articles

Iran

294 Comments

Give Iran the bomb: it might make the regime more pliable

You see, if I were an Iranian politician, my mind would be made up. If we were all sitting in Teheran and puffing our post-breakfast pipes and pondering the question of Iranian nukes, I am afraid that we might come to a very different answer.


Never mind the bleating from the UN and the snarlings of the Bush Administration and the stream of démarches from Margaret Beckett, which I would file immediately in the bin. If I were the member for Qom South, I would feel that it was my patriotic duty to equip my country, as fast as possible, with the biggest, shiniest, pointiest and most explosive thermonuclear device on the market.

I would want an Iranian nuke not because nukes are some kind of national virility symbol. It’s nothing to do with the great spirit of bourgeois rivalry that normally actuates the human race: it’s not like wanting a flat-screen television, just because the neighbours have got one.

I think I might genuinely and not unreasonably believe that the possession of a nuclear bomb, and the ability to deliver it over some distance, was the only sure-fire means of protecting my country, and my poor huddled constituents in Qom South, from the possibility of an attack by America.

If I wanted any support for this belief, I would only have to look across the Shatt-al-Arab to the carnage now taking place in Iraq. There, the Americans used their incomparably superior military power to topple a regime, and plunge a neighbouring country into civil war. The tragedy and irony of the whole thing is that Bush managed to take out the one regime in the “Axis of Evil” that was not, in fact, developing weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, that seems to be precisely why he targeted Iraq rather than the other two, and it is now retrospectively obvious why Saddam Hussein was so foxy and tricksy with the UN weapons inspectors: the silly old fool was pathetically trying to suggest that he might have something up his sleeve after all, in the hope of deterring an attack by the Pentagon.

He failed, and the result is that 58,000 Iraqis are dead as well as thousands of coalition troops, and the whole catastrophe has hugely accelerated the nuclear programme of the other two evil members of the Axis. Iran is going hell-for-leather, and North Korea is now scaring us all witless with the seismographic proof of its own entry into the nuclear club.

It is precisely because Iraq has gone so wrong that Bush and Blair are now morally and politically incapacitated from leading us through the quagmire. Who on earth would trust Tony Blair, if he were to tell us that we had to go for a military solution? Who would believe a word he said?

And how can Bush instruct the Iranians not to equip themselves with a bomb, when he has been unable to stop the secret of nuclear destruction being unveiled to the North Koreans?

Kim Jong-il beats all-comers in the global whacko stakes. If he can have a bomb, why can’t the mullahs? No one can pretend that any of this is good news. In an ideal world, the Israelis would fly to Iran and repeat their magnificent success at Osirak in 1986, where they bombed Saddam’s nuclear capacity in its desert cradle.

But I vividly remember a conversation two years ago with one of the most fearsome hawks in Jerusalem, and he told me that option was no longer available: the stuff is all fizzing away already in hardened bunkers, and the sites are too scattered.

So what is the answer? The answer, of course, is not to panic, and also not to reach for our six-guns, and not to spout the language of Wild West ultimatums. There are two very different regimes, and their ambitions call for different responses.

My despairing feeling is that, in the case of Iran, we should admit that it’s checkmate, as they say in Persian. The Iranians are one day going to possess a nuclear bomb; there is almost certainly nothing we can do about it; all our blustering and threats are pointless. Indeed, if all else fails, there may even be a case for giving the Iranians the bomb — that’s right: maybe it is time for the Americans to take control themselves of this unstoppable programme.

If I am right in thinking that an Iranian bomb is not only inevitable, but also corresponds to the wishes of the people of Iran, then perhaps we could turn this whole thing on its head. Perhaps it is time to end the sense of terror, and suspicion, and escalating menace. Perhaps the Americans could actually assist with the technology, as they assist the United Kingdom, in return for certain conditions: that the Iranian leadership stops raving about attacking Israel, for instance, and that progress is made towards democracy, and so on.

The Iranian public might feel grateful, and engaged, and not demonised. Would it mean the end of Israel, which has 200 warheads of its own? Of course not. The logic of mutually assured destruction still applies, and even the mullahs are not mad enough to take on a country that could turn their desert into molten glass.

It is true that the Iranian regime is scary; but there have been movements towards pluralism. China and Pakistan both have the bomb, and these are not conspicuously democratic. I am acutely conscious that this may seem faintly barmy, and I should stress that this is not a policy, and certainly not a Tory policy, but simply an idea I am running up the flagpole, and I suggest it only because we seem to be short of anything better.

The tragedy of growing up is that human beings acquire the means of killing themselves and others. The human race now collectively has that power. The Iranians will join in soon enough. It might be sensible if they did so in an atmosphere of co-operation and understanding, and not amid intensifying threats and hysteria, especially when those threats are known to be bogus.

As for North Korea, it is obviously time to talk and not to threaten, though, if there was some way of quietly disabling Kim’s bombs until the end of his hideous regime, we should certainly consider it. Where is James Bond these days?

294 thoughts on “Iran”

  1. Boris, before the lefty liberals come here and tell you what a silly boy you are and demand you apologise personally to every country you’ve mentioned for offending them, can I just say that you’ve hit the nail on the head as usual.

    Boris for PM.

  2. Boris, very well said. I think that is the most rational argument I have heard yet on the subject. Of course, with the Americans stubbornly refusing diplomatic relations with Iran (thus proving them right, America *does* hate them, clearly.) this may be difficult.

    It reminds me very much of a policy from Sec. Stimson in 1945, which I wrote about here. His advice, had it been taken would likely have avoided much of the intensity of the cold war.

    Mutually assured destruction is the best force for peace in the modern world.

  3. Just because they might achieve this by themselves, it doesn’t mean that we should help them to do it.

    If your neighbour wanted to cut down a tree in your garden, you don’t help to do it. You’re still going to have a fallen tree.

  4. Tom? I agree it seems crazy, but there is no might about it. Iran will develop Nuclear weapons. Even worse, Iran and North Korea trade, and then they can share technology. Would we rather create a stronger Nuclear alliance against us, or stretch out a hand and welcome some people to the international community?

  5. “it is now retrospectively obvious why Saddam Hussein was so foxy and tricksy with the UN weapons inspectors:”

    The key word here is “retrospectively “.I have to be honest I think this article is rather silly . Yes Saddaam did look very guilty and that was one of the reasons for the action. According to this logic the guiltier they look the more likely they are not to be.
    This does not work looking forward and Conservative carping about the mistake of the war is weak weak weak.They supported it with or without WMDs and rightly so.

  7. I entirely agree with Boris, if only because I’ve been saying exactly this for the past two or three years: if you’ve got nukes, you’re not going to have the US army driving through your streets any day soon. The result will be a reginal balance of power, rather than the present imbalance.

    But I don’t see that the Americans should be the ones supplying them, given that it’s the Americans who pose the greatest threat to Iran. No, it has to be Pakistan, or China, or maybe even France.

    And with luck, they’ve already taken delivery of a half dozen or so.

  8. Newmania? So now suspicion alone is enough to authorise military invasion and the killing of civilians? Nonsense. Hans Blix said they didn’t have weapons, we trusted the weapons inspectors until they gave the wrong answer then we went in anyway and thousands of people have died because of it. The war in Iraq is a moral blackhole.

    The thing that I hate most about the ‘coallition’ is how utterly morally bankrupt they have become. I detest what has been done in my name and refuse to accept that it was the right thing to do at the time. If anything time has proven that lose of us who were against it at the time were correct, although to be honest, I know of no one who would want to have thousands of children to die brutal deaths just to prove they were right.

  9. ‘even the mullahs are not mad enough to take on a country that could turn their desert into molten glass’ (Boris)

    Perhaps not directly but they were happy to pass all those rockets onto Hezbollah. They are happy to spend their oil dollars giving handouts to the victims of the war in Lebanon, buying support for their Hezbollah ‘resistance’.

    I think Iran will continue to threaten Israel, now most of the Arab states have stopped threatening them Iran seem to have taken up the fight. It’s a popular policy in the Middle East to promise the destruction of Israel, and Ahmadinejad seems to be a popularist president.

    I don’t think its right that Iran get off scot free for what happened to Lebanon either. They were messing directly with European and US interests (i.e. a peaceful and democratic Lebanon) by arming Hezbollah against our will.

    There should be sanctions than ban Iran from exporting any weapons whatsoever, and the US should adopt a hardline Israel-type stance against them (i.e. mess with us and we’ll turn your clock back 20 years).

    Bush started all this, why is he going soft all of a sudden? He should finish his work in his ‘axis of evil’ or a nuclear ‘axis of evil’ will be his legacy.

  10. Pete – WMDs were not the reason for the action which was defence.As the consequences of doing nothing are never going to happen we will never know for sure whether it was the right thing to do. I see no special need to have a high minded moral reason to attack a genocidal dictator in the furtherance of our interest and safety. It is certainly tragic that the Iraqui people cannot be dissuaded from killing each other but I think there is a limit to which you can ascribe blame elsewhere.

    Speaking of a moral abyss I often listen to the high moral clap trap of the Liberal Party . I find it therefore quite unspeakable that for local gain they have made an alliance with the BNP in Calderdale . I only hope that they will learn that you cannot be a national party and change your position by geography.
    I am a committed Conservative but was such a thing to be allowed to happen in our wonderful party I would leave that very day. Time for the National party to react can be allowed but not much . Have they no shame? It seems not .

  11. There’s another reason the average Iranian might well feel justified in supporting its government in pursuing a nuclear weapon: what on earth gives America (and Britain) the right to go round telling all and sundry who should and shouldn’t have nuclear weapons when THEY’VE QUITE CLEARLY GOT HUNDREDS OF THEM THEMSELVES.

    I think the Iranian regime sucks. But the world doesn’t belong to the West, no matter how superior we might be tempted to feel at times.

  12. WMDs were not the reason for the action which was defence. (newmania)

    Defence against what, if not WMDs?

  13. NewMania, I agree absolutley that I too would leave any party that linked themselves in any way, no matter how local to the BNP.

    But for the war in Iraq how did we attack to defend ourself? Sadaam was so demasculated after GW1 and all those sanctions that he couldn’t have launched a credible attack on anyone. It was not defence, it was agression. Sadaam posed us no threat. And clearly the Iraqi people are no better off now anyway, arguably they are worse off. Yes he was an evil bastard, but the same crimes are going on now, more people are dying, and its heading towards being a Muslim nation instead of a secularist one, which it was previously. There was no link between Sadaam’s Iraq and Al-Quaeda, now Iraq is a hive of Al-Quaeda activity. If Sadaam was a threat how come he couldn’t even defend the country?

  14. As for North Korea, some scientists are saying it looks like they either didn’t test an atom bomb or that they cocked it up.

    Their attempts at rocket manufacturing have also proved to be a bit patchy too, so I doubt the US are too worried.

    US defence companies such as Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, must be rubbing their hands together at the thought of Japan re-arming. One good reason why the US might want to avoid military intervention.

  15. “The logic of mutually assured destruction” does not work here, because we are looking at a fanatic Islamic regime that approves of suicide as a means of destroying one’s opponent. If you are headed straight for Paradise, why would you care that your country gets turned into molten glass in the process. You are a holy martyr, a shahid, and your 72 virgins are waiting for you…

  17. Hi Boris
    You got a mistake here.there is no Qom south in Iran!it is just Qom a religious city in central part of Iran beside the salt desert.I am totaly agree with you but don’t forget that this Malls never think about democracy even they have nukes.but about Israel they are good traders.

  18. Hi Boris,
    Why bomb is good?????
    Lets go after any body India, Pakistani, Israel, …, France, UK, USA make then give a way or lets every body have it
    It is not fair you have it and make me force Kill my nation why because 1 or 3,000 people die from your nation.
    What kind of democratic way killing 650,000 people is good or no problem but dieing of 3,000 people is wow.
    (I am sorry for every single life but can be this excuse for killing another nation????)
    Ok if bad for every body of not then fuck off.

  19. “The logic of mutually assured destruction” does not work here, because we are looking at a fanatic Islamic regime that approves of suicide as a means of destroying one’s opponent. (Simone)

    Suicide bombing is a tactic, not an ethic.

    Japanese kamikaze pilots were the suicide bombers of their time. But Japan itself did not commit suicide.

    Iran won’t commit suicide either.

  20. It seems even Iranians read Boris’ blog.

    Perhaps we can do the negotiating here that George W Bush is incapable of doing?

  21. PETE: Well my reading of it is this. The US after, in effect, suffering another pearl harbour was going to snuff out whatever rogue states in the Middle East they could. Discussions of the UN legality and the effective causus bellum (WMDs) were a pantomime which even down to junior level was not taken at face value. They were gestures at best .The Conservative Party at least were well aware of that as they have since admitted on more than one occasion, . So was Tony Blair

    The US is our closest and only meaningful ally, the main strut of international security and the power that has, in the last resort been our friend. We could, of course, behave like France, a legend for amorality in International affairs, and hide behind American power as the guarantor of security, while sulking of in a dream of La Gloire. Or we could support our ally and play an honest part in the real international relationships that defend Liberal democracy.

    The key to this, by my reading, is in understanding both of the impact of 9.11 andthe insubstantial ness notions of legality in international relations (International law is a myth !). Servile news coverage mostly played along, focussing on what was ephemeral opinion management.
    I also think the lurking knowledge that this is the case is what so riles Liberals and other fantasists. The people they so despise, protect them as they protected Salman Rushdie (who sucks). This is a corpse under their tea table. It gives a rotting savour to the dainty hypocrisies they nibble upon and the querulous fury we hear in the fury of a child who knows he is in the wrong…

    Once you throw away the veil (ho ho) it all starts to make more sense. The creation of a free and friendly Iraq was a laudable but secondary motive. We were there as part of our defence strategy in a wide sense and whether or not we could actually find WMDs at that time was not the issue. They would certainly have come. In part, the US was taking advantage of a political window of opportunity to shore up its own security.

    This dissonance between the real relationships in the world that are centred around NATO not the UN or the EU is why it is so easy to pick holes in play moralities that crop up . It resolves itself back to “rightness ” in this way If Iraq had been a real sovereign state with real freedom then there would not have been problem in the first place ( With Iraq)

    So far so good. Where, in my opinion we have gone wrong is in being tempted to play the major power on the world stage. We are no such thing and therefore have fewer obligations to do our bit. Some time ago we had done more than enough and should have set timetables for withdrawal that were achievable.
    Tony Blair would not tell this truth, he played his phoney hand because it’s all he knows .Also he has (like other long serving Prime ministers) come to think of himself as a colossus on the world stage. All of this exaggerates our obligations to the point where we are risking British lives for the sake of “Looking important “. Nothing new there. You might put it this way. He has come to believe his own lies .I would like us out now and we would agree on this at least.

    The core of my argument is in these ideas.

    1 Continuity of international anarchy regularised only by ad hoc military accords and tribal loyalties
    2 The strange language in which this is described for domestic consumption . ( UN baloney)

    I would be interested to hear STEVEN L`s view, and also his brief history of business as usual is highly instructive …I think

    All of this by the way is why some of the Conservative Party are so furious that in backing the war they have been placed in the position of being liars . Some would have supported the war on the traditional grounds I describe. Not all though, and I believe it would have been a similar story had they been in power. I have only a limited sympathy for the Conservative position. “We would have gone to war for the right reasons”

    Now, the young men and women are driving around in death-trap jeeps. They are poorly supported and used as toy soldiers. They should be home and safe as soon as reasonable practicable. They have ,as ever , performed marvellously despite scandalously inadequate equipment .

  22. Dear Boris,

    You were lied to by Blair in Parliament over Iraq, and you knew it, and he assumed that you would make nothing of it, and that was justified. The suggestion that Iran should be given nuclear weapons to avoid the prospect of being made an invasion target by the country that you represent seems to avoid the question of responsibility. Also, Cicero is hardly an authority on the clarity of the distinction between law and civil war, since he managed to aggravate the Roman body politic by ensuring that plotters could be executed without trial if they failed to assemble their legions of veteran soldiery first.

    Horace said that for the follies of their princes, the Greeks felt the whip. Perhaps we might better discuss what the member for Henley can achieve, in the one chamber we have left of our Parliament. I am unsure what my government’s policy is on our invasion of Iraq, and on what legal basis our troops remain. Has Parliament relinquished the authority to declare and end wars, essential to democracy? How often must Parliament authorise the occupation? Why has the United Nations not taken over the process of ‘regime change’? What steps has Parliament taken to ensure that it is not misled once more by the government over Bond’s vastly overemphasised intelligence reports? It seems that if the Iranians want to destroy British democracy, they have an ally in the prime minister- and if the Opposition remains as ineffectual as it has, they might be entitled to regard offers by our MPs to give them bombs as being somewhat after the fact. Would it be accurate to observe that the Commons not only includes former terrorists who have been excused the oath to the Crown, but that the most notorious terror attacks on this country have been carried out by bombers shown around Parliament by one of our politicians?

    You touch on the subject of mutual assured destruction. Yet modern wars are not fought by states across borders, but by financed insurgency groups, or small cells of fanatics. I have read that the Americans have dismantled their search for bin Laden, his four wives and seventeen sons, though it seems scarcely credible- but in any case, they have scrupulously limited their extra-legal attentions to actual armed al-Qaeda terrorists, or those taking mystery bus tours among them, rather than hunting down sources of terror funding and propaganda in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. All I have learned about the London bombers is that their families didn’t know anything about their activities and resent any enquiries. They are meant to have been indoctrinated somewhere in Pakistan. Suppose they had used more effective methods or weapons and thousands had been killed, or tens of thousands- would mutual assured destruction be relevant then? Will we ever have a Report dealing with the invasion of Iraq and assessing its effectiveness at countering potential terrorist acts, rather than just one which fails to answer the question of Blair’s integrity on intelligence?

