JC editor calls Israel a "harlot" over OECD membership


By Dan Judelson
May 13, 2010
Share

Catchy headline, huh? Can it REALLY be true? Well, read on, dear reader, read on...

On Monday, the 31 member states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) voted to admit Israel into its ranks. There was a strong campaign to make Israel's membership conditional on some changes it its behaviour towards the Palestinians. I know, I was part of it, attending meetings with Swiss, Norwegian and Turkish diplomats, all of whom expressed concerns about issues we raised, whether they were political, economic or technical. A legal argument continues as to whether OECD member states have opened themselves up to lawsuits because by accepting Israel into the OECD on the basis of data including economic activity of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories (but excluding Palestinian economic activity) they risk being seen to endorse the occupation and thus be in breach of the Geneva Convention.

That legal argument is extremely unlikely to make any difference. But the harlotry charge? Well the OECD is "The group of the world’s richest nations" (http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/31643/israel-joins-group-worlds-ri...). Now, Israel is a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) too. Only in this instance, it defines itself as a developing country, benefiting from trade concessions based on that self declared status.

So when it comes to international trade organisations, Israel is “saying one thing to one group and something opposite to another” so they “behave with the morals of … a harlot.” (http://thejc.com/blogpost/libdems-exposed). So, according to Stephen Pollard, by extension, Israel is no better than - whisper it now - the Lib-Dems!

COMMENTS

Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 15:15

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/dev1_e.htm

This piece is ill-informed and wrong.

It shares these characteristics with the vast majority of anti-Israel diatribes.

The OECD is a group of industrialised nations. But there is no "per capita GDP" threshold for membership. Israel will not be the only OECD member that regards itself as "developing" in the WTO context. Chile, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey are also OECD members. Slovenia and Estonia are joining with Israel.

But of course this writer "singles out" Israel.

"Singling out" is antisemitic (see EUMC Definition).

Quite apart from the ridiculous allegation about Stephen Pollard!

This is a great example of how the Israel-bashers use false information and twisted logic to demonise the Jewish State. Thank you Mr Judelson! I am incorporating it in my Lectures on Antisemitism. Please continue to supply me with great examples.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 16:16

Rate this:

0 points

You may be tempted to 'flag as offensive' this article, because of the outrageous false allegation in the title.

Please don't

This article needs to be preserved for posterity, as an excellent example of the level of intellectual dishonesty to which the demonisers are prepared to stoop!


Jon_i_Cohen

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 16:26

Rate this:

0 points

You don't need the word "intellectual", just dishonesty will do, there is nothing intellectual about these people.
It's a pity the webmaster decided to delete the comments I and Joshua18 made on this blog, preferring instead to allow such mendacious comments to go unchallenged.


Dan Judelson

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 17:19

Rate this:

0 points

Actually all Mr Hoffman's comment proves is that many countries have the morals of a harlot when it comes to any economic benefit that may be derived from joining these international organisations.

Jonathan, Jon, can you confirm whether you have had sense of humour bypass ops?


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 17:34

Rate this:

0 points

Stop digging Mr Judelson and trying to pass it off as some kind of "joke"....

It reminds me of Gordon Brown claiming he "misheard" Gillian Duffy....

Just accept that your urge to demonise the Jewish State is so powerful that it leads you to write total drivel ...


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 17:36

Rate this:

0 points

And this is the kind of intellectual level at which "Jews for Justice for Palestinians" - on whose executive you sit - functions ....


amber

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 18:39

Rate this:

0 points

Dan Judelson, you freely employ the partisan term "Palestinian Occupied Territories."

When did Judea and Samaria become exclusively "Palestinian" Arab? Do tell.


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 19:11

Rate this:

0 points

" .....attending meetings with Swiss, Norwegian and Turkish diplomats"

According to the Israeli Ambassador in Norway, it is the most difficult country in Europe becasue of its media's extreme and unfair criticism of Israel and its politicised academic Middle East "experts" (quoted in Gerstenfeld, "Behind the Humanitarian Mask").

