Zionist is racist and nonsensical.

This is what Zionism (or, more specifically anti-Zionism) means to the Jew-hating dwarf's propaganda machine:

'Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept, OR OPPOSITION TO SPECIFIC ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICIES since its establishment. The term has been used both historically and in current debates to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism

I was right, even if Rich and Jonathan, you may indeed have a singular use and meaning of anti-Zionism.

But it can mean - a) opposition to the Jewish state of Israel, which is obviously anti-semitic

but can also mean, b) opposition to specific Israeli government policies, notably in the occupied Territories.

Whether you like it or not, you cannot define, or control that language is used, and the fact that 99% of those who are 'Anti-Zionist' and in the latter group, and simply oppose the Israeli policies in the occupied territories and many are indeed Jewish.

ibrows - you talk giggerish.

Like i said Rich, you and Jonathan may not like it, but the majority of people who call themselves 'anti-Zionist' are not opposed to the existence of the state of Israel, they merely use the label 'Anti-Zionist' to denote their opposition to Israeli policies in the occupied Territories.

This is widely known. Although Jonathan, Jon and others claim these individuals are 'calling for the destruction of Israel' in a bid for discredit legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and close down the debate with calls for 'Anti-semite'; as Jon and Jonathan have demonstrated on this blog, they blindly agree with all Israeli policies and claim Israel and Israeli policies are beyond criticism, thus they use this tactic to try and discredit legitimate criticism.

I will lay down the challenge once again, can either Jon or Jonathan prove me wrong, by actually accepting even a small criticism of Israeli policies, as legitimate.

Of course they will not, as they are fundamentalist, and automatically assume Israel is beyond criticism.

ibrows - it is a bit ridiculous to claim that any country is beyond criticism. Of course Israel isn't but Jonathan, Jon, Yvetta, myself et al only respond to those who think they have the monopoly on morality and constantly spout about it....like you!

Nice try Rich,

But how can Jon and Jonathan be taken seriously when they are not rational, they defend Israeli policies regardless of whether they are good or bad, and are not interested in evidence, they dismiss anyone who doesnt share their singular world view.

and they ridicule and label 'anti-semitic' those they oppose, and still have the front to claim they embrace 'freedom of speech'

its hilarious, they only support their own free speech, and not that of their opponents

ibrows

You are talking through your back passage. 'Zionism' has one meaning only: a homeland for the Jews. It was achieved in 1948.

You are like those who say "but Arabs are Semites too so the word 'antisemitism' cannot mean hatred of Jews"

You work through trying to delegitimise Israel, delegitimise language and delegitimise Zionists.

You are just a despicable time-wasting 2-digit IQ troll.

It is true though, ibrows. You might not like people defending Israel's policies regardless but all you do is criticise Israel's policies regardless. And all Jonathan, Jon et al are doing is responding to your and other accusations. And yes, Gideon Levy is 100% a zionist.

JOnathan

I know you wont accept it but its true, the majority of people who call themselves 'anti-Zionist' recognise Israel's existence, yet are OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICIES, namely the occupation. You may not like this, but its fact, and you cannot control how people use the term 'anti-Zionist' and you cannot define what they mean by it.

Rich,

I do not criticise Israel's policies regardless, I only criticise Israeli policies where their is evidence to support my points, unfortunately the brutal occupation of the Palestinians provides masses of evidence of unjust, Israeli policies. My points, are unlike Jon an Jonathan's based on evidence, so i don't accept that parallel. They automatically assume Israel is beyond criticism, I criticise Israeli policies where there is evidence to be critical.

ibrows

" The majority of people who call themselves anti Zionist recognise Israels existence [ They dont have much choice -my words ]but object to Israels policies "

Really? Have you any facts and figures to support that piece of nonsense .

The reality is that antizionism is effectively the rejection of the state of Israel as a Jewish state .Some moderate AZs would see some sort of multifaith version [ which it already is] but under a Palestinian banner . On the other hand extremists such as Hamas demand an Islamic state from the river to the Sea as they romantically describe it.

The tragedy is that so much energy has been expended on seeking to delegitimize and ultimately eradicate Israel rather then set about building a Palestinian state going back to 1948 .

This existential war has been fought through the years through nation against nation ,then through Intifada . When that failed BDS became the new battle cry . Those that shout the loudest invariably come the most corrupt, venal, despotic tyrannies . States such as Iran ,Syria actually an endless list of Muslim states which see fit to persecute their own citizens.

Others are seriously compromised by an antisemitic agenda which is conveniently camouflaged by the AZ masquerade .

Ultimately it comes down to this .

No matter how hard you push ,we who share in a love of Israel whether we live there or not ,will push back 100 times harder.

As for brutal occupation etc . Apart from the fact that you appear to have forgotten that Israel no longer occupies Gaza , you have airbrushed the Intifada which saw homicidal maniacs immolating themselves and Israeli citizens on an almost daily basis and resulting in the death of more then a thousand men women and children .

If by brutal ,you refer to checkpoints ,fences and inspections then I would say that that is infinitely preferable to for instance the decimation of Grozny razed to the ground by the Russians when dealing with their own home grown Islamist terror . To the tune of 100,000 dead .

Were you equally outraged about that ?.Enough to prompt you into commenting on web sites perhaps.

No need to answer . I already know the answer.

'When are you going to start telling the truth and not a completely distorted version of the facts?'

Because the Jewish Chronicle is always telling, has always told, lies?

That looks like an antisemitism right there.

But unless you are seeking to only, and I mean only, impose your anti-Zionist vision on most Israeli Jews, surely normative Zionist opinions are precisely with which you must engage.

This is Linda Clair, by the way, in all her keffiyehed glory:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheffieldpsc/507678703/

'I know you wont accept it but its true, the majority of people who call themselves 'anti-Zionist' recognise Israel's existence, yet are OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICIES, namely the occupation.'

PSC seeks the end of Zionism, pure and simple. Most BDSers seek an end to a Jewish state, an end to Jewish right of return, so long as there is no Palestinian right of return to Israel, at least.

Which would mean an end to a Jewish majority and then an end to any kind of Israel shortly thereafter

i.e. their recognition to Israel's existence is temporary, analogous to Hamas' temporary recognition of Israel through a temporary truce or hudna.

Israeli Jews do not wish ever to be a minority in their own, let alone a Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian state.

You can try to force them.

See where it gets you.

'I know you wont accept it but its true, the majority of people who call themselves 'anti-Zionist' recognise Israel's existence, yet are OPPOSED TO SPECIFIC ISRAELI GOVERNMENT POLICIES, namely the occupation.'

Nor will you accept that the majority of people who call themselves Zionist recognise Palestinians' right to a state, so long as it doesn't threaten the security of Israeli Jews, short, medium or long term; that the Jews have a right to their own state in the land of Israel in which they govern themselves by virtue of being a majority; with a Jewish right of return.

Comments for this page are now closed.