    Boris, if you are interested, you could start with the issue of Cabinet committees, created for defence as this country emerged from Splendid Isolation and fallen into disuse because they threaten Blairite methods of decision-making without ultimate responsibility. However, it may be that your talents are better suited to the defence of English culture. After the defeat of France in 1940, Saint-Exupery mourned ‘Had France been France, she might have stood to the world as the common ideal round which the world would have rallied.’ The British don’t stand for some awful armed police state presided over by a media control fanatic who uses his own version of the language, and anyone who represents our culture defends us from that.

    Best wishes,

    ‘Anecdota’

  23. No worries, Boris! We will be making the bomb real soon. Don’t actually need the help of Americans either; you know we don’t want to be indebted to somebody. Just tell Israelis to keep out of the game, so as to avoid getting into a war, or else they will be wiped out of the map some time. We don’t want to make trouble for somebody, just want to protect our own sovereignty, but if Israelis want to get wiped out of the map, we will be happy to do them this favor, as you cannot deprive us forever.

  24. Very insightful and still surprising from a Westerner. If Iran gets Nuclear weapon it will never use it because it knows well it will be completely gone the minute after. Therefore, there is no real danger from a nuclear Iran. The problem of the U.S. and its allies is not Iranian Atomic bomb or the danger for Israel, they don’t want to loose their current master-slave relations with Arab countries which will be gone by the emergence of a powerful Iran.

  25. After suffering another Pearl Harbour? Thats incorrect, they suffered an attack from terrorists, not from a country. If Iran attacked America tomorrow, that would be different, but no nation attacked America this time. Are we to punish every Arab for what those ones did on 9/11? If so we’re no better than the terrorists.

    Yes, Bush and Blair had decided before using the UN, I agree, but they obviously saw even then that they were in dodgy territory or they would not have looked for just cause via the UN, which came up with the answer they did not want.

    The power of the US was not exactly helpful in 1940 when it was punishing any US citizen who came here to help defend freedom by removing their citizenship. Yes they were friends still, but there was no shoulder to shoulder when Hitler was trying to flatten London. They joined the military war when they were attacked. Yes, they made a huge impression on it, but they didn’t come in just to help their buddies. If your best friend chose to kill someone because they were nasty, would you help him dig in the knife?

    You hear know ‘fury of a child who knows he is wrong’ from me, on the contrary, I’d not state my case if I didn’t believe it 100%. Yes, Sadaam was evil, but I believe that the west should prove itself better than evil by behaving morally better and treasuring the things we say we do, not by indulging in whatever two faced lies we feel like and devaluing human life. You don’t have to be a fantasist to believe the invasion was wrong, you just have to look at the chaos and the turmoil, you have to look at the suicide bombings, the rape, the murder, the secretarianism, the roll to civil war.

    You have yet to name one way Iraq was a threat to our security, you throw your argument in that it was defence strategy and shoring up security, but how? Sadaam was not a threat. Tell me how Iraq was a threat to us, please.

    You’re right tho, I agree we should bring them home, right now. Totally agree. But, I can’t see how you can think we should withdraw, yet support going in? Can we just globetrot destabilising countries and then leaving? At any rate, I agree, they should be home, not risking their lives everyday.

  26. PETE: I am familiar of course with the point of view you express and have dealt with the points you raise ( I think )or at least intended to.I think your opinion is naieve and overly concerned with being “good” .I am chiefly concerned with the safety of this country , its interests and relatively unconcerned about being morally better than this or that regime . Generally moral equivalence is misused by the other side ( on this) I feel .

    Sorry I didn`t mean to be rude I was on a mental soap box and got a bit carried away ….About half way through I seem to have morphed into Young Winston.I laughed when I read it back…..when will I learn

  27. I think,you don’t know mollas.
    If they achieve nuclear power, it will be the beginning of a new story. Cold war against Israel is the only excuse that help them to govern to Iranian people. So they don’t lose it even you grant them advantages.
    Iranian people have a proverb. we say they are like a cat, when you threw them up, They come done to the ground on their feet very calmly.
    You need a mola against a mola to win, find that mola.

  28. Good,Boris
    I am an iranian medical doctor and in political issue,I am opposed to my goverment.I belive west
    democracy as my ideal regim
    but I am nationalist and completely accept your opinion about our(iranian)
    nuclear program although we are peaceable people and don\\\’t like to have atomic bomb.However I thank for your justly idea and I wish that you be elected as britain first minister as soon.
    Be successful

  29. NewMania, worry not, you weren’t rude, or at least, I didn’t pick up on it if you were. Apologies likewise if I was.

    I understand your point about Morals, it leads back to arguments such as that over Dresden. However, I still just can’t see Iraq as a threat to us.

    Anyway, have you seen Young Winston? With Micheal York? Not a bad movie.

  30. BJ, who’d have thought you had such an Iranian following? If we find out you have a Ppongyang based branch of your fan club too, surely you’ll have to be PM.

  31. The creation of a free and friendly Iraq was a laudable but secondary motive. We were there as part of our defence strategy in a wide sense and whether or not we could actually find WMDs at that time was not the issue. They would certainly have come. In part, the US was taking advantage of a political window of opportunity to shore up its own security. (newmania)

    Once Al Qaeda, WMDs, spreading democracy, and all the rest has been disposed of, the invocation of “defence strategy in a wide sense” and “window of opportunity to shore up its own security” sounds to me like a slightly coded way of saying “securing control of vital Middle East oil reserves”.

    Why not just say this? Why beat about the bush? Why not call a spade a spade?

    My question is: did they succeed in this primary geopolitical goal? As best I can make out, they didn’t even manage to do that.

    they don’t want to loose their current master-slave relations with Arab countries (Arj Tuba)

    Quite so. But it appears they are losing it anyway. And what will be the consequences of that?

  32. You need a mola against a mola to win, find that mola (alireza)

    I suspect these ‘molas’ must be the Islamic clerics that us poor dumb Westerners call ‘mullahs’.

  33. Well said Borris
    I wish all British politicians could be as liberal as you are .
    You are right we ( Persian people ) see our politicians as traitors if they don’t do any thing possible to protect our sovereignty.

    Well done Borris

  35. Dear Boris,

    You are Right, that’s the only and real solution, I think world should think about it very seriously before making any unrealistic judgment.

    Wish you good luck,

    Nick

  36. Hi Boris
    there is a solution in there. iranian regim proud of themselves to challange big powers. to move them back from their postion and see their humiliation, and how fearfull they are start with United Emarat.3 island in Persian Gold. 1-Emarate should claim back those islands.2-US should support his alias (UE).3- US set nuke missles in UE, pointed to Qum city in iran, if iran wanted to attack Emarat.
    4- all this should happen to support UE, not in the context of argues beween US and Iran.
    Iran regim will fear of UE claim, because they don’t want put themselves down in front of Iranian nation.

  37. Boris, I’m Iranian, and I think if Iran spends its money and energy on infrastructures of the country, it would be a “real” and “better” powerful Iran than if spending them on making atomic bombs, as you think. However, your argument seems logical and interesting as an Englishman, certainly it’s towards the benefits of UK, not the people of Iran, who are the “real Iran”.

  38. Now that we seem to have briefly opened up a direct line of communication with our Persian brothers and sisters, perhaps we might ask them what us Brits should do in the parlous present state of affairs:

    1) Not worry too much?

    2) Stock up on good single malt whisky?

    3) Convert to Islam, and all start wearing burqas? Men too.

    4) Dig ourselves graves, and throw ourselves into them, and hope that we will subsequently Rapturously arise from them?

    5) Try a bit harder to get the white ball near the baulk cushion when playing snooker safety shots? …and remember Paul Hunter.

  39. Well,
    We don’t agree with Nuclear weapons but in an unequal world of western powers against middle eastern countries what we can do, what can we do?
    We never suffer dictation of their programs to control the world for their own.

    An Iranian Student

  40. As an Iranian I still don’t believe that Iranian government is looking for nuclear bomb at all. Why should they? Have a look at the Persian or IRAN histories have they ever sought war?
    I am quite sure you will see the answer as “NO”. We always seek peace for the whole world.

  42. What’s hilarious about that, apart from the perfect English?

    Sounds to me like a pure Iranian sentiment.

  43. Hi Boris,
    as an iranian I think
    America will give us the Atomic bomb,finally,
    and then, our desert will turn into molten gravel,rapidly.

  44. Speaking purely in my capacity as a very senior Islamic cleric, with dreams of a future Caliphate that extends all the way to Glasgow, I generally tend to find myself agreeing with Future Sultan Boris’ intriguing suggestion.

    Although I will agree that Glasgow will be almost certainly be a bit of a tough nut to crack, Muslim-wise…

  45. Hi Boris,
    As an Iranian, I think the best way to protect a country against the foreign threats is formation of democracy there. The regime without A-bomb is trampling the certain civil rights of people; suppose what will happen when they acquire to nuke weapons!

  46. Dear Mr. Boris,

    I am not sure if what you said today was for the sake of your liberal thoughts toward a country like mine, or for the sake of your own….you know all the stories on Britain and Iran all through history , and I am definitely not a political analyst. Yet, as an Iranian who is learning not to stress on being one, but rather being a universal human (and I believe everyone must begin to think that way and see the right and wrong , not in a certain nationality but in what we all are), I think as much as my country has the right to claim nuclear power, it might be dangerous , since the rulers are not to be trusted….that is the paradox here which makes me understand the world’s concern, but no administration has the slightest right to consider itself as the lord of all others and dictate policies, rights, etc.

    And one little comment for dear Indlex : The Iranian women do not wear BORGA, you should probably visit there soon to have a better understanding of people’s ways there, also another commenter has stated that when mollas die, they will expect 72 virgins!!??? Please take the time and study a bit more on Islam if you care to commnent as there is no such words in Muslims’ book,I assure you have been greately misinformed!

  47. Hi Boris,
    As an Iranian, I think that your idea has fair enough for both sides. However, I should mention again that we don’t care about nuclear weapons! Who dares to use it these days? Supposedly we have it, do you think that Iran can use it? USA and others will flat Iran with a good excuse! I’m totally against to have any nuclear weapon for all the countries included USA! But we have to have our independency to western countries in all the aspects such as nuclear energy.
    And one more for people who madly love war! I think before making any war with others it’s good to think about them and respect others idea. As far as western countries think that they are the LORD of the world, other countries such as Iran, North Korea, will try to break this point of view.
    It’s good to see that still there are some realistic persons in your country to stop idealistic mistakes!

    K.

  48. Dear Boris
    Please cut the crab and take Iranian oil and let them live! Stupid Ahmadinejad and dictator Saddam came to power indirectly by the west. Forget about the economical losses, hundred of thousands of Iranians have suffered under torture of Shah and stupidity of mullahs after overthrow of Dr. Mosaddegh and revolution of 1979. Any movement at any nuclear sites or military bases in Iran could be seen by the USA’s satillites and whole Iran could be nuked to ashes.
    Please stop the game and take only their oil not their lives.

  49. Thinking about local (national) economy before thinking of its direct effect on extreme polarization of world, about local cultural enrichment before thinking to fill the extreme gap of ilitracy in the world which prevents a real dialogue between nations, and let me say sending solidiers to resolve the problems before social workers, before responding to questions. Boris I want to add a mixture of egoistic relativism from one side and militaristic incomprehension from the other side has ruined our world. There is no idea of a politicosphere, i.e. any political action in one part of the world has its practical consequence in the other extrem of the world. Iran is suffering from many things but not surly from lack of atomic bom.

  51. THE WESR SHOULD NOT BE WORRIED. THE TARGET IS IRAN ITSELF.

    As an Iranian, I think the western world should not be worried about Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapon. In my view, the main victims of such a policy and the primary target of any potential use of the bomb will be the Iranians themselves. As cynical as it might read, in my opinion the Molas’s objective is above all achieving a strong deterrent against the democratic aspirations of Millions of Iranians inside as well as the large Diasporas to change the theocratic and totalitarian regime any time soon. The western world should not be worried at all. The Molas are actually smart enough to make deals with any government (even US and Israel) around the world not to disturb their pleasure of their ruthless rule. The number of political prisoners inside Iran’s prisons, students killed on daily basis in demonstrations against the regime and the chain persecution of the opposition is the best illustrator of the wicked plan in their minds to even more strengthen their grip over the country and smother the voices crying for freedom. The target is only Iran. Don’t worry!

  52. Interestingly, nobody seems to have a problem with Egypt re-starting its nuclear program. The US has even vowed to support it. Strange, given the Egyptian links to the whole anti-American movement.

    What happened to the idea of a “democratic” Middle East? Egypt doesn’t quite count as a democratic government despite the move in 2005 to have more than one candidate for president (CIA, World Factbook). Perhaps it has something to do with Egypt’s resources (“petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, phosphates, manganese, limestone, gypsum, talc, asbestos, lead, zinc”) and geography (“controls Sinai Peninsula, only land bridge between Africa and remainder of Eastern Hemisphere; controls Suez Canal, a sea link between Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea”) (CIA, World Factbook). Or perhaps it is as simple as the Mubaraks (father and son) being seen as “Pro-western” (CRS, 2001) and of “assistance” in the U.S. “war on terrorism.”

    Which is the least they can do, given that Egypt has supplied some of the most prominent leaders of the terrorist movement.

  54. More background on the Egyptian issue here.

    With at least 80 million inhabitants, Egypt is not only the most populous nation in the Arab world but in many ways its intellectual and political nexus, the fount from which nearly every major political or religious force to spread through the region in the past century has emerged. And while much has been made since September 11 of the danger posed by such Muslim fundamentalist trends as the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, it has been the much broader fundamentalist trends first fostered in Egypt, with their specifically anti-Western tilt, that have probably most fanned the flames of jihad throughout the region.

    The pattern is unmistakable, should one bother to look. The Gama’a al-Islamiyya, a social movement espousing a rejection of Western values and a return to Islamic traditions, originated in Egypt in the 1970s before spreading throughout the Middle East. Islamic Jihad also has its roots in Egypt. Osama bin Laden was a disgruntled Saudi rich kid bankrolling Resistance fighters in Afghanistan until he came under the sway of his Egyptian spiritual mentor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and decided to go global; for that matter, 4 or 5 of the 10 original founders of al-Qaeda were Egyptian. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, one of the masterminds behind the first World Trade Center bombing? Egyptian. Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of 9/11? Egyptian. Wherever one turns in the arena of Islamic jihadists, one is likely to find either the direct or spiritual influence of an Egyptian.

  55. Hejj
    I am Iranina and I would assure that you dont know the Iranian goverment at all. They are ready to kill Iranian people to sruvive more. Then you want them to have Atomic Bomb and keem it in the Shelf. It is not possible the first one that they acquire they will fall out in one of these city, New York, London and Telaviv

    ja, buddy

  56. idlex said:

    Now that we seem to have briefly opened up a direct line of communication with our Persian brothers and sisters, perhaps we might ask them what us Brits should do in the parlous present state of affairs:

    1) Not worry too much?

    2) Stock up on good single malt whisky?

    3) Convert to Islam, and all start wearing burqas? Men too.

    4) Dig ourselves graves, and throw ourselves into them, and hope that we will subsequently Rapturously arise from them?

    5) Try a bit harder to get the white ball near the baulk cushion when playing snooker safety shots? …and remember Paul Hunter.
    _______________
    To idlex : First of all I don’t think you know Iran at all.

    To answer your questions:

    1st Question: It is up to you to be worried about what Iran may or may not do, but I would worry more about what this (UK) Government will do with our lives.

    2nd Question: I don’t think you need a reason to drink Whiskey, as a brit you are very good at drinking.

    3rd Question: Convert to Islam? You don’t have to. For your info: In Iran there are other religions (Christian and Jews and Zaratostrian ) living with Muslims in peace. I would say there is less religion racism in Iran than UK. Women don’t wear veil/burga. They only cover their hair and I can say %70 of them only do it as it against the law to walk out of the house without head scarf and they will be like European countries when they are inside their house or in parties. No VEIL for Iranian. It is something for Arab tribes.

    4th Question: You don’t have to dig your grave. Tony will do it for you. He has already started.

    As an Iranian, I am totally against the government on the power in Iran but like every other Iranian I don’t like other countries tell me what I can and what I can’t have.

  57. I think Iran will have the access to atomic energy in a near future.
    Yes that is right and USA can not do anything. The war can not be a solution too.

  58. I am irainian. I am agree with you. We are interested in nuclear weapons because The US an UK and Israeil governments threat us. We are not crazy.. we can produce nuclear weapon without US help. We have the best young scients that can produce. We dont want to kill US or UK or ISRAEIL people. you must accept that they want to kill IRAINIAN peaple such as palestine,Iraq,Afghanistan,Lebonan people. And we MUST defend our country not any more. We dont want to attack any country. We love our government, leader, president Ahmadinejad. WE WANT NUCLEAR WEAPON. I LOVE YOU BORIS

  59. have you ever seen an iranian terrorist? suicide bomber ? or …..?
    iranian regim wants this power for protection against usa , not for terror.