And all you could do when you met a Norwegian diplomat was parrot some pathetic specious argument dreamt up by a malevolent immoral lawyer who would sell his grandmother on eBay if by doing so he thought Israel would suffer......

Shameful


amber

Thu, 05/13/2010 - 23:30

Rate this:

0 points

Dan Judelson, there is nothing funny about demonising the Jewish state, an activity in which you engage. You should be ashamed.


Dan Judelson

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 09:48

Rate this:

0 points

The internet - especially emails and blogging - is notorious for struggling with irony. Cognisant of this, I placed the clues in the sceptical opening line, but if you wish to take it at face value, so be it.

A correction though: I erroneously included the Norwegians among the meetings I attended. I wasn't at that one, others from JfJfP were. The legal argument is unlikely to have an effect on OECD membership but it is neither pathetic nor specious and the breach of the Geneva Convention is the basis for describing Israel's occupation as illegal, recognised by jurists from Washington to the Hague, not to mention Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Amber, I use the term Palestinian Occupied Territories as "freely" as I use the term "Israel". Claiming the term is 'partisan' as you do suggests you are not in favour of a two state solution (which I have backed for many, many years). Is this correct? If you do support the idea of a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israeli one, why do you feel the term is partisan?

I reject your (and Jonathan Hoffman's) claim that I demonise the Jewish state. I abhor the behaviour of some Israeli politicians and will continue to criticise the Israeli government just as I criticise the behaviour of UK politicians and the UK government without "demonising" the UK.


amber

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 15:20

Rate this:

0 points

Judelson, you do indeed consort with and give support to those who demonise the Jewish state - the Norwegian government being a case in point. Furthermore, the term "Palestinian" territories supposes that Judea and Samaria are Arab. On what basis do you come to that conclusion?

If you honestly think the Arab-Israel conflict is about territory, you are even more naive than I took you for. Destroying Israel has always been more important than establishing another Palestinian Arab state (the first being Jordan). If not, why were there no calls for a Palestinian Arab state in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza when they were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively (between 1948-67)? It has nothing to do with a two state solution - that's a red herring. And i wonder whether you hold Israel's neighbours to the same standards as Israel? If so, you are very quiet about it.

Shameful. You are transparent.


Dan Judelson

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 15:49

Rate this:

0 points

And you haven't answered the question. Do you support a viable Palestinian state (not Jordan) alongside a secure Israeli one?


Dan Judelson

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 16:36

Rate this:

0 points

"The settlement boycott has acceptance of a state of Israel built in – it espouses a two-state solution. Anti-Zionists don’t like it." (http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/on-a-boycott-tool/)

Universal Jurisdiction is just that - universal. It permits the arrest of war criminals wherever they are and wherever they are from, Chile, Serbia wherever - including Israel. To do otherwise singles Israel out.


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 17:00

Rate this:

0 points

"I reject your (and Jonathan Hoffman's) claim that I demonise the Jewish state."

Tomorrow JFJFP - on whose Executive you serve Mr Judelson - is "supporting" a demonstration in London that will vilify Israel. The flier calls for Universal Jurisdiction to be unchanged; for a ban on goods produced by Jews in Judea and Samaria; for a suspension of the EU Association Agreement; and for an arms embargo. It is also organised by or suported by the PSC, BMI, ICAHD and Pax Christi.

So yes - J'accuse. I accuse you and your organisation of demonising Israel and associating with those who think it is acceptable to have the likes of Bongani Matsuku speak to their meetings and associating with those who deny Jews the right to their State.

J'accuse

http://www.ism-london.org.uk/1162


amber

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 17:24

Rate this:

0 points

Judelson, even though there is no historical precedent for it, and even though the Palestinians don't deserve it, and there is no moral imperative for it, I would support it (not including the Old City of Jerusalem) if it brought peace. However, it won't. That's because this conflict is not about territory - it is about destroying Israel.

Your support for vitriolic Israel haters, as pointed out by Jonathan, is shameful. This isn't criticism of Israeli govt policy, it is the process of delegitimisation of the Jewish state, motivated primarily by antisemitism.


amber

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 17:25

Rate this:

0 points

Judelson, which Palestinians have an arrest warrant out for war crimes?