  60. To those who are still snarling against my Country IRAN
    It seems you are still missing the point . Remember what Boris said : The Iranians will join in soon enough and the threats are known to be bogus

  61. “In Iran there are other religions (Christian and Jews and Zaratostrian ) living with Muslims in peace”

    Sara, I hate to disagree on this point but…

    Islam is the official religion in Iran, and all laws and regulations must be consistent with the official interpretation of sharia law. Whereas the deterioration of religious freedom for Christians started with the victory of conservative parties at the beginning of 2004, a new wave of persecution of Christians followed the election of a hard-line conservative president in June 2005, bringing the country to position number 3 in the World Watch List. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hailed his election triumph as a new Islamic revolution that could spread throughout the world and pledged to restore an ”Islamic government” in Iran, implying that the previous administrations were not sufficiently Islamic. Since 2005’s election, many Christians have not only been rounded up for harassment, but many have been arrested and beaten. One house church pastor was killed in November. Ethnic Christians are still allowed to express their faith within their own church walls, but those who come from a Muslim background face tremendous risk because the government wants them to return to Islam. Allegedly, local authorities throughout the nation have been given the order to crack down on all Christian cell groups. Because the churches are forbidden to assist any Muslim background believers, many ethnic churches removed their support from their brothers and sisters of Muslim origin. The new policy threatens evangelism and discipleship efforts. Muslim background believer cell groups are now meeting in secret.

    It hardly seems liek religious freedom and it is far from the absolute freedom which Muslims in this country are granted.

  62. Brandon morawaska said:
    Have you ever seen an Iranian terrorist? Suicide bomber? Or…..?
    Absolutely true. You got the point.
    But I am quite confident that most people have seen Saudi terrorists (Bin Laden ) , Pakistani terrorists (Khan) , Egyptian terrorist ( Mohammad atta and zawaheri ) , Jordanian terrorist ( zarqawi ) . And who can deny British alliance with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan , Jordan and Egypt.

  63. Hi Boris,
    There is only one thing wrong with what you’re suggesting; The Iranian people have no desire for ANY nuclear technology. This goes for either peaceful means or in the form of a bomb! If you had been a MP representing Qom, you would have been arguing the urgent needs of your constituency such as proper schooling, health care, unemployment, and above all, a free and democratic society! These are the urgent needs of the people of Iran and NOT nuclear power stations. Iran has a wealth of oil and gas to take us all through for another 150 years, not to mention other resources which have not yet been discovered!
    The problem with having the bomb is who has his finger on the button? Parviz Mosharaf is a different politician to Ahmadinejad. A leader who awaits the resurrection of the 12th Imam from the bottom of a well, can not poses a stable mind and hence could wage his 12th Imam’s war on the rest of the world!

    The general US and UK foreign policies during the last 18 years are to be blamed for such problems.
    The UK has egged on the mullahs for the past 28 years and now I’m afraid is payback time! Just as did the US with Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians and later paid the price.
    You modern British politicians truly amaze me! Why don’t you learn from the master of your politicians i.e. Sir Winston Churchill and foresee what’s coming rather than make a quick fix for what you have brought?
    When are the modern British politicians going to learn that religion is EVIL! It does NOT work any more! It’s sell by date is passed due! It backfires and it bites back where used to manipulate nations! Look at Bin Laden, Ahmadi Nejad, Nasrollah, Moghtada Sadr…….
    Weigh up the costs of installing these people and their regimes against the gains!
    For goodness sake, you are British and supposed to have a sound economic mind!
    The Human lives’ cost alone outweighs the hard cash lost out of your national income!
    Take my word for it. Iran needs help to establish its long due democracy. Get behind the people of Iran and help overthrow the evil Islamic regime and the world will be your oyster!
    Please take note of the following and learn a thing or two:
    How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.
    The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.
    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
    No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
    — Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]).

  64. Dear Pete
    I believe your comments about religious discriminations in Iran are based on Western Media propaganda (Baseless).
    I would like to draw your attention to these facts:
    1. Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East (Israel First)
    2. The oldest Iranian church was founded in Iran in 60AD which is still respected in Iran
    3. Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian Iranians have their own representatives in Iran Parliament.
    4. Religious minorities Students are not obliged to attend the Islamic Lectures in universities while others are.
    5. There is no Sharia Law in Iran. Iran is a shiet country with Islamic laws and not necessarily Sharia Law.

    If you need some more facts just drop a line

  67. Dariosh said:
    October 13, 2006 11:48 AM | permalink
    The Iranian people have no desire for ANY nuclear technology
    ——————
    RUBISHHHHHHHHH , darioush look around yourself and keep your Ignorant idiotic comments for yourself.

  68. To Pete:

    Pete

    I do agree with you. I was born in a Muslim family but I don’t consider myself a Muslim. I chose not to have any religion bcuz I think all our problems come from religion. But when wrong things is being said about Islam I like to correct it.

    When I said all the religions are leaving in peace in Iran I mean individuals. Yes Ahmadi Nejad’s government must be one of the worst one in Power after the revolution and there are still so many stupid hard liner religious people in Iran who doesn’t like other religion but all together still people with different religions live in Iran and consider them selves Iranian first them Jew, Muslim, Christian and … .

    All the religions in Iran have their own school, government funded. During religious occasions like Christmas, there are program’s specially on Iran’s TV. According to BBC ” Although Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, few know that Iran is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.
    About 25,000 Jews live in Iran and most are determined to remain no matter what the pressures – as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots.
    It is dawn in the Yusufabad synagogue in Tehran and Iranian Jews bring out the Torah and read the ancient text before making their way to work. and they have been allowed to go to Israel freely in the past 5 years.”
    It is the same in every other country in Middle east. All the religions came from this area, remember?
    But if you think there is no discrimination about religion in UK, you go it wrong. I have seen a lot of it. The biggest one is people see any terrorist action as every single Muslim faults.

    Do you remember not so long ago people in a plane asked to Pakistanis to get out of the plan cuz they looked like terrorist?

  69. as a iranian in iran, would someone belived in 1977 that in 2 years time SHAH and his great glorys will be fade away, remember islamic republic of iran is the most clever goverment ruling, they are too strict about everything but they change it all the time just for the favor of governing, like it or not this is the goverment of iran for all our lifetimes, so my point is you will never know what they gonna do since we all forgetten the mastermind of this. I promiss iran will act in a way that no one would ever belived it. you are right we are far to further than what we saying to the world. they have it and they might prove it soon.

  70. How fascinating, I never knew that the Axis of Evil was so well represented on Boris’s blog.

    Some interesting comments:

    ‘have you ever seen an iranian terrorist?’ (brandon morawaska)

    Iran arm Hezbollah and shi’ite militants in Iraq. Iran is a sponsor of terror and should be ashamed of itself!

    ‘Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East (Israel First)’ (Hamed)

    Only because all the Arab nations exiled their Jewish populations after they lost the 1948 war (which Iran, under the leadership of the Shah didn’t join in).

    —

    Personally, I think if we are going to have a nuclear Iran, then we shouldn’t allow the Russians and Chinese to have a monopoly over conventional arms sales to her.

    The Saudi’s were worried enough to buy 72 Eurofighter Typoons off us, so Iran must be posing some threat to the dominant tribal leadership on the Arabian peninsular.

    Now that the Russians have annouced there will be no state funding for the MiG company until they come up with something worthwhile, a 5th Generation Russian fighter plane looks unlikely for quite some time.

    The UK should get in there and flog the Ayatollah some Typhoons before the dastardly French slime their way into Teheran with their Rafael.

    This should put the s**ts up the Saudi’s and the Israelis some more and then they’ll need some more weapons off us too.

    —

    Once more thing, back on March 2nd (see archives) Boris informed us that:

    ‘If the Government decided to build a nuclear reactor today, there are only half a dozen people who have the experience to do it in this country, and they have all retired.’

    So it seems there is a worthwhile trade to be done with the Axis of Evil. They supply us with civil and military nuclear technologies, we supply 4.5 and eventually 5th generation fighter jets to the Mullahs.

  71. As a Zoroastrian, I should say that Iran is my country and I feel Iranian more than any thing and do not need any defense of my religious rights with the aim of undermining the dignity and criticism of my Muslim fellowmen.

    Our president just like yours loses sense while speaking sometimes. But it does not mean that we can deny the most clear historical facts about Iranians having set the Jewish people free from slavery and serfdom in Babylon and offered them shelter and home in Iran. The fact that you might not have been born yet at the time of Israeli- Iranian friendship and alliance before the revolution won’t erase the reality from the face of the history.
    I think we should respect the great traditional Persian spirit of religious tolerance and support for diversity put in place by the great Persian Kings and be patient for this unpleasant period of Iranian history to come to its due end. Never forget that Iran is a country with great history and that 27 years of Mullah regime is nothing in comparison with more than 2500 years of just rule in the Persian empire.

  72. Well! Boris

    You made a very reasonable discussion. Personally I think the problem of nuclear proliferation have only two outcomes. Either all the countries reach a state to produce nuclear weapons or all the countries would be disarmed in this regard. The second option does not seem to happen since US and Israel never give up their unique “source of superiority” to other nations. Exaggerated concentration on Iranian nuclear power issue would allow other countries to go ahead in this way under the shadow of media focusing on Iran and North Korea. So even if negotiation with Iran and N. Korea reach a reasonable result for both parties, we will certainly have more countries trying to reach nuclear technology and the next step would be negotiating with 8-10 countries. The human nature cannot accept discrimination and the only question that is proposed by any human kind in countries without nuclear facilities is that “Why US (the only nation ever used nuclear weapon against other nation), UK, France, Russia, China, Israel,…” can have this technology but we cannot?”. Whenever western countries find an appropriate response for this, we might seek a solution for the whole problem.
    Thanks again

  73. I think Boris is unfortunately right about the best way to prevent somebody invading your country on the excuse of you having WMDs is for you to actually have some.

    For my text on that i would take the earlier example of Yugoslavia. In the 18790s Tito deliberately decided not to aquire the Bomb because it would make the whole NATO/Waesaw Pact fight even more unstable. I doubt if anybody would believe we would have started “recognising” Bosnia, Croatia or even Slovenia in direct defiance of our undertakings at Helsinke, if they had been part of a nuclear armed state.

    So long as we oppose the principles of international law all that is left is force.

    That this makes the world a much more dangerous place is not more the responsibility of the governments of Iran & Yugoslavia than of the US & UK.

  74. ‘Our president just like yours loses sense while speaking sometimes’ (Anahita)

    Our Zoroastrian friend does have a valid point about his Blairship here. However I would point out to you guys from the Axis of Evil that we at least get a chance to vote our lunatic ‘president’ and his cohorts out sometime before May 2010 though.

    When are the Ayatollahs going to give you guys the opportunity to have a vote on whether or not you want to live by their mediaeval interpretation of justice?

    In fact didn’t they have Ayatollah Mohammad Kazemeini Borojerdi arrested the other day for expressing an opinion about the separation of church and state?

    Then they keep trying to tell us that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance? Yeah, right, peace on the condition you do whatever they tell you and tolerance providing you don’t dispute a word of it.

  75. Hi Boris,

    As an Iranian Ph.D. student I entirely agree with you. For those who oppose you, I just want to mention something. Iranians do not like another war since they suffered for 8 years from an unwanted invasion by Saddam while supporting by the western countries.
    But for God sake and just for a moment see how the western countries threaten my country. We just want our position in the world. I’m pretty sure that most of you know the history of Persia and their contribution to the progress of science in the world. Many of you guys have Iranian friends. How many well educated and successful Iranian doctors, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, researchers and scientists do you know? Let me tell you the answer. There are millions of them all around the world. So do you guys think Iranians let the western countries to exploit them? Definitely not. Today or tomorrow, we’ll progress and build our country. We are a peaceful nation and we don’t like to attack any countries in the world. But, please read the following news by the Joe Matyas from the London Press and ask yourself or your politicians why they store that much nuclear weapon. If you find the answer, then talk about a sanction against my country because of using nuclear technology for civilian purposes and electricity generation.
    “The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. The U.S. has nearly 7,000 ready for action and 3,000 in storage and Russia has about 8,500 on hand and 11,000 in storage, he said. China has 400 nuclear weapons, France 350, Britain 200, Israel 200, India 95 and Pakistan 50.”

  76. The clearest, most refreshing view on this debate so far.

    It’s time for us to stop sticking our nose into other people’s business and start getting our own house in order first.

    And as for the whereabouts of James Bond? He returns next month, sadly his gaze appears to be focussed on baccarat in French casinos rather than an impending nuclear war. Maybe 007 knows something we don’t.

  77. STEVE “How fascinating, I never knew that the Axis of Evil was so well represented on Boris’s blog”

    Yes indeed , and do you remember when the long winded thingy got all cross with me and I decided discretion was the better part of valour.
    As I said . I can be found. I live 400 yds away from where , two years ago a stache of arms was located.They are near my house with their banners , they shout their hate outside TESCOS. You do have to be careful. I had a similar problem with the BNP who threatened to track me down.

    They are all tainted by association and one is not to know which one is which . In London this is a real problem and will remain so until Westernised symathisers distance themselves from murderers.

    Thus far the British Muslim Coucil have not.

  78. I think this must be one of the most astonishing threads ever on Boris’ blog.

    Boris floats an interesting idea about Iran, and within minutes a whole bunch of Iranians are responding to it. And what diverse opinions they have. And none seem to be we-hate-your-freedom Islamic fundamentalists.

    Such is the power of the internet. This discussion would have been impossible 10 or 15 years ago.

  79. It’s riveting isn’t it Idlex.

    Don’t be fooled though, they can be nice when they want to be, but when you want a refund for the fake fags that came out of their vending machine they can be very rude people.

    I for one will never by my cigarettes in an Iranian shop, pub or restaurant again.

  80. idlex, computer and internet have and will change the world around. I believe soon all nations become one. yet, who knows what radicals of everyside of this world would do. prediction: WWIII. may god bring peace.

  81. Dear readers, I do not agree with Boris’s idea however it does make sense. I am an Iranian myself, an Iranian who does not agree with most of the governments policies, but there is indeed a sense of American abhorrence in my heart. They talk about bringing democracy to the region not recalling the time when they fully supported the monarchy and abandoned the country when a popular revolution occurred. Iran is now a democratic country in its own sense although we do recognize the deficiencies but it is just a matter of time. The west brags about the absence of human rights in this nation but they fail to reflect to countries such a Saudi Arabia wherein the human rights case is even more severe. Well, why should they?! They are the west’s ally after all. So lets face it, for the west, it is not the matter of crafting democracies and monitoring human right violations. It’s creating alliances.
    How dare you talk about nuclear weapons when you yourselves have a complete arsenal of WMD. Have the Americans forgotten about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    When was the last time Iran committed an aggression? When was the last time Iran started a war with another nation? When was the last time an Iranian held a suicide attack? Who armed Iraq’s regime during the 8 year war?
    WE IRANIANS DON’T NEED NUCLEAR WEAPONS, but if the threat would not stop and mutual respect would not rule the region nothing and nobody could stop us.

  82. i forgot to mension all i said was a personal view of the situation. and of course all your ideas all well respected

  83. It looks like most of our Iranian friends aren’t really up for regime change, no point in starting another disaster by invading them then.

    It might help their case if they apologised for taking those US embassy staff hostage after the revolution. I don’t think the US has ever forgiven them for that violation of international diplomatic accord.

    Instead their government scream on about ‘the arrogant powers’ and ‘the Zionist regime’ whilst arming nutcase movements like Hezbollah.

    Perhaps they could make some sort of a deal whereby the apologise for the US embassy saga and the US take them out of the ‘Axis of Evil’.

    Once they agree to stop imprisoning political prisoners, arming terrorists and stoning people then perhaps they can be declassified as an ‘Outpost of Tyranny’ aswell.

  84. Steven, I think you are quite confused in your view of the world around you. You should take a clear stand whether you see the Iranian regime a democratically elected one or a dictatorship. In case of deciding for the latter, we cannot blame all the misdoings of the regime on the Iranian people as their politicians are not elected by them. Please stop mixing “Iranians” and the “regime” in your arguments. It might also be that you have had some personal problem with some Iranian individual. In this case I suggest that you speak with him/her in person to clear your mind instead of trying to take revenge in this forum.

  85. ‘Please stop mixing “Iranians” and the “regime” in your arguments.’ (Anahita)

    I take your point. So I’ll re-iterate. The Iranian regime should start by publicly apologising for the US embassy hostage crisis. That would be a good start in any negotiations, it would demonstrate good faith.

    The British have been very good to the ‘Iranian people’. We’ve allowed many thousands of you to make your homes and start your businesses here, have given many of you social housing, welfare, protected your human rights as we do our own, provided free healthcare and free education to your children and provided a healthy, safe environment for you to bring up your families or persue whatever interests you in life.

    Would I get all of that if I moved to Iran?

  86. Hi everyboday,
    First of all, Pete, with all respect to Arabs, we are not an Arabic nation. You can call us an Islamic nation, but not an Arabic one.

    Well, Boris, more than 50 years ago when our beloved late Dr. Mosaddeq nationalized our oil, which should have been done even earlier than that, the government of your country called Iran a threat to the UK security. In his defence, Dr. Mosaddeq mentioned something very important which I supposed must be considered right now as well. The bottomline of what he said was: “Can you spot even a single Iranian gunboat in the Thames River? How about UK Navy in Persian Gulf?” Ok, now who is the threat to the other’s security? Where is the US? Where is Iran? If Iran were as close as Canada, Mexico or even Chile to the US, then security concerns would be justified. Yes, US is threatening Iran security by being in the region. I do not care who rules Iran, but I know that Iran has never attacked any other country since more than 200 years ago. No one seems to care, because there should be this childish game: I define some allies and some enemies everywhere, so that I have enough excuses to poke my nose whenever I want to. US and UK are respected and welcome as long as they respect us, as long as they stand in the line just like the next country and politely ask for our oil.

    I am sure that if Mosaddeq were alive, he would defend our right again in this case. Iran never was and never will be a slave of West. If West understands it, major problems will be solved. US and UK overthrew Mosaddeq through that infamous coup, what do you expect now? A red carpet for another coup?

  87. ALIREZA SAID-
    . How many well educated and successful Iranian doctors, engineers, lawyers, businessmen, researchers and scientists do you know? Let me tell you the answer. There are millions of them”

    ………Leaving Iran to come and live in the free West; well quite . It must be difficult to have nothing to be proud of but I feel we have handed out enough therapy to privileged guilt consciences . What are any of these people actually doing to help their own country I wonder . Coming here to become or practice Law and medicine does not count. There is room for differences of opinion here and one opinion is that the middles class of the Middle east have been conspicuously ready to leave the country they claim to care about .

  88. “Can you spot even a single Iranian gunboat in the Thames River? How about UK Navy in Persian Gulf?” Ok, now who is the threat to the other’s security? Where is the US? Where is Iran?”

    The Liberal democracies are able to defend themselves , yes. The people living under fascist theocratic dictatorships are not. You make an equivalence ha does not exist . A liberal might pat your head and say of course you must have your insnane society .I do not and the fact that Westernised emigres remember the old country the as all emigres do is irrelevant.

  89. STEVEN L SAID-Would I get all of that if I moved to Iran?

    Tricky one but after much thought and serious contemplation I have to say probably ….no.

  90. steve l , seems you are an american more than iranian cos you think what g.bush thinks hizbollah is not terrorist but israel is (look at the 3 last days of lebanon war they dropped loads of granade bombs that is killing childeren days , months and even years after the war) you like it or not great IRAN is still great with shah or mullahs or enybodyels and you ,israel or usa cant do nothing about it and IRAN is the power of the region with all those enemies who are against it

  91. “enybodyels and you ,israel or usa cant do nothing about it and IRAN is the power of the region with all those enemies who are against it”

    Well I`m glad we cleared that up then.

  92. I am an Iranian who lives in Iran, and I studied the entire history of Iran’s and America’s history. what i noticed was a huge misundrestanding between iran and usa (even befor islamic revolution) i mean after the terror of kenedy established. 8 years war and 28 years of being in sanctions isn’t something that we forgive any europian and north american country.as an iranian we achieve our goals when we kick americans out of persian gulf and control the entire middle east. no matter if you help us to achieve our goals or go against it , it is something that we will make it in less the 14 years. trust me what iranians want has nothing to do with going against western’s security. anyways i appreciate you’r comment boris but we are in a bad unwanted game. i still cant wait to see this game endup peacefuly in both sides benefit.

  93. Does tooth fairy exist?
    Come on we cant take it from the kids.
    This is a kid’s world and nobody really likes to believe the truth.
    You are either very wise or very bold Boris.

  94. The Iranian regime should start by publicly apologising for the US embassy hostage crisis. That would be a good start in any negotiations, it would demonstrate good faith. (Steven_L)

    Oh, tosh. The hostage crisis brought down the Carter administration. Ronald Reagan did a deal with Iran to make sure they weren’t released until Carter lost the election. If anything, Republicans should be thanking Iran for bringing down a Democratic president. None of the hostages died. Heck, they weren’t even tortured.

    And why has Iran got to show ‘good faith’? They’re no threat to the USA, which has been conducting war games against Iran all year, openly discussing bombing options. If anything, America ought to do something to demonstrate its good faith to the Iranian people.

    It’s not that Iran is a threat to the USA, but that the USA is a threat to Iran. This is the whole basis of Boris’ essay.

  95. fascist theocratic dictatorships (newmania)

    ‘Fascist’ doesn’t mean anything in this context.

    In fact, it seldom does in any context. It’s just another word for ‘nasty’.

    You’ve just been listening to George Bush again. Much like Steven…

  96. What I would like to ask our Iranian friends is this: why are Sunnis and Shias killing each other in Iraq?

    They didn’t used to do this. At least not in Saddam’s time.

  97. Dear Idlex,

    I guess you’d better ask this question from British and American soldiers who invade Iraq. I have a question to ask from them as well. Why there is no country whose name is Iraq, Emirates, Bahrain, Kwait, and Quatar when you see the world’s map before 1930.

  100. guess you’d better ask this question from British and American soldiers who invade Iraq. (Alireza)

    I am perfectly well aware that the invasion of Iraq began with any number of lies by both the British and American governments – Saddam’s non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, links with Al Qaeda, the fake ‘War on Terror’, ‘bringing democracy’, etc.

    I’m also aware that the conduct of the invading forces has been frequently utterly despicable – Random shootings. Abu Ghraib. Fallujah. Guantanamo bay. Little or no attempt at reconstruction or democratisation.

    This isn’t for the most part the soldiers’ fault, however: it is in almost every case entirely the responsibility of the Bush administration.

    Given this miserable performance, I am not surprised that American and British soldiers have come under intensifying attack.

    But none of this explains why Sunni and Shia Iraqis are now apparently killing each other in large numbers.

    Why there is no country whose name is Iraq, Emirates, Bahrain, Kwait, and Quatar when you see the world’s map before 1930.

    Because they weren’t drawn by the British, French, and others until after the collapse of the Ottoman empire after the First World War.

    But, despite these rather arbitrary divisions, Sunni and Shia have seemingly coexisted since 1923 within these borders, and also beforehand within the Ottoman empire.

    It is pointless, I should add, to ask me questions about these things, because I don’t know the answers. I am supposing that Iranians are much more likely to have answers to such questions than I do. Which is why I’m asking them.

  101. I am from Iran.we do not like to have atomic bomb,actually all powers direct our governors to take it inorder to increase our power for defend.if i were
    you ,i try to use soft words to absorb iranians.we
    never like terror nor we are terrorists.just look around the world and see iranian scientists in different fields.who said for the benefit of Europeans
    and Americans all world must bend on their knees and welcome them and let them do whatever they want in their countries .Iran with 3000 years of her past heroism in defend of this country still is ready to do
    many things without need of atomic bomb just we are thisty for kindness and friendliness in action.

  102. I’m not an Iranian,not an American either..I’m here in Iran since 1983, does it ring a bell Mr.Boris,yes war time (Iran-Iraq).Surely you know how the war started and WHO were the protectors of Iraq. The world were silent, nobody cares when dilapidated bodies of small kids were scattered on the ground..let them die, right? Hurray to U.S.A, perfect nation who observes human rights. Thanks U.S.A for providing good amunitions that killed thousands of innocent iranians.,got it Mr. Boris? Anyway it was all over, Iranian nation suffers too much but standing still..trying and working hard for it’s nation. There are so many deficiencies but hopefully everything will turn out good..that is ofcourse if YOU ,superpowers, as you call yourselves…will let. Never be scared of Nuclear Bombs…never be selfish, when you have it..let others have it also. I respect all your comments Ladies and Gentlemen…for you Iranians out of your country, i would like to remind you that you must be the first to love your country..no matter what.And for you guys who have never been here..give it a try, it’s not as bad as media says. Thank you.

  103. At first in iran there is no war between shia and sunnys, 2) french and british used to kill eachother ;so it shouldnt be something new to you 3) the war game is not about religion ,it’s about political power at least in iran’s case vs iraq (read rohola’s khomeny letter who just revealed with iranian intel about week ago) 4)muslims arent killing eachother BRITAIN in fanning the flame , for instance 35 years ago a british navy comander called “persian gulf” Arabian gulf and made arabs to call it “arabian gulf”and it made a great hostility between persians and arabs , national geographic did the same way and now you’r tellin’ me muslim r killing eachother, Britains did the same thing about keshmir in india and pakistan, Iran is going to cut every single foriegner hand from midlle east ,I dont think if it’s a wrrong decision for peace in middle east.5)you mention hostage crisis , how stupid should iran be to apology a country who shut down a 747 Iran air with 245 passenger in persian gulf in 1979, come on Americans kill civilians , germans used to support iraq for any type of microbic or chemical weapon, we still see people in news who r dying because of what europians used to give to saddam, an appology u’ve gotta be kiddin’ me.

  104. Dear Boris,

    Thanx alot! We need atomic bombs. When Israel has these bombs, why we must have nothing?!

  107. Tom Amos, this isn’t about Iran or Korea wanting to cut down other peoples trees. Iran just wants to be on equal footing with Israel. If the zionists can have them why not Iranians or any other bloke in the block for that matter. As Mr. Johnson said, mutual destruction will prevent them from doing anything foolish.

    On the other hand, the Koreans (North) have been trying very hard to talk to the US one-on-one with no success. Basically, they want to tell the US that their inteference into the internal affairs of Korea is standing in the way of unification. Like how the Iraqis are telling the coalition forces now, it is time they left. Their presence is no longer welcome. It is quite clear North Korea can not have any meaningful talk with their southern counterpart when the US is getting in the way. Will they fight? Perhaps. But that is a Korean problem not yours or mine.

  108. newmania:”It must be difficult to have nothing to be proud of”

    You are right mania, It should be really difficult for you!

    We Iranians are somewhat ignorant when speaking about our civilization and that it might be humiliating to some others lacking it.

  109. Steven_L, Amedinejad may be a populist President and the Mullahs too bold in their support of Hezbollah. Why shouldn’t they? They created Hezbollah. But should they be punished for that? If so, who punishes the US who support the Israelis with far more destructive weaponry?

    Contrary to zionist controlled mass media (read AP) The Lebanese Government was not too thrilled with Israels flagrant foray into their territory. In fact, top on their list of demand and they told Ms. Rice so, was that the Israelis had to leave with immediately. But nobody gave a damn.

  110. Mr. Steve. your question is will you be provided with same privileges Iranians are getting in your country if you come here…well, with all the sanctions and pressures the world is giving the Iranian Nations, they might not be able to give you those things but surely you will be given same privilages that Iranian people are getting,. In a very simple term…if you come here, you’ll eat thesame bread that we do.Just thesame, i would like to extend gratitudes to your government and people for the great assistance and hospitality being extended to our people.Let me remind you also that most of the Iranians staying in your country are not just ordinary people..they are highly educated and mostly big part of your countries development.

  111. “Iran created Hezbollah.” That might be true.And surely the responsibility is on our shoulders for their actions. But what about Alqaedah and Taliban? Isn’t it that Taliban was created by US and Uk to counterbalance the military presence of the Russians in Afghanistan? Who is there to be blamed then for the thousands of innocent lives lost in the terrorist attacks launched by Alqaedah so far?

  113. To Steve who said “Would I get all of that if I moved to Iran?”

    I have to infrom you that Those well educated Iranians in England were forced to leave their country after revolution of 1979 and they are more assets than burden. About welfare; you know very well that your country treatment of Iran and it’s oil, since these Iranian wealth and oil were taken for decades by BP, so already YOU have taken hundreds of billions of dollars in advance .
    A well educated and mild manner Dr Mosadegh tried to reform the INJUSTICE and crulity of your forefathers to Iran. He was overthrowen by CIA and your intelligence service. It is sad you hurt people and asking compensation too! I know you are well aware of the history of Great Britain what she has done to other nations.
    I do not wish any more bloodshed for you or any other nations espacialy Iraqies.
    I know you and President Bush tried to give them Democrocy, but look you are bleeding Iraq to death. I know you are not blood thirsty and dictator Saddam is. I wish you knew a better way to rape a nation without bleeding them to death (Forfgive me for some of these expressions). OIL is problem of Iran and Iraq! A bank robber robs banks beacuse he knows money is in banks. God bless you and Queen.

  114. It looks like we have a few Hezbollah fans in the house. I don’t know how you can support an organisation whos leader says things like:

    ‘That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle.’

    and

    ‘There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel’

    and

    ‘If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli’

    and even

    ‘if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’

    Westerners will never respect a man like that, and Iran, which most of you keep saying wants peace, has no business funding a psychopath like that either.

  115. Tell me Boris if you lived next door to a convicted arsonist would you be giving them a flame thrower for Christmas? No didn’t think so, so why on earth are you advocating exactly the same principle in our dealings with Iran?

  116. Well most of the argues I was going to put forward have already been mentioned by my friends but there r some points I wish to clarify:

    Iran is not an Arab nation (although some Iranian Arabs live in iran and r fully respected)

    in reply to Steven:
    If u come to Iran u will enjoy a warm hospitality and no one humilates u there.
    Many Iranians hate Hizbullah and even their own rullers but they hate racists the most!
    Don’t beleive whatever u see or hear in the western media about Iran; pay a visit and feel the difference!
    Repeating the “Axes of Evil” might make people think u have had a bad expirience in ur childhood!
    Why don’t u take a sleep man?
    and Persian Gulf will remain Persian for ever…

    The reason u see more Iranian here than the British is BBC Persian link to this weblog (and u would have seen more if it was not filtered in Iran), thanx to BBC.
    Bravo Sara.
    Thanx to Boris
    Cheers

  117. ‘Isn’t it that Taliban was created by US and UK to counterbalance the military presence of the Russians in Afghanistan? … Who is there to be blamed then for the thousands of innocent lives lost in the terrorist attacks launched by Alqaedah so far’ (Anahita)

    The US helped the Afghan Mujahideen, including foreign fighters such as Bin-Laden fight the Soviets but did not create the Taliban. The Taliban, mainly Afghan Pashtuns, became the dominant political power following a period of civil conflict after Soviet withdrawl.

    Bin-Laden and his associates formed Al-Qaeda after the Soviets had left Afghanistan and were given safehaven by the Taliban.

    Quite simply Al-Qaeda are to blame for their terrorist attacks. These attacks were committed with explosives of civilain aircraft, not weapons from Iran like Hezbollahs rocket attack on Israel.

    Sure, in retrospect a pre-emptive attack against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda might have prevented 9/11, but everyone would have declared such a move as US agression, and illegal.

  118. ‘and Persian Gulf will remain Persian for ever…’ (Kamran – Iran)

    So is there hostility in Iran towards the nations of the Arabian peninsular then?

    The Saudi’s are rearming as we speak and Iran have developed a new fighter jet. Is it conceivable this arms race lead to war between the Saudi’s and Iran?

  119. thi is for STEVE other friends in this forum who demand the Iranian governments apology to the UST for a single act of hostage taking which was indeed a clear reaction to the years of the country’s captivity by the USA’s policy.