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 05/14/2010 - 17:47

Rate this:

0 points

http://thejc.com/news/uk-news/31834/anti-israel-demo-planned-david-camer...

Here is the demo which JFJFP is supporting. Now tell us again that you do not demonise the Jewish State Mr Judelson.


Jonathan Hoffman

Sun, 05/16/2010 - 08:43

Rate this:

0 points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOLmVKI4bfc

Pathetic attendance yesterday Mr Judelson. I guess the football was much more important.


Stanley Walinets

Sun, 05/16/2010 - 10:43

Rate this:

0 points

Mr Judelson --

Mr Hoffman and all these other respondents are right you know. It's a well-known fact that Israel can do no wrong. Not ever. Indeed, many Israelis will tell you so themselves.

So by definition, to criticise Israel is to demonise Israel.
To suggest Israel sometimes behaves badly towards its neighbours, is to delegitimise Israel.
To suggest that Israel can do wrong, is anti-Semitic.

Ask anyone. Anyone who loves TRUTH.


Jonathan Hoffman

Sun, 05/16/2010 - 11:09

Rate this:

0 points

"To suggest that Israel can do wrong, is anti-Semitic."

That old lie again. The last resort of those bereft of any case.


amber

Sun, 05/16/2010 - 16:03

Rate this:

0 points

Walinets, what garbage. Perhaps you can back your argument by pointing out where anyone has siaid such a thing?

It's easy to make your case by putting words in your opponents' mouths. Try to stick to facts. I know it's hard when you are embittered by irrational hatred.


Stanley Walinets

Mon, 05/17/2010 - 19:51

Rate this:

0 points

Amber -- "Walinets, what garbage. Perhaps you can back your argument by pointing out where anyone has said such a thing."

Nobody actually says it, of course. So I draw this conclusion from the responses of almost all of Israel's defenders, as soon as anyone voices any criticism of Israel. You need only look at the responses in this particular blog to see this. And they are typical of most reponses elsewhere on this website, whenever Israel is criticised. Can you point to any Israel supporter's posting in which the poster says, in effect, "Hmm -- perhaps this critic does have a point..." ? Yet surely real seekers after truth would feel like that at times?

Your own contributions are but variations of the basic 'Israel can do no wrong' attitude. Here's another part of your response to me:
"Try to stick to facts. I know it's hard when you are embittered by irrational hatred."

And here's your response on to Dan Judelson, 14th May, when had written:
"Universal Jurisdiction permits the arrest of war criminals wherever they are and wherever they are from, Chile, Serbia wherever - including Israel. To do otherwise singles Israel out."

Your response to him was:
"Your support for vitriolic Israel haters ... is shameful. This isn't criticism of Israeli govt policy, it is the process of delegitimisation of the Jewish state, motivated primarily by antisemitism."

So I can only repeat those three lines of mine that you complain of:

"To criticise Israel is to demonise Israel.
To suggest Israel sometimes behaves badly towards its neighbours, is to delegitimise Israel.
To suggest that Israel can do wrong, is anti-Semitic".

Have I spoken a truth?


amber

Mon, 05/17/2010 - 23:26

Rate this:

0 points

So you admit that you merely infer someone else's meaning, and you can't back up your argument with quotes or facts.

Like most irrational Israel bashers.


amber

Mon, 05/17/2010 - 23:28

Rate this:

0 points

No you don't speak the truth, and you've provided no evidence.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 05/18/2010 - 13:28

Rate this:

0 points

Amber -- you now say: "So you admit that you merely infer someone else's meaning, and you can't back up your argument with quotes or facts. Like most irrational Israel bashers".

You had previously written to me:
"Try to stick to facts. I know it's hard when you are embittered by irrational hatred."
To claim I'm embittered by irrational hatred, is to infer to me a motivation YOU can't back up with quotes or facts. Isn't it?

You also inferred that Mr Judelson supports "vitriolic Israel haters"; and that his intentions were simply part of "the process of delegitimisation of the Jewish state, motivated primarily by antisemitism." On what grounds do you infer those are his intentions? You have no 'facts' to prove that's what he thinks, have you?