    some reasons why USA should aplogize to the whole world.
    Massive war crimes in Vietnam war: The mass murder of well over 1 million (some say about 3 million) innocent Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam war was an act of mass state terrorism. (The USA also used chemical weapons such as dioxins in this aggressive war.) The USA should have been forced to pay hundreds of billions of dollars of reparations for their war crimes. But instead, the USA imposed horrendous trade sanctions on Vietnam which led to mass starvation for many years. At the same time, the USA forced the Vietnamese to put a humiliating amount of effort into finding decades-old corpses of American war criminals. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian Vietnamese died without their bodies being recovered. But US citizens are capable of feeling no sympathy for any people other than their own. They think that one American is worth a thousand foreigners. There are many people in the USA even now who are proud of their participation in the mass murder and war crimes in Vietnam .
    Destruction of democracy in Chile : The removal of the freely elected democratic government of Chile by the CIA, including the bombing of the presidential palace (on another September 11), followed by the murder of thousands of innocent civilians. This proves that the USA is not in favour of democracy.
    Embargo of Cuba but not China or Saudi Arabia : Decades of embargo of the popular government of Cuba , while the USA gives most favoured nation status to China , which is one of the most undemocratic governments in the world. The support for China and Saudi Arabia is purely in the US self-interest. The dislike of Cuba by the USA is really due to the fact that Cuba does not bow to the USA .
    Preference for totalitarian China , not democratic Taiwan : For a few decades now, the USA has been cooperating with China in the international ostracism of Taiwan . Although Taiwan is a democratic country and China is a totalitarian dictatorship, the USA takes the side of China . This is because the USA wants access to China ‘s markets for its own mega-capitalists. This shows that the USA is against democracy. The USA actually prefers to have totalitarian dictatorships as allies, as has been shown for many decades around the world. The USA is not pro-democracy. The USA is just pro-mega-capitalist. How can anyone believe that the USA prefers democracy when they see them isolate Taiwan so as to be friendly towards China ? Some people argue that the USA is the world’s strongest guarantor of Taiwan ‘s security against Chinese agression, but the USA also accepts and propagates the lie that Taiwan is part of China , and the USA gave the Taiwanese seat at the UN to China .
    The USA supported the military junta in Greece 1967-1974: Greeks still despise the USA for supporting the coup and this period of dictatorship.
    Total support for Israel ‘s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians: The USA continues to protect, encourage and finance Israel ‘s 6 decades of ethnic cleansing in Palestine . The USA thwarts every humane gesture by the United Nations. The USA encourages and financially supports the slaughter of several hundred innocent people in Palestine every year by the Israeli death squads seeking Lebensraum. It is clear that the USA ‘s ruling class is in love with Israel . They are blinded by love. [If the Palestinians all converted to Christianity, the scales would fall from the eyes of the US Americans. Then they would realise that the Palestinians are human beings.] The occupied West Bank of Jordan resembles the Warsaw Ghetto of World War II. The occupied West Bank is a slave prison of the jewish Israelis. But deeds which were evil when the Germans did them in WW2 are now encouraged every day by the USA when the Israeli land thieves do them. Seeing the enthusiastic US American support for Israelis turning innocent Palestinians into mincemeat is the principal cause of worldwide muslim anger against the USA . (Jewish intellectuals, as individuals, are the best people in the world in my opinion. The jewish people have the highest regard for education, intelligence and learning. But the Israeli apartheid regime has soiled the good name of all jewish people.)
    My personal theory about the love affair between the USA and Israel is that US Americans feel a deep sense of emptiness in their short history. They can look back with nostalgia to the early migrations, the severance from Britain , the settlement/appropriation of the West, and the Civil War. But they have no deep sense of history as other nations have. To fill this gap, they look to the christian bible, which is tacked onto the jewish bible, and see their deeper origins as lying in Jewish history. Therefore US Americans feel that in some fundamental sense they originate from the Jewish people. So the love of Israel is really a kind of yearning for the ancestors. If the USA severed its attachment to Israel , US Americans would have to face the emptiness of their own short history. Some people wonder why a rich country such as the USA is so obsessed with religion. (Usually religion fades in rich countries.) The answer may be that christianity gives the USA a deeper national creation mythology than they can compose in their own right. The jewish and christian stories are substitutes for a deeper US American national creation mythology.
    Causing the `Asian meltdown’ through oppressive loan conditions: Enforcement of completely inappropriate and humiliating conditions on Thailand through the IMF, which is controlled by the USA . In the Asian crisis of about 1997, the currency of Thailand collapsed, due to the sudden withdrawal of huge amounts of capital, mostly by the USA . As a result, there was massive unemployment, thousands of people committed suicide, and the misery continues to this day. The IMF forced Thailand to carry out even more inappropriate measures after the crisis, whereas Malaysia refused the IMF commands. Malaysia ‘s economy improved quickly but Thailand ‘s did not. The economies of Vietnam and China hardly noticed the Asian meltdown, because they did not follow the IMF commands.
    Support for Pol Pot genocide: The USA backed Pol Pot with arms, training, finance and full diplomatic support for over a decade. This was one of the worst regimes in history, which killed over 1/3 of the population of the country. But the USA supported Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge as they continued to commit atrocities and destroy the country of Cambodia with land mines. The rise of Pol Pot started when the USA was illegally bombing huge areas of Cambodia and Laos , intentionally killing vast numbers of innocent civilians. The USA has never apologized for these crimes.
    Colonization of Hawaii : The USA colonized and annexed Hawaii . The USA should decolonise this independent nation. This proves that the USA is not anti-colonization.
    Training of terrorists in Latin America: The USA funds the infamous terrorist training school called the School of the Americas .
    Funding, weapons and training for Nicaraguan terrorists: The USA gave huge amounts of funding to terrorists in Nicaragua who killed hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans in the 1980s with guns and mines on farmland. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians lost their legs or were maimed in other ways. When there was finally an election along US-approved lines, the USA said the vote was not fair and would not be recognized – until it emerged that the USA ‘s puppet won, and then they immediately announced that the election was completely fair. (The previous election which brought the Sandinistas to power was recognized by official European observors and everyone else as free and fair. But the people didn’t elect a a pro-mega-capitalist government. So the US rejected that election as flawed. This is because US governments think that democracy and pro-US-capitalism are the same thing. The USA was happy with the previous puppet dictator Somoza.)
    Illegal mining of Managua harbour: The USA illegally mined Managua harbour. When the USA was taken to the international court for this and the USA lost the case, the USA immediately withdrew its recognition of the court, even though it had agreed by treaty to give at least 6 months notice of withdrawal of recognition. The USA clearly believes that only other countries need to abide by international agreements. The USA is exempt from all international law.
    Refusal by the USA to accept Jewish refugees before WW2: The 907 Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis from Hamburg were refused entry to the USA in 1939. Some people blame the general refusal to accept these refugees for Hitler’s belief that he could exterminate them. ( US Americans may think that Israel loves the USA . Well, maybe Israel loves what the USA does for them, but Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons in case the USA stops being their friend.)
    Lack of empathy for suffering in poor countries: US citizens have limited comprehension of how much other countries suffer. I’ve heard of some US women who see news stories of third world countries where people are starving saying how much they envy the slim figure of the poor women.
    Arrogant, conceited nationalism: US citizens have a general attitude that they are rich because they are superior. This is totally explicitly stated, especially on ceremonial occasions. The reason the USA is rich is for many reasons, including very successful exploitation of other countries, the fact that they came into World Wars I and II very late when other countries were exhausted, the geographical isolation of the USA, the fertile land which they took from the indigenous people (whom they largely exterminated), and their homogeneous language and culture.
    Imposition of unfair conditions of trade: Throughout the 1990s, the USA has been imposing globalisation on the whole world. This is a propaganda term which means harmonization of the world to the USA’a culture, economics and politics. It would be more accurate to call it provincialization. All countries are forced to cut back on all public services and social welfare as the US has done, and every country must accept anything that the US wants to export, no matter how much this harms the economies of non-US countries. This often means that even valid health objections are rejected by the USA . When other countries succeed in exporting to the USA , e.g. farm goods at 1/3 the cost of production, the USA puts on heavy tariffs and gives substantial support to US farmers. Current estimates are that 50% of US farm income comes from the government. The USA does not permit any other country to do this. When other countries object, the USA wrangles in courts for years until so much damage is done that the issue is no longer relevant. The so-called globalisation makes poor countries poorer and the USA richer. Free trade means capitalist-controlled trade as opposed to trade which is controlled by governments as representatives of the people. Globalization implies the destruction of sovereignty.
    Theft of Spanish lands in America : The USA stole vast areas of land from the Spanish empire to create California , Texas etc.
    Support for Indonesian massacre of Chinese: The USA approved the Suharto government’s killing of about 500,000 Chinese Indonesians who were suspected of being communist sympathisers.
    Support for Indonesian invasion and massacre of East Timor: The US government gave the go-ahead to the Indonesian government to invade East Timor in 1975. This resulted in the several hundred thousand deaths of innocent civilians, with US approval.
    Invasion of Haiti : Occupation of Haiti in 1994 to install US choice of r¨¦gime. (See also 2004 overthrow of democracy in Haiti by USA .) The USA also invaded and occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934.
    Invasion of Panama : Invasion of Panama to get just one guy, Noriega, who happened to be a CIA employee who was conducting most of the cocaine trade from South America into the USA . US forces killed many innocent people.
    Invasion of Grenada : Invasion of Grenada in 1983 to install pro-US government. This was part of Reagan’s foreign actions to make US citizens feel proud again. (The USA really should find ways of feeling good that don’t involve making foreigners into mincemeat. People who study these things say that the USA has invaded 67 countries from 1945 to 2004 and has killed some tens of millions of people in military conflicts in that time.)
    Attempted invasion of Cuba : Unsuccessful invasion of Cuba (1961) to install pro-US-capitalist government. Large numbers of people pointlessly killed for ideological/economic reasons, with no apology. In 2002, the US government still hates Cuba more than any country. The USA takes a very, very long time to forgive countries which successfully resist (and thereby humiliate) the US Empire. (Others include Iran and Vietnam .) The USA is a poor loser.
    Forcing poor countries to import US tobacco: In many countries, especially in Asia, the USA has forced governments to accept imports of US tobacco as a condition of normalising trade. And in some countries, the USA insisted that since they had to catch up for lost sales of cigarettes in the past, they should be allowed to conduct big advertising campaigns. They insisted on this despite the fact that many of these countries had already banned cigarette advertising for health reasons. Therefore the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Asians is due to these disgusting fair trade conditions by the USA .
    Support for Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan : Support of muslim fanatics in Afghanistan to kill Russians and other Soviet citizens. The Russian presence improved the quality and equality of life in Afghanistan . As a result of US actions in Afghanistan , huge numbers of Russian conscripts were killed, the country’s political system collapsed, and the political vacuum was filled by US client groups who violated human rights on a vast scale with US support, knowledge and acquiescence.
    Support for Iraqi war crimes and weapons of mass destruction: Support for Iraqi aggression against Iran in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s, despite the very well-known fact that Iraq attacked Iran pre-emptively without warning from the air in the expectation of destroying all of Iran ‘s planes on the ground and occupying all of Iran . The Iraqis killed over 1 million Iranians (which helps explain the high proportion of young people in Iran now 20 years later). The Iraqis used chemical and biological weapons with US knowledge and active support because of the US desire to punish Iran . (This shows that the USA is in favour of the use of `weapons of mass destruction’ by its clients, allies and puppets. WMDs are okay for the USA ‘s friends.) The USA never forgives a country which has beaten or humiliated the USA . In punishment for the Iranians taking 50 US citizens hostage for 1 year, the USA strongly supported and assisted the murder of millions of Iranians. The USA still has punishing sanctions against Iran for no good reason.
    While siding with Iraq against Iran , the US shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing hundreds of people, even though it was clear from all sources of information that it was a civilian plane. Some trigger-happy naval officer shot it down before thinking. This is the problem with giving the muscles of a giant to someone with the mind of a child. The USA just so easily wipes out hundreds, thousands or millions of lives without consequences to itself. The same trigger-happy reckless behaviour has been shown by the US military in all conflicts. But when anything happens to a US citizen, there’s hypocritical moral outrage.
    Killing thousands of innocent poor Afghans: In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan , the USA , looking for a small group of bandits, has shot up the whole country, causing a massive increase in starvation and other suffering. When several hundred (about 350) Taleban surrendered in one city, the USA used aerial bombing to kill every one of them, even though they were unarmed and had surrendered. This is a very serious war crime under the Geneva convention. Combatants are required to give quarter, but the USA has operated an explicit policy of taking no prisoners. They stated that they intended all al Qaida and Taliban to be killed. The USA should be brought before war crimes tribunals for these crimes, but the USA will refuse to even think about this possibility. In fact, the US government has passed a law to impose sanctions on any country which cooperates with the International Criminal Court, and they have passed a law to indemnify all US war criminals from any legal action. Thus the USA has declared that it is free to commit war crimes with impunity. ( 2002-12-19 : It has emerged that the USA was responsible for the murder of about 8000 Taliban who had surrendered. This is why the USA is so afraid of the International Criminal Court. They are as bad as the Serbs were in the 1990s.)
    ( 2003-3-24 : The US government says that the Iraqis must abide by the Geneva convention in the treatment of US prisoners. But the USA denied Geneva convention rights to thousands of Afghan prisoners from 2001. After more than a year, these prisoners are still being maltreated in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba . This shows once again that all countries in the world must obey international conventions – all countries except the USA .) After tearing up the Geneva Convention in regard to Afghanistan , the USA complained loudly about extremely minor matters in their illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003, for example when photos of prisoners were shown on TV, which is not actually against the Geneva Convention. The USA insists that other countries must very precisely obey international conventions, but the USA never accepts that international law applies to them.
    Monopoly of GPS systems for world military dominance: The USA is currently (late 2001) preventing Europe from starting its own GPS system. They say it is against US interests. Indeed it is. If the US goes to war with any country, it can use Selective Availability to remove GPS capability from any region of the earth – but the USA military have the decryption codes to use the GPS even if it is rendered completely useless to other nations. This makes it more difficult for non-US countries to aim cruise missiles, but it also cripples air travel and sea travel within the region. This power over the whole world is awesome, and the US cannot be trusted with this power. And now they are trying to stop Europe from taking away the US monopoly. The USA is always against any other country having any sort of monopoly, but fiercely defends its own monopolies.
    Unequal trade in defence contracts: The USA requires other countries to permit US companies to bid for defence contracts, and they are believed to use echelon intercepts to find out the bids of their opposition. But foreign countries are not allowed to bid on US contracts mostly, because the US only trusts US citizens to work on US defence projects.
    Corrupt, undemocratic US voting system: When other countries have slight irregularities in voting procedures, the USA takes this as a pretext to impose heavy trade sanctions. But often these irregularities are caused mostly by ignorance or misunderstandings. But in the 2000 election in the USA , thousands of African Americans were turned back from the polls in Florida because the officials knew that they would vote for the Democrats. As a result the candidate with the second-most votes was selected to be president. This kind of outright racism and election fixing would be regarded as unacceptable in third world countries. A new election would be required, but in the USA , the national interest required that the irregularities be ignored. The hypocrisy of US government lectures on democracy to other countries is shown by the widespread gerrymanders, first past the post voting, and electoral colleges in the USA . At best, one could call the USA a guided democracy.
    Corrupt political lobbying in the USA : The US lectures other countries on cronyism, but has the worst case of crony capitalism in the world. The US government gives in to corporate lobbying on all subjects, including the protection of US farmers and industries from free world trade. Israeli lobbying causes the US government to support horrible human rights abuses in occupied Palestine . The USA ‘s form of government could be accurately described as policy payola.
    Rejection/sabotage of international standards: Whenever an international standard develops for anything, the USA tries to undermine it. Just one example is the adoption of GSM, which was invented in Europe . The US ideology demanded that there should be multiple competing digital mobile phone technologies because pointless competition is part of the USA ‘s culture. As a result, the USA ended up with an appalling mess in mobile telephony whereas the rest of the world got the very successful GSM. Just like IBM had a long history of thwarting every attempt to build industry-wide standards in the computer industry (they only attended standards meeting to sabotage and delay any standards), so the USA tries to prevent the emergence of all world standards. The USA regards international standards as a threat to its world dominance. International standards are not the US national interest.
    One-sided world spy system: The USA has a world-wide spying system called echelon, operated in conjunction with the English-speaking AUSCANNZUKUS alliance. [That’s AUS+CAN+NZ+ UK +US in alphabetical order. Clever little acronym, isn’t it!] This is used to give the USA economic supremacy and political advantage by listening in to all phone calls in the world. The USA has recently passed laws to give it authority over all computer traffic (Internet) which passes through US territory. They have given themselves extra-territorial jurisdiction over supposed computer crimes committed with no connection at all with the USA . Extra-territorial jurisdiction is very much hated by other countries. The USA never accepts extra-territorial jurisdiction by other countries, as shown by the case where France required Yahoo to not sell Nazi memorabilia to French citizens. A US court overturned this.
    Denial of data security and computer technology to poor countries: For many decades, the US has operated an international cartel of capitalist countries to deny strong encryption and powerful computers to any country which the US has any sort of disagreement with. This has helped to impoverish many other countries.
    Secretly breaking its own trade boycotts to gain advantage: When the USA organised an international boycott of selling wheat to the USSR in 1980, the USA secretly agreed with the boycotted countries that the USA would get all of their contracts after the boycott was lifted. Thus countries like Australia which went along with the boycott lost all their markets to the USA after the boycott was lifted. This was very much hated in Australia . The USA also mucked up the whole 1980 Olympics because of their objection to the USSR entry into Afghanistan . If this is how the USA treats its allies, its a wonder that the USA has any allies at all.
    Bullying low-crime countries to accept gun proliferation: The USA tries to export its gun culture/obsession to other countries. US lobby groups send missionaries to other countries, such as Australia , to strengthen opposition to gun laws. Since the USA has almost 4 times the per capita murder rate of Australia , gun culture would not be a very good idea for Australia . (The murder rate by guns in the USA is about 110 per million per year, or about 30,000 per year for the whole country. The total murder rate in Australia by all methods is only about 30 per million per annum because of sensible gun control laws.) But the USA thinks that their constitution is the best in the world, and anyone who is different must be stupid or evil. They also like to sell more guns. So they interfere with the sovereignty of other nations by stirring up and supporting anti-gun-law lobbyists in other countries. The USA uses totally moronic slogans like guns don’t kill people; people kill people to help push their gun culture. But they don’t say nuclear weapons don’t kill people; people kill people. You should never listen to any justification the USA gives for any policy. They have only one policy motive, which is naked self-interest. They work out what’s in their self-interest first, and then they get the PR people to work out a justification for it.
    Cultural domination through extra-territorial copyright law: The US imposes its laws against music and video copying throughout the world, exercising extra-territorial `jurisdiction’. Because of the use by pathetically weak encryption by the US music and film industry, the USA has a law called the DMCA, which forbids decryption of music and videos. But people in Europe and Russia have decrypted these formats. Therefore these people are prosecuted in the USA for acts which are legal in other countries. One prominent example is the CSS encryption, which enables US companies to charge more in Europe than in the USA , Asia or Europe , for instance. It also prevents linux users from playing video disks. This kind of market distortion is the opposite to globalisation and is anti-competitive. This shows that the USA lies when they say they are in favour of globalisation and free competition. They are only in favour of globalisation and free competition in market sectors where the USA is strong. In the markets where the USA is weak, they enforce anti-competitive and anti-trade protectionist measures, and laws to distort markets in their favour. The USA has unilaterally extended the 28 years of copyright protection which used to be the international norm to 50 and now to 70 years. (Some people say, probably correctly, that this is to satisfy Disney and such companies.) Then the USA forces their one-sided interests on everyone else. (Here’s a news item on this.) Remember that the propaganda slogan free markets really means capitalist-controlled markets as opposed to markets which are regulated by governments as the representatives of all the people.
    Environmental delinquency: The USA unilaterally withdrew from the climate treaty, because it was not in the US short-term interest to cooperate with other countries. This is despite the fact that the USA has about the same standard of living as western Europe with about twice the per capita energy consumption. The USA is just an extremely inefficient consumer of fuel, which forces to the rest of the world to use less. The USA wants other countries to make economic sacrifices to help the USA , but not vice versa.
    Unilateral withdrawal from ABM treaty: The USA is unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty out of perceived self-interest. I think that the Russians have not objected to this because they know that the USA is just wasting its money. But the USA wants to have complete impunity to bomb any country in the world back into the stone age, like Afghanistan, without any risk at all of retaliation.
    Economic subjugation and megadeath through extra-territorial patent law: The USA insists that patent law should be sacred world-wide when the USA wants to maximize its profits from AIDS treatment drugs. As a result, millions of people are dying needlessly world-wide in poor countries. But when the USA wanted to get some cheap anti-anthrax drugs because about 3 people in the USA had died, then on the grounds of national emergency, the USA said that they should be able to override the patents just to get a price reduction for a drug which they could well afford. This has outraged people worldwide who see that the value of a USA citizen is a million times greater than that of citizens of other countries, in the USA ‘s view.
    War crimes in Germany in WW2: Participation in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians in terrorist attacks on Germany in the Second World War.
    First use of nuclear weapons in Japan in WW2: Use of nuclear weapons against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Japan in the second world war. This was not how the war ended actually. The Japanese had been trying very hard to surrender, but the US refused to accept their surrender because they wanted to try out the nuclear weapons which were ready too late for the European theatre for which they were intended. Thus the USA prolonged the war with Japan so as to be able to test the effects of nuclear weapons on hundreds of thousands of civilians. This is definitely a war crime.
    [ 2004-8-7 : Here’s a counterpunch.org article about the Japanese attempt to surrender. As the author David Price says: But beyond the obvious message sent to the Soviets, Truman’s decision to use his doomsday weapon (twice) without presenting the Japanese with the actual conditions of his unconditional surrender revealed elements of an important American post war trajectory — a trajectory of violence where American military force became the tool of preference selected over the promise of diplomacy. Sound familiar?]
    War crimes against Japan in WW2: The USA fire-bombed Tokyo , killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, simply with the intention of terrorising the population. This is a serious war crime. Both during WW2 and ever since then, the US government has openly expressed and followed a doctrine of mass murder of civilians as a means to demoralize the enemy and minimize their own losses. The Geneva convention was supposed to outlaw this. Yet the USA quotes the Geneva convention loudly when they want the victim countries to treat captured US war criminals in a friendly manner. It’s okay for the USA to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, but the countries which the USA attacks must give captured US soldiers the maximum dignity and consideration. Might is right, as they say. Only the USA is above international law. (Other governments can also get an exemption from international law by cutting a deal with the US government.)
    Murder of innocent thousands in Sudan : President Clinton ordered the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceuticals factory, thinking erroneously that it was for producing some sort of armaments. Several hundred people were killed in this. Then the USA put trade restrictions on Sudan so that pharmaceuticals could not be imported. As a result, since that time many tens of thousands of additional people have died of malaria because that factory was producing anti-malaria drugs. This crime in itself was much more serious than the 2001-9-11 suicide hijacking.
    Energy wastage: In terms of energy efficiency, the USA has about the same standard of living as Western Europe but with twice the consumption of energy. As a result, the USA has to control world oil prices so as to maintain its standard of living. On top of this, they refuse to restrict their pollution of the atmosphere. Controlling oil prices requires hegemony over the oil-producing countries, which is partly why the US helps the apartheid regime of Israel acquire weapons of mass destruction.
    Support for Irish terrorism: For the last 30 years, the USA has been the principle funder of the Irish terrorists who have been killing both civilians and soldiers trying to keep the peace in Northern Ireland . This shows that the USA only objects to terrorists who are muslim and anti-USA. The anti-british northern Irish terrorists are pro-USA. So the USA sends them lots of money and political support to kill the English in Britain and the protestants in northern Ireland . This shows that the USA very definitely will not declare a war on all terrorists.
    Callous, calculated delay in WW2 participation: During the Second World War, the USA was originally planning to send about 215 army divisions to Europe in 1943 to remove the Nazis. But they worked out that this would negatively impact their economy. So they changed their plans and sent only 90 divisions in 1944. As a result, the US economy improved during the World War II, while the economy of Europe contracted by about 25%. During the extra year, several million more people died, including a few million people in concentration camps such as the European Jews. This shows that the USA values its own economy much more than the lives of millions of innocent people in other countries. The US entry into WW2 was in the US interests, not an altruistic act. Until Pearl Harbour, the US was pro-nazi. The US only decided to take the side of democracy in Europe when it was clearly in the USA’s self-interest to do so.
    The Russians still bitterly resent the fact that the USA and the UK took several years to open the Western front against Germany in WW2. During this time, the Soviet Union lost millions of lives, mostly civilians. The Soviet Union continually pleaded desperately to the Western powers to open a Western Front. The USA finally invaded Europe after it was clear that the Soviet Union was winning against Germany. One might reasonably conclude that the USA only liberated Europe to stop the Russian communists from taking over Europe, after which the USA would have become the minor superpower.
    Support for Jewish terrorism to create the Colony of Israel: When the Jewish terrorists killed British and Palestinian people in 1945-1948, the USA gave full support to the terrorists to create a colony out of the land stolen from the Palestinians. The USA supported, financed and harboured these terrorists. Clearly the USA is pro-terrorist. Menachim Begin was one of the terrorists who bombed the King David Hotel in Palestine, and yet the USA gave him full support. In the same way, the USA fully supports the war criminal Ariel Sharon now. (See also this article on Ariel Sharon’s massacre of a West Bank village Qibya in 1953, including women and children.) Isn’t it odd that the country which receives the strongest and most unconditional US support in the world is a country which was created through terrorism? (Come to think of it, the USA itself was created through terrorism against indigenous people, the British and the Mexicans.)
    Wilful disregard of Ruandan genocide: When the US personnel in Ruanda knew that there was about to be a massacre, they quickly got all their people out of there and let the massacre happen, making almost no public comment while 800,000 people were murdered. The USA could have stopped it, but they were worried that US citizens might die as they did in Somalia. This must be what the US government means by moral leadership. US moral leadership means getting out of anything that is of no immediate benefit to the USA. One US citizen means more to the US government than 800,000 Ruandans. The US government pretended that they didn’t know there was going to be a genocide, because then they would have been obliged under the Genocide Convention to do something about it. But revelations since then have shown that the government did know about it before and while it was happening.
    Harassing the creation of the International Criminal Court: The US government has done everything it can to hinder the establishment of an international court to prosecute war criminals and crimes against humanity because they are worried that they and their client states will be brought before this court. They have even passed a law to put sanctions on any country which cooperates with the international court. Once again, the USA uses extra-territorial quasi-legal measures to intimidate other countries, even their nominal friends and allies, as a way of achieving the USA’s self-interest. In this case, the USA knows that it regularly commits war crimes all over the world. As a result, it will not be possible to bring war criminals of other nationalities to such a court. (PS. During July 2002, the USA has been threatening to close down all UN peacekeeping activities if their war crimes are not made immune to prosecution. This kind of abuse of the UN is reminiscent of Khrushchev (§·§â§å§ë§Ö§Ó §¯§Ú§Ü§Ú§ä§Ñ C§Ö§â§Ô§Ö§Ö§Ó§Ú§é, 1894-1971) banging his shoe on the table to stop proceedings. The USA is now treating the UN as its own rubber stamp.)
    Sex overseas by US Americans: US males travelling overseas are very widely resented for seeking and having sex with the local women. This spreads diseases and unwanted children. (These children are called Amerasians in Asia.) But more importantly, it spreads resentment and hatred. This is true in Asia, Europe, Australia, and everywhere else. For example, sex between US soldiers and local women was very much resented in WW2 by British and Australian males. Most resented of all is the fact the local women often prefer US males to the locals because US Americans are richer and might offer them an escape from poverty. Usually the local women are left disappointed and often pregnant.
    Resistance to globalisation of measurement units: While lecturing and bullying the rest of the world to accept US exports under the slogan of globalisation (which means Americanization) the USA refuses to globalise its measurement units. They still use the medieval units known as British Imperial measures even though 95% of the world has converted to modern decimal-based units (the metric or SI system) as developed in France during the 18th century. (Maybe US Americans don’t like it because the French invented it.) The USA is 200 years behind the rest of the world, but they keep bullying everyone else to be like them. It’s time they showed some commitment to globalization and immediately removed all usage of miles, furlongs, acres, fahrenheit, feet, inches, pounds, ounces, imperial tons, hundredweight, stones, gallons, quarts and antediluvian paper dimensions. The old units are quaint, but they are a serious impediment to world trade. Get moving, USA, and catch up with the rest of the world!!! Every other country has to produce everything in dual units for the USA. The USA claims to be very modern, but is the most backward country in the world in measuring units. Everybody else in the world can cope with metric units. Come on, USA. Give it a go. You can do it!
    Attempting to create/maintain world monopolies: One of the many clear examples of the USA creating or maintaining world monopolies is Boeing. In the last year or so, the European competitor Airbus Industrie announced they would build a very large passenger plane, and the US government said it wasn’t fair competition because there was some government loan involved. But the USA gives huge tax advantages to its own capitalists so that they can compete unfairly with other countries. Boeing doesn’t have the same burden to contribute to the social welfare that Airbus does in Europe. The Europeans believe that capitalists should pay tax to support the general social good, whereas the USA think that the ordinary taxpayers should support their industries. This gives the USA a strong edge in overseas markets because their taxpayers are subsidising their companies. Therefore it is fully justified for European governments to give a little money back to Airbus to partially compensate for the larger tax burden in Europe. Another way that the USA gives its capitalists an unfair advantage is through the use of the echelon spy system to acquire information on how the bidding is progressing for tenders for big projects, for example for aeroplane purchases. This kind of abuse of a supposed defence system for shafting the overseas competition is greatly resented, as are all of the unfair competitive malpractices of the USA.
    Support for massacres by UNITA in Angola: The USA gave strong support to the UNITA terrorists (led by Jonas Savimbi) in Angola who massacred about 500,000 people in the most horrible way. The killings occurred especially after they lost free elections which they had agreed to. The reason the USA supported UNITA was the fact that the legitimate government was socialist. This is yet another proof that the USA’s government is anti-democracy. Only pro-capitalist governments are supported by the USA. In fact, the USA always confuses laissez-faire economics with democracy. They think that any government that restricts capitalism in any way must be undemocratic. The US-supported UNITA destroyed to economy of Angola, which otherwise would have been a very rich country. Any country which resists US laissez-faire economic ideology is opposed and crushed.
    Export of puritan morality, causing massive AIDS deaths: In order to get votes from the fundamentalist christian anti-condom, anti-contraception, anti-abortion lobby, the US government impedes the use of condoms and other forms of contraception in poor countries which have a serious AIDS problem. Just as one example, Kenya has a very serious AIDS problem, but the US has cut off aid to organisations in Kenya making condoms available to prevent AIDS. The result in poor countries of this sort of policy is a vast increase in AIDS sickness and death. The USA say that they give a lot of foreign aid. But this is propaganda nonsense. The USA gives only about 0.1% of GDP in foreign aid, compared to 3 to 7 times as much by most western countries. The USA is near the bottom of the league table in overseas aid. (But they’re at the top of the league table in military killings of innocent civilians.) The consequence of the USA’s negative attitude to contraception for poor countries is actually an increase in abortions because of unaffordable pregnancies. Logic has never been a strong point of US government policies. (GW Bush is credibly believed to have paid for an abortion for his girlfriend, which has been kept quiet by the predominantly pro-Republican US media. See here and here.) It is not even in the USA’s rational interest to deny contraception to poor countries. Excessive fertility rates cause overpopulation and poverty, and these are inimical to US long-term strategic interests.
    Export of American recreational drug choices: The USA insists that all other countries must follow the USA’s ideology on recreational drugs, which means that tobacco and alcohol are okay, but hemp, heroin, cocain etc. are not permitted. Other countries have different ideas on which drugs to tolerate and which to ban. But the USA insists that all countries must accept the USA’s choice of drugs and must reject all others. This is a little dictatorial. But it is also extremely hypocritical. Even presidents of the USA have taken drugs, such as gwb taking cocain. But the most recent example of the USA’s weird attitudes towards drugs is Afghanistan. The Taliban reduced opium poppy production from 3300 tons to 180 tons (or something like that) in the last year, but the USA refused to remove sanctions that they imposed to force the reduction in poppy production. (I believe the 180 tons was produced in the area not under the control of the Taleban – it was produced in the area controlled by the US allies, the Northern Alliance.) So the Taleban did exactly as asked, but the USA refused to remove the sanctions. But now that the Taleban’s opponents (the USA’s allies) have taken over, poppy production is back up again, and the USA is taking Afghanistan off its list of nations which produce bad drugs. So just as the heroin production goes up, the USA removes the sanctions. It’s just astonishing that the US thinks that everyone should take them seriously on drugs. If they were really serious about stopping drugs, they would follow the course of the Netherlands and Switzerland, which are having serious success in combatting drugs.
    USA is protectionist – but everybody else must accept free trade: In March 2002, the USA put up to 30% tariffs on steel imports to protect the inefficient US steel industry and get votes for the next election. The USA’s propagandists have been on the airwaves explaining why this is a good thing. Unfortunately, the arguments they have used in favour of US protectionism, if true, are even more true for the poor countries of the world. If a rich country like the USA needs to protect its industries, then surely the poor countries have even more need. This is just typical of the USA’s approach to politics – first work out what’s in the USA’s self-interest, then muster the arguments to support the decision. But if the same arguments are used to defend the actions of any other country, they are rejected. Somehow free trade is supposed to be good for every country in the world, but protectionism of the farm sector, the steel sector etc., is good for the USA. People in the USA just can’t remember the arguments they used last month for last month’s policies. The right argument for the USA is always the argument which benefits the USA this month. Protecting the workers is a good thing when the USA wants to increase the cost of production in poor countries to reduce their competitiveness, but protecting the workers is a bad thing when US companies want to exploit workers. A good example of US American protectionism is the exclusion of catfish imports from Vietnam. The USA just can’t compete. So they call efficient production dumping or unfair trade. But that just means that the USA can’t compete on a level playing field.
    CIA trained Mujahideen to make heroin from poppies: The Mujahideen in Afghanistan did not make poppies into heroin until the CIA showed them how to do this so as to get Russian soldiers hooked on heroin. So now Afghanistan is a big exporter of heroin. In fact, the Taleban stopped the growing of poppies, and the US backed the Northern Alliance which kept making heroin when the Taleban stopped 95% of production. All over the world, the CIA is known to have encouraged their clients (local anti-democratic terrorist groups) to get into illegal drug production to finance their terrorist activities. This is particularly true in Central and South America. And yet the USA is always lecturing to other countries that they should have zero tolerance of the drugs which they choose to make illegal. The USA is against compassion for drug victims such as is shown by the Netherlands government.
    Bhopal disaster, India: When a US company caused the deaths of many thousands of people in India, the USA gave negligeable compensation to the victims. The sympathy for these people was less than the sympathy for any minor incident in the USA. The USA’s big companies value the lives of non-US citizens at absolute zero. But when even one US citizen is killed, there’s a huge fuss. If the USA wants people to feel sympathetic towards their victims of disasters, they should start regarding non-US citizens as full human beings. All the USA thinks about in disasters like Bhopal is how to minimize the compensation payouts. So why should anyone feel sympathy for the much less serious NY incident on 2001-9-11 . The USA is milking that incident for all it’s worth.
    Korea Airlines KAL 007 spying mission: When there was very strong opposition throughout Europe to the stationing of US intermediate range ballistic missiles in Europe for pre-emptive attacks on the Soviet Union – which would have caused Europe to be annihilated by the Soviet Union if such an attack had been launched – the USA organised for a Korean Airlines passenger plane to conduct a spy flight over a Soviet launch facility during a Soviet military exercise, thereby provoking the Soviet Union to destroy the plane. The USA doctored tapes which were presented to the United Nations. The USA had closely tracked the spy mission with an AWACS plane. The USA didn’t confess to having conducted a spy mission with a passenger plane until well after the issue had left the headlines. In the meantime, the political effect of the destruction of the KAL 007 plane was to remove all opposition to intermediate range ballistic missiles in Europe. So the USA got its policies forced onto Europe at the cost of several hundred Korean lives. (In case anyone thinks that the USA’s spy satellites were so good that they didn’t need to make spy flights, remember that a US spy flight near China was brought down in April 2001. So more than a decade later, the US still needs to make spy flights.)
    US citizens are the most wasteful people on Earth: To sustain their lifestyle, US citizens consume about 10 to 20 times the resources per capita of the average of the rest of the world including Europe. Americans think they’re the most productive people on Earth. They are not. They don’t produce the most. They just consume the most. Just as one example, they burn about 25% of the fossil fuels which are consumed by all people on Earth, but US citizens are only about 4% of the population of the Earth. So that means that they consume about (25/4)/(75/96) = 8 times the average of all other nations. US citizens consume about twice the fuel of western Europeans for approximately the same standard of living. But when countries which supply critical materials to the USA threaten to deny supply, the USA is quick to go in with the military to ensure continuation. Americans think that their excessive consumption is an indication of their moral superiority, but in fact the opposite is true.
    Export of culture of violence through movies: Since 1945 and long before, the USA has been exporting it culture of violence world-wide. Other countries don’t traditionally create movies with so much violence as US movies. For example, French movies are more oriented to life-style, sex, and life problems. In the USA, when the V-chip was proposed, it was supposed to stop kids watching violence. But US citizens think that sex and violence are inseparable. So they added sex to the list of things to censor with the V-chip. When US movies show sex, they always have to include physical violence, murder and general nastiness. (US citizens may be surprised to learn that sex and violence are thought of as opposites in many other countries.) The huge overdose of murders and visciousness of US movies have been exported world-wide. (US movies pay for themselves in US sales. So they can make the prices low to undercut all indigenous productions overseas. US viewers can’t tolerate overseas movies much, especially with subtitles. So the export doesn’t go the other way much.)
    The result of this is that people all over the world are brought up from childhood on a diet of constant crass violence and inhumanity in the movies they see. They are also led to believe that sex requires violence, and that violence is much more socially acceptable than sex. If the USA wants other countries to be peace-loving, perhaps they should stop exporting super-violent movies and try to work out how to make successful movies without a single murder or car chase.
    Resistance to outlawing mines: The USA is the principal country resisting the international outlawing of mines. The USA claims that they need mines in Korea. The USA financed the extensive mining of Nicaragua by terrorists. The USA used mines extensively itself in the 1991 war against Iraq. In the 2001/2002 war against Afghanistan, the USA made extensive use of cluster bombs which leave behind very numerous mine-like mini-bombs which kill children because they look like cans of food. Other countries obviously conclude from this that since the leader of the free world says it is a good and necessary thing to lay mines (in a foreign country even), then it must be okay for everyone else. Once again, the USA leads by bad example.
    Disparagement, sabotage, harassment and bullying of the United Nations: Since the setting up of the United Nations, the USA has attempted to starve and harass the United Nations at every opportunity. But when the USA needs a fig-leaf of legitimacy for an aggressive military action, they bully and threaten the United Nations. The USA offers bribes whenever they want a `yes’ vote on anything. The USA cuts off aid to any country which votes against it. The UN has been completely corrupted by the USA. The USA regards the UN as a threat to its world dominance. The United Nations is not the US national interest. So the USA has treated the UN like a slave which it starves and gives orders to. The USA vetos everything which is not in the US or Israeli interest. (The USA has used the UN Security Council veto more than 70 times; the UK has used the SC veto more than 30 times.) The UN should have expelled the USA a long time ago. The USA expects all countries to obey the resolutions which it sponsors, and non-compliance means that they will be invaded. But the USA refuses to obey any resolution which is not convenient for it. The concept of cooperation is alien to the USA’s psychological nature. How can other countries make sacrifices to meet the expectations of the UN when the USA thwarts and disparages the United Nations at every opportunity?
    Killing dozens of Italian cable car passengers: A few years ago, US air force pilots in Italy were playing around in their jet fighter by skimming just underneath the cable supporting a few dozen skiers. They cut the cable and all of the skiers were killed. This kind of thing happens time after time because USAF pilots treat their job as being like a game. And the cost is often large numbers of foreign lives. Apologies from the USA for such reckless murder using their killer toys are very rare and never genuine. Another example is the reckless killing of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002.
    Opposition to democracy in Australia: In 1975, the USA listed Australia as being one of the top security threats in some list of assessments of allied governments. Australia was regarded as a serious risk to the USA because it had a Labor government. It is rumoured that the CIA supported the coup against the legally elected Labor government in 1975 which resulted in an election and a pro-USA party in power. At the time of that election, Australian army reserve forces were put on alert to implement martial law in case the Labor government was re-elected. The USA has never accepted the full legitimacy of Labor governments in Australia. Nor have their proxies, the misnamed Liberal party of Australia.
    Support for enslavement of poor countries: In cooperation with Europe and other rich countries, the USA concsiously or unconsciously keeps poor countries in a condition of debt bondage. In India and some other countries, there are millions of people who have such heavy debt and such low incomes that they must work for their whole life to pay off their debt, and then they pass on the debt to their children who inherit the debt. In this way, millions of Indians are in a condition which is no different to slavery. In the same way, there are very many poor countries in the world which will never be able to pay off their national debt to the rich countries. Therefore they are obliged to work forever for foreign masters. A recent example of this is Argentina, where many people do not have enough food, but the food which is produced must be exported to pay off debt. Thus there are many countries which must work to pay off an unpayable debt forever rather than working to feed their own people. About half the people of the world are in countries in this condition of `debt bondage’ or slavery, and the USA is strongly opposed to relieving these countries of unpayable debt. Whereas the USA used to have slaves in their own country, now there are starving slaves in many other countries working to produce things for the USA instead of working to feed themselves. This is a total and utter humiliation of the poor countries. The world is now divided into master countries and slave countries, and the USA is very reluctant to let the slaves go free, since the USA’s wealth depends on these billions of slaves. (The reason why the USA is the Land of the Free is because they’ve enslaved most other countries either financially through unfair trade or else militarily.)
    Gulf of Tonkin incident: In 1964, the US government administration lied about the North Vietnamese attacking US ships in the Gulf of Tonkin and used this as a pretext for a massive escalation of aggression against North Vietnam. The US government’s respect for truth is similar to Hitler’s respect for truth when he invaded Poland because of the alleged mistreatment of Germans by the Poles.
    The Kuwait incubator babies lie: The USA lied to the UN about the removal by Iraqis of Kuwaiti babies from incubators in order to justify the war against Iraq in 1991. They trained a young female member of the Kuwaiti royal family to cry as she told the lies to a UN meeting. This lie by the USA is comparable to the Nazi lie about Jews eating German babies. (In fact, the USA’s propaganda about the threat from International muslim conspiracy is comparable to the Nazi propaganda about the threat from the International Jew. Those who do not understand history are condemned to repeat it!) How can the world take seriously any evidence presented to the UN by the USA again? In late 2002 and early 2003, the USA is asking for the world’s trust in its evidence to justify invasion of Iraq.
    War crimes against Iraq: In the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq, the US planes killed thousands of retreating soldiers. One of the US pilots at the time said it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Even most US Americans thought that this was shameful, but the US military never apologize for their war crimes.
    Establishment of the new principle of pre-emptive war: In 2002/2003, the USA’s very clever propaganda organisations have come up with a new euphemism for naked aggression. Now they’re calling it pre-emptive military action. The US Americans are experts in language abuse. It used to be taken for granted that the country which attacks first is the guilty party. This approach had the advantage that if no one wants to be the first to attack, then no one will ever attack. So outlawing aggression has the effect of minimizing war. Now the USA has changed that with the new doctrine of pre-emptive war. Since the USA is the leader of the world, all countries in the world will now conclude that they can conduct a pre-emptive action with justification. The effect will be an outbreak of numerous wars in the next decade as every country which feels threatened invades its neighbours. When other countries catch up with the USA’s current military technological advantage, the USA will regret deeply its might is right approach to world affairs.
    Abuse of the IMF as a tool of international blackmail: We have been seeing in early 2003 how the USA uses the IMF as a tool to bribe and threaten poor countries. The original purpose of the IMF was not to provide a tool for bribing and bullying, and yet the US government uses the IMF in this way. All of the poor countries on the UN security council are shaking in their boots because of US threats to cut IMF aid if they vote against the unjust war of the USA against Iraq. If it’s a question of morality, then why does the USA have to use threats and bribes? In particular, the USA has offered some IMF loans as bribes to Turkey. This kind of misuse of the IMF has been going on for decades. The USA misuses also many other international organisations in the same way to bribe and bully other countries.
    Removal of Boutros Boutros-Ghali from the United Nations: When the term of Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Secretary-General of the United Nations came to and end, there was unanimous and strong agreement of the Security Council that he should have a second term. But this was vetoed by the United States. (This proves that the USA is not in favour of consensus on the UN Security Council.) The USA continually blocked the re-appointment until eventually everyone had to agree to the USA’s appointment of Kofi Anan, the USA’s puppet, to the position. So Kofi Anan was appointed with a `majority’ of 1 vote for and 14 votes against. This shows that the United Nations is a passive tool of the US government.
    The master plan to subjugate the entire Middle East: The US government has announced in March 2003, and earlier through its christian right-wing think tanks, that it intends the war of aggression against Iraq to be part of a total subjugation of the Middle East. This is a new Drang nach Osten to turn Middle East nations into US provinces or economic slave colonies. The previous Drang nach Osten was aimed at subjugating the Slav peoples. Now the USA has found a new class of Untermenschen to enslave in the Middle East.
    Ethnic cleansing of native Americans: The USA was built on native American land which was stolen. This was achieved by the ethnic cleansing of the entire area of the USA apart from a few reservations which are the bits left over that the colonists didn’t immediately want. US Americans should never forget that the USA is a colony created by theft. Therefore the USA cannot lecture other countries about colonization. A nation that was built from ethnic cleansing and slavery is not in a strong position to talk internationally about morality. The cowboys and indians movie genre during the 20th century has given the impression that the ethnic cleansing of native American lands was something like a sport where the good guys won. How many countries proudly base their national cinema culture on their own history of ethnic cleansing?
    Incubator babies Mark II: the Iraq WMD lie: After their success with the notorious Incubator Babies lie in 1991, when the US government presented to the United Nations a woman who they trained to lie about babies being thrown out of the Kuwait hospital incubators by the Iraqi invaders, the US had further success in 2003 with their lies to the United Nations about the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Although Colin Powell talks like a gentlemen, he is an expert liar like the rest of the US government. Meanwhile the USA continues to give massive financial, military and diplomatic support to the only state in the Middle East with WMDs, a state which kills thousands of innocent people in a massive concentration camp every year. Now the US government expects everyone to believe that they are putting pressure on the Israeli regime to give some very limited form of statehood to their little slave colony. The world continues to hope that this time the US government can be trusted. After 55 years of duplicity on this issue, the US government deserves no trust at all until they can show that they can the truth and keep promises. There is no hope of this, of course. It is not in the US government’s interest to tell the truth or keep promises.
    Sabotage of Russian oil pipelines: In 1982, the USA blew up a Russian oil pipeline with trojan horse software, thereby killing large numbers of innocent civilians. What good purpose this may have achieved it not clear. Maybe the US government just likes killing people. That’s what it looks like anyway. By creating an explosion with the power of a three kiloton nuclear weapon, the US disrupted supplies of gas and consequential foreign currency earnings.
    Installation of puppet Shah in Iran. Overthrow of democracy: The USA and UK conspired to overthrow democracy in Iran because the democratically elected government stopped the US/UK control of Iranian oil. The price of the installation of a dictator in Iran was that in 1980, about 50 US citizens were detained for a year or so while the Iranian government asked for the deportation of the Shah. This was a mild embarrassment compared to the USA’s punishment, its support for the Iraqi invasion of Iran which resulted in millions of Iranian deaths, many of them in poison gas attacks.
    Attempts to overthrow democratic government in Venezuela: During 2003/04, the USA has been making persistent attempts to remove the democratically elected government in Venezuela because of criticism of the USA. This is yet more proof that the USA does not respect democracy.
    Successful overthrow of democratic government in Haiti: In March 2004, the USA has sucessfully removed the democratically elected leader in Haiti with a puppet leader. This is just one in a very long series of democratic governments overthrown by the USA and replaced with puppet dictatorships throughout the last 100 years. When will the US government learn to be comfortable with foreign democracies?