Tell me what other meaning can be inferred from these your responses, except that you do think anyone who criticises Israel, in whatever degree, is simply seeking to delegitimise Israel and is anti-Semitic.

Look. Perhaps we're both splitting hairs here. I do think that you really believe that any one who criticises Israel is a delegitimiser and an anti-Semite. If that is not what you believe, please tell me if you think there are any grounds, ever, on which you do think Israel can be reasonably criticised.

Thank you.


Jonathan Hoffman

Tue, 05/18/2010 - 13:29

Rate this:

0 points

Asking someone to prove a negative.

Par for the course.


amber

Tue, 05/18/2010 - 23:28

Rate this:

0 points

When someone criticizes Israel, you get a sense of where they're coming from. When someone aligns himself with an organization which ONLY criticizes, whilst staying quiet about real atrocities, injustices and racism (as is endemic throughout the Arab and wider Islamic worlds) one can indeed conclude that something else is in play here, and that the complainant isn't simply concerned about a specific government policy.

Clues are also evident in the language employed.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 05/20/2010 - 10:53

Rate this:

0 points

From my final para, May 18th:
"I do think that you really believe that any one who criticises Israel is a delegitimiser and an anti-Semite. If that is not what you believe, please tell me if you think there are any grounds, ever, on which you do think Israel can be reasonably criticised."

Jonathan's response: "Asking someone to prove a negative. Par for the course."

I'm sorry Jonathan, your response is very cryptic -- I cannot understand it, or its relevance to what I wrote. If you have difficulty in understanding my post, please tell me and I'll try to re-write for you.

Amber -- I appreciate the clarity of your response.

However, you say "When someone criticizes Israel, you get a sense of where they're coming from." Does that mean that if you 'sense where someone is coming from', you are justified in ignoring any criticisms/facts they speak of? (By the way, I don't know which organisation you're assuming I align myself with?)

Also, you say "Clues are also evident in the language employed". I must then draw clues from your previous responses, eg: "...irrational Israel bashers..." or "you are embittered by irrational hatred."

But enough of this. Can I return you to my final para? ".... please tell me if you think there are any grounds, ever, on which you do think Israel can be reasonably criticised."


amber

Thu, 05/20/2010 - 14:21

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley,

Of course there are reasonable grounds for Israel to be criticized - it doesn't mean I'll agree with such criticism, but to argue that any country on earth is always beyond any criticism is absurd.

But I have never contended such a thing - and it is, with respect, a red herring. The issue here is that Israel is singled out and ONLY receives vilification (well beyond "criticism"). Read the pages of the Guardian or the Independent, or watch the BBC, where the hatred is tangible.

In referring to other organizations, I was responding to Mr Judelson, not you. He aligns himself with organizations whose primary raison d'etre is to demonise, and consequently delegitimise Israel. This is in order to pave a way to Israel's destruction. They are not interested in justice, truth or fairness - their silence about the barbarity practised within Palestinian and wider Arab societies attest to this. They are consumed with hatred, and I condemn them.

As I said, you get a sense of where the criticism is coming from, and it usually isn't honest.


Stanley Walinets

Sat, 05/22/2010 - 14:28

Rate this:

0 points

"The issue here is that Israel is singled out and ONLY receives vilification (well beyond "criticism"). Read the pages of the Guardian or the Independent, or watch the BBC, where the hatred is tangible."

I'm sorry, Amber. It is just too sweeping to describe any and every criticism as 'vilification'. To do so merely gives an excuse to dismiss whatever is said: and by doing so, to evade responsibility for considering what truth might actually exist in any criticism.

"....organizations whose primary raison d'etre is to demonise, and consequently delegitimise Israel. This is in order to pave a way to Israel's destruction. "

This isn't acceptable, and it isn't true of the organisations you refer to. JfJfP, the Guardian, the BBC and many like them, are NOT urging that Israel be destroyed. On the contrary, they are urging that a two-state solution be agreed: but they also urge that Israel works towards this, instead of endlessly seeking (sometimes openly, sometimes surreptitiously) to possess the whole territory for itself, regardless of the rights of people who've also lived there for generations.