  121. Steven_L said:
    October 14, 2006 6:26 PM | permalink
    ‘and Persian Gulf will remain Persian for ever…’ (Kamran – Iran)
    So is there hostility in Iran towards the nations of the Arabian peninsular then?
    ………………..
    Hey Steve!
    What’s the matter with you? Are you really trying to make a reasonable point about Boris’s article or you have found this forum a place to revenge against proud Persian people and their glorious history? If some Iranian has kicked your ass before and you have some personal problem with an individual it is not our problem . you better not to post your ignorant comments with such miserable arguments denying facts and truth .

  122. idlex said:
    October 12, 2006 10:26 PM | permalink

    “Suicide bombing is a tactic, not an ethic.

    Japanese kamikaze pilots were the suicide bombers of their time. But Japan itself did not commit suicide.

    Iran won’t commit suicide either.”

    I don’t think this is an accurate analogy. The brand of Islam espoused by Iran glorifies suicide bombing as part of a religious belief that anything – anything – goes in order to destroy the enemy. Suicide was never part of the Japanese state religion. It was part of the battle ethic/social ethic that suicide was more honourable than defeat. This is not the concept behind suicide bombing. People in the West just don’t get this. You think fanatical Muslims think just like we do in the west. Well, they don’t. They have a totally different brand of logic, and destroying their own country in order to destroy “the enemy”, while bringing about the eventual victory of Islam, would seem to them the “logical” thing to do.

  123. Steven_L said:
    October 14, 2006 6:26 PM | permalink
    ‘and Persian Gulf will remain Persian for ever…’ (Kamran – Iran)
    So is there hostility in Iran towards the nations of the Arabian peninsular then?
    ………………..
    you beter keep your stupid ideas about IRAN for yourself

  124. steven are you living in moon? your people are also racist , they actually kill eachother still in britain and usa as i see , you call black people “negro” still. and you’r gloring culture still is proud of KKK. 2500 years ago Iranians( persians) noticed that every one are the same, so we let jews to be free and we called every one from any part of the world to study in our schools, We still have the highest rate as a country who accept the most refugees ,in iran we have 12 major race and we are not discriminating each other like you do in usa ( blacks and white)and also in europe ,,,so dont try to make something els out of my point. Persians are trying to hold their own culture and land (no matter what comes through we will get over it) .

  125. Dear Boris on 31 of October Mr Khatami is coming to St.Andrews for receiving an honor PHD in law. I think is an important visit and you can have your message too. For fethure information contact DR. Ali Ansari on aa51@st-andrews.co.uk your act was an astonishing act. It might leads to some momentums… hope to see in St .Andrews in khatamis speech

  126. joseph said:
    October 14, 2006 7:29 PM | permalink

    thi is for STEVE other friends in this forum who demand the Iranian governments apology to the UST for a single act of hostage taking which was indeed a clear reaction to the years of the country’s captivity by the USA’s policy.

    ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
    dear joseph,
    you have done a great job I didnt know many of this things about usa and this is a shame for them .thank you for all that and I am 100% agree with you god bless you and IRAN

  127. The brand of Islam espoused by Iran glorifies suicide bombing as part of a religious belief that anything (Simone)

    As best I know, the Quran nowhere advocates suicide. It’s part of neither Sunni nor Shia Islam. It’s simply a practice advocated by a few Islamic fundamentalist extremists. Ahmadinejad is reported to have said he would like the Israeli state to cease to exist, but I have never read anything saying that he’s willing to sacrifice the Iranian people for this.

    Never mind Islam, would you like to hear the Christian quotation that could be used, and probably has been used, to justify this? “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15: 13.

    But there’s no need to drag religion into it. There isn’t anything particularly unusual or surprising about suicide attacks. They happen in every culture. All you need do is back people into a corner from which there is no escape, and some of them will prefer to die fighting rather than surrender.

    The whole notion that Palestinian suicide bombers are crazed religious fanatic is mistaken. That they resort to this simply reflects the condition in which they live, and provides a measure of their desperation. If Israelis were suffering the same, they’d do the same themselves. Indeed, at Masada, in 73AD, the Jewish defenders all committed suicide rather than surrender. I’m sure that if they’d thought of a way of taking a few Romans with them, they would have.

    But anyway, I’m sure that you will prefer to demonize Iran, Islam, its fundamentalists, and its suicide bombers, rather than think through the logic. It’s much easier to just say they’re all evil and crazy, isn’t it?

  129. I used once, Hamed, many years ago, to live in an Islamic country (Libya, before Gaddafi), and I don’t recollect being slaughtered as an infidel. I have spent several years, perfectly happily, in the company of Muslim people, surrounded by the minarets of mosques, and hearing the muezzins call.

    I’ve also discussed religion with at least one Muslim (in Egypt in 1990). This very earnest man surprised me by telling me that he was very distressed that Europeans were increasingly ceasing to be practising Christians. He felt that a belief in God was an essential component of a morally good life. One of his parting words was to say that, “At the end of each day, I go home to be alone with my God.”

    It occurred to me afterwards that, at the end of each day, I usually spend a while alone at home in quiet contemplation. I regard it as somehow essential to my well-being. But I just don’t tend to think of it as “being with God”, although I imagine my experience is probably not very much different than his.

  130. I might add that I spent much of my formative years living almost everywhere in the world but England. Such an experience tends to broaden one’s mind, and make one realize that people are pretty much the same everywhere.

    But many English people that I know have scarcely been outside their home towns, let alone England. The English, in my experience, are a highly insular people (although less so these days, as they take package holidays to Spain). I think that a great deal of English Europhobia derives from an insularity that blinds them to all that they share with the Europe from which they first came.

    I doubt that 26-year-old English Steven_L has even been to France. The less one knows about anything, in my experience, the stronger are one’s absurd convictions. When I was 26, I thought I knew everything.

  131. I’m an iranian student who left his beloved country a year ago for the US, As we all know Iran’s govenment is not a representor of the iranian people, I would say none of the educated people in iran (religouse or secular) wants nuke. We all have learned our lesson from the Saddam Hossein’s story. The world today is not a field to present our egotism. We have to make the area more stable (It’s already messed up enough) I wish you were an iranian politician to stop these maniacs from going after nuclear energy. This money should have been spent on the people’s basic education we don’t even need nuclear energy. I know it is one of the greenest sources of energy (in terms of radiation per unit weight) but the money spent on booshehr’s plant was million times more than the money needed to start up 10 fuel cell R&D centers

  132. Boris,
    You are the only British who tells the truth on this issue. I like the way you see things.

  133. I thought your comments in the Daily Telegraph were frivolous and irresponsible. It is the kind of comments that one would expect from a member of the Looney fringe and not from someone who is hoping to be leading light in the next Conservative government. More importantly, your comments displayed a total lack of understanding of the realities on the ground in Iran as well as the mentality and the true intentions of a ruthless theocratic dictatorship that is bent on blackmailing the outside world into inaction while brutalizing and intimidating its own people at home.
    Finally, you really must try and take a more profound view of these matters before coming out publicly. Also, in my view, you should try and consult some of your better informed colleagues so that there is some consistency in the views that are expressed by senior members of your party.
    I vaguely remember something about you eating humble pie by visiting Liverpool some while ago. Well, one day when Iran has been freed from the yoke of its current bloodstained regime, I do hope that you will visit the country and make amends with a people for whose future you seem you seem to care so little. In this regard, you should note that you do not promote freedom and tolerance by arming murderers and tyrants with nuclear arms.

  134. It is one of the many paradoxes of the Islamic Republic of Iran that this most virulent anti-Israeli country supports by far the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country.

    Whilst I have a smattering of Hebrew in my vocabulary, I don’t speak a word of Arabic, a delinquency I intend to repair. I have often heard Ahmadinejad quoted as saying he wishes to see the eradication of Israel; I am not, however, convinced that this is a direct translation of his words and would be interested to hear from any Iranians contributing here if my suspicions are correct.

    As to the issue raised by Boris, to whit, whether Iran should be entitled to a nuclear deterrent, all I can offer is that the most rapaciously destructive regime in the region has many such devices and that doesn’t seem to bother anyone.

    My view on nuclear capability is simply that if any one country has them, I don’t see any justification for not allowing any other country the same capability; particularly when an openly aggressive neighbour possesses the facility to deploy nuclear warheads.

  135. Steven_L said:
    ‘and Persian Gulf will remain Persian for ever…’ (Kamran – Iran)
    So is there hostility in Iran towards the nations of the Arabian peninsular then?
    ————-
    To be sincere, the Iranians and the Sheikhs ruling on the other side of the Persian gulf are not the best friends but both of them are wise enough to know the way to solve a dispute is talking and not war!!! But it seems the people on the other side of the globe have a opposite view!

    The reasons the Western see all the Muslims & middle-eastern as suicide bombers or hardliners is their ignorance of our culture and religion and system of thinking.
    Mr. Khatami proposed the great idea of Dialogue among the Civilizations aiming at vanishing the misunderstanding between the different nations and cultures.

    U would also better to participate in his speech at St.Andrews on the 31st of October to hear different and more logical argues than Ahmadinejad’s blahs!

    Mr. Khatami was of the fist presidents in the world condemning the 9/11 attack in the USA.
    U must also know that in Islamic thoughts we learn that the suicide committers are the group never goes to heaven.

  136. I second Mehrdad. The priority here is the realization of the Iranian’s aspirations for freedom and democracy(thier own way not imported or imposed)not the regimes’s lust for more power and strength.And that’s what we should take into account in any argument on this matter.

  137. As I said in my first post: “In my view, the main victims of such a policy and the primary target of any potential use of the bomb will be the Iranians themselves. As cynical as it might read, in my opinion the Molas’s objective is above all achieving a strong deterrent against the democratic aspirations of Millions of Iranians inside as well as the large Diasporas to change the theocratic and totalitarian regime any time soon.”

  138. Joseph,

    I am one of the millions of people in England who demonstrated against Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq and who are opposed to Blair and Bush’s war mongering. We wish to see Bush and Blair tried by the International Court for their war crimes.

    There is much cogency in your analysis of the appalling conduct of part of the US and your argument that they should apologise to the world for this – as should Blair and his Government.

    Where I strongly disagree with you is that you speak of US hegemony yet, with respect, fall into a similar hegemonic trap as the Neocons in America. You seem to class all Americans as the same and paint a picture of all Americans as Neocons. Yet you know that is not the case. Many millions in America are opposed to the Neocons warmongering and have demonstrated against this.

    I also feel some of your arguments are too one dimensional. For example, you condemn the US’s participation in action which killed hundreds of thousands of German citizens during WW2, yet fail to place that in the context of Hitler’s Germany’s sub-human conduct and Hitler’s aim of invading and slaughtering much of Europe.

    Today I going to an exhibition at the Museum Of Power at Langford – a museum of engine power, by the way, not of military might. The exhibition is to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the crash of the German Zeppelin L33, a massive killing machine 700 foot long by 70 foot in diameter, which crash landed at the tiny village of Little Wigborough a few miles from the museum on September 24th 1916. Some of my family came from the village. This German zeppelin, along with many others – collectively known as the ‘baby killers’ – terrorised the English civilian population with bomb raids and anti personnel attacks on innocent civilians throughout WW1. 500 people were killed during these raids and many thousands injured, only the limitations of the cumbersome technology and the heroism of Royal Air Corps pilots (the night hawks) and anti zeppelin ground defences prevented these monster machines slaughtering 100,000s here. The WW1 zeppelin raids were, I believe, were the first terrorist attacks civilians were ever subjected to from the air.

    There was scarcely a person in England who’s family did not suffer at the hands of the German military during WW2, some 20 years later. The majority of families here were torn apart during that war. Speaking for my family alone, from the age of 19, my mother drove an ambulance trying to save lives and collecting what was left of thousands of human beings throughout the devastating blitz on London. She and my grandmother were injured and almost killed when buried beneath the rubble of a house that was bombed. Many of my family ‘slept’ underground in air raid shelters for years during this war. Every day when they emerged from the shelter, my grandmother sent her young son ahead to see if heir house had been bombed and if his father – who refused to leave the house – was still alive. One day he found his father blinded by a German bomb. My father, a soldier during WW2, was twice injured and, years later, died aged 49 from the effects of shrapnel which could not be extracted from his body. Any attacks on Germany during WW2 must be placed in the context of the appalling devastation which the German military inflicted on millions of innocent people at that time.

    Like millions of others here, my family’s appalling experience underlies my opposition to all military aggression and to all but unavoidable wars such as WW2.

    What particularly sickens me about wars is that it is almost always ordinary innocents who suffer while the warmongers themselves barely feel a twinge of their pain in any shape or form.

  139. I live in Thailand and have lived through a most pathetic coup to oust a corrupt leader. I read with great interest posts from Iranians who oppose their Islamic dictatorship. The Thais are the most apathetic people I have ever known. In 3 years living here, I’ve had 1 conversation about politics with a Thai person. THEY DON’T CARE.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Boris. Iranians WILL develop nuclear weapons at some point in time, as has North Korea, however reading the posts here, and with conversations I have had with Iranians they don’t support their leaders.

    The apathy of the Thai people frustrates me here. Why don’t the Iranians DO SOMETHING about their leadership??? It’s got to be better than the so called “Allies” attempting it.

  140. Whether Boris is right or wrong about this matter is not quite the point – I find it extrememely refreshing that at least one of our awful politicians is willing to contribute honest and honourable views. I believe this is why we respect you Mr Johnson. Become Prime Minister for goodness’ sake!

  141. Joseph,

    It took two cups of tea and a cigarette break in the middle but I read your post.

    I’m not too sure about your idea that the US were pro-Nazi prior to Pearl Harbour. I believe the US had provided assistance to the UK before Pearl Harbour.

    In terms of the US and UK not opening up the Western front until the Soviets were winning, this was probably the major cause of the cold war. The USA did Western Europe a huge favour stopping Stalin swallowing it up though. Sure, this was in US national interest, but I think you’ll find Stalin was resented in much of Eastern Europe after the Iron Curtain went up.

    I too worry about the influence of the evangelical and other fundamentalist Christian groups in US foreign policy. Personally I see organised religion as an invention of mankind, I believe it has been responsible for more human suffering than good over the centuries.

    I have a suspicion that the rulers of the US aren’t actually religious types themselves, but having a deeply religious population suits them. I think religion blinkers people from other points of view, and is the cause of most of the ignorance in the world.

    ‘steven are you living in moon? your people are also racist , they actually kill eachother still in britain and usa as i see , you call black people “negro” still. and you’r gloring culture still is proud of KKK’ (Arian Amiri)

    It is true some people in the UK are racist. But I’ve never heard the expression ‘negro’ used. Our friends from the Caribbean have settled well over here. The KKK is a Southern US thing, the British Equivelent would be the National Front. However I’ve never met anyone that glorifies them.

    Racial and religious intolerance does exist. Up here in the North I’ve met white people that won’t buy things from Asian shops. At university I’ve met Asian people that will happily speak in Urdu to the Muslim I’m playing pool with but refuse to even make eye-contact with me. According to my Muslim friends, some of their friends don’t speak to white people because they think we are ‘unclean’.

    Overall though I think the UK is about the least racist place you will find, it’s only a tiny ignorant minority that actually boycott or attack each other. Not only do we have laws making discrimination illegal on racial or religious grounds, we actually enforce them. We don’t persecute people because of their sexual preference over here in Europe either, unlike some Islamic states that still consider it a capital crime.

    ‘I doubt that 26-year-old English Steven_L has even been to France’ (Idlex)

    I’ve been twice, with school, once when I was 9 and once skiing when I was 12.

  142. Well joseph
    you’r comment is a fact , but maybe i can put it that way. Again the Iranian point of view to the world who might live in Tehran or any other major part of Iran is tottaly different then an Iraqi or an arab.I occasionly visit tehran atleat once a two year , i’m seeing white iranian people and brown iranians who if someone talk about their skin’s appearnce differences ,would absolutly make no sence to them. In America I’m living as a white rock fan ,and every single persian I see is living in it’s own mixture of persian and western life. Again Persians are no like Turkish people who kiss american and british ass , and neither like arabs to obey the pure and hard islamic rules, we live in our own (having persian ancient life and a western way of live)and that’s why I pushing you to seperate persians from the other middle easterns. i’ve never seen an iranian anywhere in globe to say i dont talk to white people , but maybe we see thousnd of arabs to say such a thing .Yes true maybe in saudi arabia they wouldnt allow christians to live. but please dont make us all the same. We have some problems with USA because we r feeling they would like to assault us , but it doesnt mean because of what we feel we have to attack them but we can make sure we are ready incase of a war.

  143. As an iranian, i hate islam. what has it given to us? dont you want to tell me go and study about it
    The only character Islam supporters accept in all the 1400 years history of islam is Mohammad prophet and nobody eles( the person that the longest distance in his mind was China to learn sience. this happend even when he went to visit the God in heaven. I wonder how He couldn’t see from up there that earth is sphere or the longest distance to learn from Saudi Arebia is not china but America)

  144. ‘Iran has the second largest Jewish population in the Middle East (Israel First)’ (Hamed)

    Only because all the Arab nations exiled their Jewish populations after they lost the 1948 war (which Iran, under the leadership of the Shah didn’t join in).
    At Steve L.
    if it was so as you mean, why they didnt go to e.g russia or somewhere else, why they didnt leave Iran after Shah.. they are still there…
    And……….
    thanks to Boris, but one should I tell you and it is…
    this is a game long time ago before attacking Afghanistan and Iraq just to take best parts of our country , Khuzestan, and Persian Gulf,
    As you know Boris this game is designed by britian and american Politician,in this game Bush and Bliar play as forward players and other europeans as the rest of ..
    while kissing your asses the fans are the …Arabian countries who are waiting for their portion of the results of this game,
    …yeah governing southern parts of Iran.. those parts you are going to take for them….surely they will pay for the bill…..
    but Iran will stay Iran as it is.However, our goverment is as crazzy as yours.
    Regrads

  145. Sorry, there is one mistake in my last post I have to correct it.
    I meant this game was designed long time ago, before attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.
    the main aim is Iran, specificly Khuzestan and Persian Gulf not presenting the poeple in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan democracy. Democracy cant be presented as a gift.Unfortunaely, the poeple in eurpean countries and in USA believe whatever they hear from media or the governers. They didnt yet understand all their politicians(as ours) more or less are lier and murderers.All of them without exeption.

  146. ‘if it was so as you mean, why they didnt go to e.g russia or somewhere else, why they didnt leave Iran after Shah.. they are still there…’ (Bita)

    Because Iran hasn’t exiled them like Iraq and other Arab countries did after the 1948 war.

    The point was that Iran only has a higher number of Jewish people than any of the Arab states because the Arab states kicked them all out after they lost the 1948 war to Israel.

    Before the 1948 war there were about 100,000 Jews in Iraq.

  147. Dear Boris

    Most of what you say is sensible, but in this instance you have just got it horribly wrong.

    It just may be too late for Israel to hit back at Iran, if a mad Mullah in Iran went beserk and cleared them off the map. There would be another Holocust with 6 million further Jews dead.

    Boris I will tell you a little secret, Israel will not permit the Iranians to arm themselves with nuclear weapons. Period.!!!!

    Israel may lose a few F16 and special forces, but its worth her while, losing 200 men and maybe as many as 20 jets, then be held over a barrel or blackmailed over 6 million Jews.

    Regards.

    Andrew Kaye

  148. The best thing that could happen to this planet would be having ‘Israel’ crossed off it and ‘Palestine’ written over the top in crayon.

    Period.

  149. I’ve never quite understood the rationale whereby countries like the USA and UK 9and others) see fit to dictate who is allowed to develop nuclear capability.

    It’s not as if these countries occupy some higher moral ground is it? I mean, invading countries like Iraq on clearly trumped up charges of WMDs and treating people the way they do at Al-Gharib and Guantanamo doesn’t quite cut the higher-moral-ground mustard, does it?

  150. idlex said:
    October 15, 2006 12:35 AM
    “The whole notion that Palestinian suicide bombers are crazed religious fanatic is mistaken. That they resort to this simply reflects the condition in which they live, and provides a measure of their desperation. If Israelis were suffering the same, they’d do the same themselves. Indeed, at Masada, in 73AD, the Jewish defenders all committed suicide rather than surrender. I’m sure that if they’d thought of a way of taking a few Romans with them, they would have.”

    It’s true that the defenders of Masada committed suicide rather than surrender – but nowhere in Jewish religious texts is this praised. Suicide is forbidden under Jewish religious law.
    Furthermore, over the 2000 years since the Destruction of the 2nd Temple and the Exile, the Jews suffered far more than the Palestinians ever had. Nobody has tried to physically exterminate the Palestinian People. On the other hand, besides the Nazi Holocaust, many attempts were made to completely eradicate the Jewish People. One of the earliest was by the Persian (Iranian) Grand Vizir Haman. (Read the Book of Esther. Someone should remind the present Iranian Grand Vizir of the fate of his predecessor who tried to wipe out the Jewish People.)
    However, I digress. My point is, that the Jewish People had far more reason for desperation than the Palestinians (who had a chance for an independent state as early as 1947, but blew it, by rejecting the UN Partition Plan) – and yet you won’t find any reports of Jewish suicide bombers anywhere along the long, long line of history. And you certainly won’t read of Jewish terrorists going and murdering little children, or civilians in other countries, just because those countries supposedly supported the enemies of the Jews. (And don’t go throwing up the Lebanon War at me, because I am not talking about a state of war, when civilians get caught in the crossfire).

  151. The Isrealis bombed Saddam’s Iranian nuclear cradle at Osirak in 1986?

    I think a different despotic megalomaniac was faffing about in Iran at the time.

    Thank any, and every god, that the Isrealis have decided NOT to bomb Iraqi facilities within the borders of Iran.

    So, good read but 6/10. See me.

    Israelis would fly to Iran and repeat their magnificent success at Osirak in 1986, where they bombed Saddam’s nuclear capacity in its desert cradle.
    nuclear

  152. “Nobody has tried to physically exterminate the Palestinian People.”

    Errmm, haven’t you forgotten the Israelis?

    So your proposition Simone is that suicide bombing is wrong because a religious text says so but dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas and schools is pretty much okay?

    Launching missiles at civilian cars from helicopters containing women and children is self evidently the action of a peaceloving and timorous nation and so much nicer than that nasty Arabian suicide bombing.

    “And you certainly won’t read of Jewish terrorists going and murdering little children”

    You would in the 1930s and 40s when Irgun and the Stern gang were on the MI5 terrorist list. The IDF have also cheerfully killed nearly eight hundred Palestinian children in the occupied territories (NOT Lebanon) over the past six years. Nice going boys.

    The reason there is no peace in this region is simply because hard line Zionists will not allow it. They first have to create small wars on their borders to give themselves justification for grabbing yet more land to re-create historic ‘Greater Israel’. What else can one think about a country THAT WON’T EVEN RECOGNISE IT’S OWN BORDERS! (by all