Regarding "...their silence about the barbarity practised within Palestinian and wider Arab societies..."
I recall in the last day or so seeing a posting by Mr Judelson condemning recent unjustifiable and self-defeating arrests etc by Hamas...

"We" are not the one-sided, Israel 'destroyers' you dismiss us as, are we?


Jon_i_Cohen

Sat, 05/22/2010 - 19:04

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley
Well done for getting a letter published in the JC this week.
Just goes to show the continuing support for the "lefty" point of view from our "beloved" Jewish Chronicle!, can I get a letter published- no chance!!
Stanley for you and all your "two-staters", I have written and lectured about this many, many times - two states means the end of the State of Israel - and, which two states do you mean?
Perhaps a State for the Hamas terrorists in Gaza -Hamastan, and a State for the Fatah Terrorists in Judea and Samaria - Fatahstan? - then we would have a pincer movement and Israel is bombarded from the east and the West - good idea ! NOT!
The facts of the situation are as follows,(if you bother to read it you might learn something);-
To truly determine the legal status of the area known as Yesha (Judea, Samaria and Gaza), it is important to understand the different types of UN resolutions. Once you understand the differences it becomes clear there is no such thing as the Israeli-occupied territories.
If anything, they are actually Arab-occupied territories now "liberated".
"Occupied territories" has become the most widely misused term connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict. People simply do not know the facts or like our trendy-lefty, Guardianesque friends, deliberately misinterpret them thereby completely distorting the real picture of the land distribution between the Arabs and the Jews.
The facts are, according to international law, the Jews have the complete and unquestionable right to settle the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha, not that we actually want Gaza anymore, but nevertheless). Not a single enforceable international document exists that forbids them from settling these lands.
On the contrary, the only existing enforceable document actually encourages Jewish settlement.
Created on April 24, 1920 at the San Remo Conference, this document has the Principal Allied Powers assigning the Mandate for the territory of Palestine to Great Britain. By doing so the League of Nations "recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and established "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country." Article 6 of the Mandate "encouraged ... close settlement by Jews on the land," including the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha).
There is nothing whatsoever in the Mandate that separates Yesha from the rest of the mandated territory. That means that the right of the Jews to settle the land spreads to the whole of the Mandated region of Palestine. It is worth mentioning that the 76% of the territory of Mandated Palestine known today as Jordan, was not permanently exempt from settlement by the Jews either. Article 25 only allowed to "postpone or withhold application of [this] provision."
When the League of Nations was disbanded, the rights of the Jews to settle the territories of Palestine, including Yesha, was not foregone. When in 1946 the United Nations was created in place of the League of Nations, its Charter included Article 80 specifically to allow the continuation of existing Mandates (including the British Mandate). Article 80 stated that "nothing ... shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever ... of any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."
In November 1947 Resolution 181 recommended the Partition of Palestine. Like all UN Resolutions pertaining to the Jewish-Arab conflict it was not enforceable. It was simply a recommendation, and the Arab countries rejected it. As the Syrian representative in the General Assembly stated:
"In the first place the recommendations of the General Assembly are not imperative on those to whom they are addressed.... The General Assembly only gives advice and the parties to whom advice is addressed accept it when it is rightful and just and when it does not impair their fundamental rights"(1).
If the resolution had been implemented maybe it would be possible to argue that it replaced the San Remo Conference resolution, which had legitimized the rights of the Jews to settle in any place in Palestine. However, it was not only rejected by the Arabs, but in violation of the UN Charter they launched a military aggression against the newly reborn Jewish state thus invalidating the resolution.
By the time of the ceasefire at the end of the War of Independence there was still no other enforceable document pertaining to the rights of the Jews to settle Eretz Yisrael - they remained intact.
Now to the most misunderstood aspect of the scope and application of international documents. In order to resolve the term "occupied" territories, one must clearly distinguish between the different types of resolutions passed by the United Nations. Misconceptions about the issue led to the question of a double standard that was constantly raised by the Arabs after the first Gulf War. The Arabs were unable to understand why from Iraq the UN demanded compliance with the decisions of the international body while Israel was not forced to comply with UN resolutions.
On April 3, 1998 Swedish Foreign Minister Lena Hjelm-Wallen, well known for championing the Arabs' position, in an interview with the London al-Quds al-'Arabi, gave an explanation of this "paradox." She was asked, "What about the double standards that the United States and Europe adopt when it comes to Arab issues?" She answered, "I understand this view, which is common in many Arab countries. Nevertheless, the UN resolutions passed on Iraq are different, because they are binding for all nations according to Article 7 of the UN Charter. Meanwhile, the resolutions passed against Israel are not subject to Article 7 of the Charter."
To understand the way UN resolutions work, it is worth reading an open letter by Uri Lubrani, coordinator of Israeli activities in Lebanon, addressed to Lebanon's Foreign Minister Faris Buwayz and published on February 27, 1998 in the Paris newspaper al Watan al-'Arabi. Although the letter was written regarding Resolution 425, it talks about all resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Uri Lubrani wrote the following,
"... There are two types of resolutions in the Security Council. The first type are resolutions passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter that relates to the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. Such resolutions are considered recommendations. They are not binding, and they do not require immediate implementation.... The second type of resolutions are based on Chapter Seven of the UN charter.... This chapter grants the UN Security Council resolutions an implementative authority and commits the international community to use force if necessary to implement these resolutions.... None of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to the Arab Israeli conflict, including Resolution 425, were passed on the basis of Chapter Seven. They were passed on the basis of Chapter Six of the UN charter, which is the basis also of UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338."
So, NO mandatory UN Resolution exists pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are left with the San Remo Conference decision that governs land ownership in the region of Palestine. That means that not a single enforceable internationally valid document exists that prevents or prohibits the Jews from settling anywhere in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and all the rest of Eretz Yisrael. Or, to put it differently, from the standpoint of international law for the Jews it is not “occupied” land. I now view the areas as “liberated” land.
This conclusion was confirmed by an unexpected (for Israel) source. It is hard to argue with the fact that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, was not the best friend of the Jewish state. However, he categorically rejected the mislabelling of the lands of Yesha. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998. Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, "What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?" Baker replied, "They're clearly disputed territories. That's what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly “disputed” territories." NOT “occupied” territories.
This is NOT semantics, what it means is that when the Jews build settlements in Yesha, they are NOT building them on "occupied" territories. If one wants, one may call them "disputed" territories, as Baker did. However, this will still not change the fact that from the standpoint of international law it is the very land where the Jews were encouraged to settle.
Finally, it should not be surprising that the San Remo Conference plays such an important role in this particular case. The majority of the other players in the conflict: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. gained sovereignty over their territories based on the decisions of exactly the same conference.
We Jews finally deserve to settle freely on all of our land.
It is time to stop labelling these areas with the trendy-lefty, Guardianesque term "occupied" but use the word "liberated".
Mr Judelsons post you referred to followed my earlier post on the same subject.
The biggest problem Israel and it's supporters in the diaspora face are people like you and Mr Judelson.
You are a very difficult phenomena to explain to the goyim, and time and time again our enemies hit us with "but, some of my best friends are Jews - and they agree".
It really is about time you woke up to the reality - No Israel, a second holocaust - Is that what you really want?


amber

Sat, 05/22/2010 - 23:23

Rate this:

0 points

Stanley, are you serious? You think Israel isn't being subjected to a campaign of vilification and hatred?

I don't have the time nor the space (nor the inclination to state the obvious) here to list all the hypocrisies of world bodies, the majority of the media, many politicians(mostly of the freedom hating left), the self loathing Jews who cozy up to outright Jew haters...If you think Israel receives equal treatment, objective judgement, and the same scrutiny as its neighbours, then frankly you are living in a parallel universe.

What do you think the reason is for the singling out of Israel for such treatment - in comparison, say, to Syria, Iran, Hamas run Gaza, Fatah run PA, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cuba, China, Sri Lanka, Burma, Zimbabwe etc ? Do you honestly think the world applies the same standards? Do you think that maybe it could be something to do with Jews - and not liking them very much?

The reasons for Jewish self loathing as exemplified by obsessive and irrational anti-Zionism (the only independence movement denigrated by the left - Jewws again, you see) are complex. I don't know what your particular motivation is.

It's bloody obvious to anyone who has their eyes open - even to a non-Jew like me.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 05/25/2010 - 10:32

Rate this:

0 points

Jon_i_Cohen and amber --

You make some interesting points, though you do both risk invalidating them by vitriolic and put-down language ("the freedom hating left"; "the self loathing Jews who cozy up to outright Jew haters"; "You don't need the word 'intellectual', just dishonesty will do"; "trendy-lefty, Guardianesque friends").
If you disagree with someone, calling them names doesn't strengthen your case, as I'm sure you must know.

However, to the main point.
Jon's extensive research into, and legalistic interpretation of, UN Resolutions, is impressive. I must accept his readings. But I can only remind you both of the original British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration, on which Jon's reasoning is mainly based and from which the ensuing legal position has largely flowed. A key feature - tragically ignored since then - was that while trying to accommodate the wishes/demands of the Zionists for a Jewish national home, the Declaration did also contain these words:-

"... it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The 700,000 Arabs who then inhabited what was undeniably then called Palestine, formed more than 90% of the population. 90%. Palestine was not re-named 'Israel' until 30 years later.

With those facts in mind, I ask you both now to imagine how you would feel, and what you would do, if the following situation came about:-

Wales has developed a national Army, invaded England and evicted us all, on the grounds that their Celtic ancestors had been displaced from their original country by Anglo-Saxons. Our homes in Yorkshire, London, wherever, were no longer ours. We were to be re-settled in, say, East Norfolk.

We challenge them, we say "Hey -- we've been living here for generations -- you can live amongst us, but you can't just get rid of us!"
And they say "Tough -- our ancestors were here 2,000 years before you, we've got a bible that proves it -- and America's backing us with billions of armaments, so MOVE!"

If that happened, how would you -- we -- feel? What would we do?

Can I leave you to think about that?
__________________________________
PS: Jon -- "Well done for getting a letter published in the JC this week. Just goes to show the continuing support for the "lefty" point of view from our "beloved" Jewish Chronicle!...."

I think the JC would be astonished to be described as 'lefty'!!


amber

Tue, 05/25/2010 - 22:50

Rate this:

0 points

Yes Walinets, I know the Israel haters of this world always express themselves so reservedly and analytically. I'm sure you express your outrage at the antisemitic epithets yelled by screaming hate filled groups at every anti-Israel hatefest.

Unfortunatley, your history is selective. Palestine included what is now Jordan (which was three quarters of palestine). The British broke this segment off in 1922 to become Transjordan. It is the first Palestinian Arab state, with a monarch imported by the British imperialists from Saudi Arabia (no calls to destroy the "illegitimate" state of Jordan from the leftists. This country is now an apartheid state, where Jews are forbidden citizenship. Selling property to a Jew is against the law, with the death penalty as a deterrent. No cries of outrage from you, I'm sure. the remaining one quarter of Palestine was to be divided by the Jews and Arabs into roughly equal measures (leaving the Jews with an eigth of the original Palestine - puts a different perspective on it, doesn't it? You also ignore the fact that simultaneous to Jewish immigration into Palestine, there was largescale Arab immigration. This wasn't accidental. Due to the Jewish presence and development programmes, there was work which didn't exist in the surrounding Arab countries. Arabs from Syria and Egypt came for work on Jewish projects, and as Palestine developed and prospered, more Arabs came. he idea that all Palestinain Arabs farmed the land for generations, whilst true for some, is fantasy. So your "figures" are somewhat skewed aren't they?

The Jews accepted the UN partition plan, the Arabs rejected it, and still do. The Arabs launched a genocidal war against the Jews of palestine, and surprisingly for them, they lost. The desire to destroy Israel and commit genocide against her Jewish inhabitants still drives the conflict. If this was about borders, it would have been solved long ago, as you well know.

What would you do if faced with an enemy who is not interested in living side by side with you, but wants to kill you?

Let me leave you to think about that.


Stanley Walinets

Thu, 05/27/2010 - 17:31

Rate this:

0 points

"If this was about borders, it would have been solved long ago, as you well know."
It is about borders, and it is being solved, isn't it? It's called a 'security fence' isn't it? Several metres high -- lots of it built on non-existent Palestinian farm land, I understand. Looks like a final solution to me...

"What would you do if faced with an enemy who is not interested in living side by side with you, but wants to kill you?"
I'd probably make home-made rockets and try to kill him, I suppose. I could send him a letter saying 'Can't we talk?' but if he said 'Sorry mate, you're a terrorist (even if you're legally elected) so I ain't gonna talk. Anyway, I get $3bn a year from my US sugar daddy so I don't have to talk' -- well, I don't know what else I could do. Do you?

In short, amber, what's your answer to it all? Another 60 years of the same?


amber

Thu, 05/27/2010 - 23:59

Rate this:

0 points

Walinets,

You allusion to the security fence as a "final solution" is insulting and grotesque in the extreme. I'm not Jewish and find such language disgusting. Any comparison with the death camps is so off the chart I see no reason to debate with you further.

The fence has saved hundreds of lives - yes, it may be sad that a farmer's field is cut in two, but I'd rather that than see some kids blown into pieces of meat in a school bus, a phenomenon which happened not so long ago if you can remember.

The evidence speaks for itself. Israelis would accept peace with their neighbours (and have a track record of doing so). The Arab world has not yet accepted a Jewish state. This is seen in broadcast media, in school textbooks, in papers, and out of the mouths of political leaders. It is demonstrable evidence, which you ignore because it doesn't fit your hateful and self loathing narrative.

Tha naswer which you demand will not come from me, nor from you. It will come when the Arab and wider islamic worlds come to accept theat Israel is there to stay. There is unfortuantely no sign of that happening. If Israel went back to the meaningless ceasefire lines of 1948, there would still be no peace. There wasn't then, before such red herrings as a so-called "occupation" or security fence. Without the acceptance of the right of the Jewish state to simply be, there will be no peace. It is self evident to those not corrupted by propaganda and bile.


Stanley Walinets

Tue, 06/08/2010 - 06:05

Rate this:

0 points

Amber

Sorry not to have responded sooner -- I've been away for a week or so.
I will try not to be corrupted by the bile you accuse me of. But we have to differ on your 'demonstrable evidence' that "Israelis would accept peace with their neighbours (and have a track record of doing so)."

Does this track record of willingness to live in peace with their neighgbours include the steady encroachment (aka confiscation) of West Bank land by legions of Israeli settlers? With full Government support?

Does this track record of willingness to live in peace include the decision that East Jerusalem, the long-established holy site of Palestinians, must now be regarded as exclusively Israeli territory, with the eviction of many Palestinians from the houses they've lived in for generations?

Does this track record of willingness to live in peace include the determination to ignore Gaza’s legitimately elected Government by calling them 'terrorists', thereby ignoring any obligation to discuss solutions and giving Hamas no option but to resist Israel’s domination by violent retaliation? Example: when Hamas agreed in June last year to a ceasefire and held to that agreement, Israel broke it in December by sending agents into Gaza to kill seven alleged ‘terrorists’; thereafter using Hamas’ inevitable – small-scale – resumption of rockets as an excuse to launch Operation Cast Lead – with the deaths of 1300+ Gazans and the sustained domination of Gaza we now see? Is this the track record of willingness to live in peace you’re talking about?

You refer to the 9-metre high Wall. You say “The fence has saved hundreds of lives - yes, it may be sad that a farmer's field is cut in two....” . I’m just reading this week’s JC. Please see the ‘Comment & Analysis’ page 26. Adam Fould, a Man Booker Prize nominee, writes of what he saw on his visit a few weeks ago. I’ll be interested to know if after reading this you feel differently. But if you still feel the same, I guess we might as well regard this correspondence as now closed.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS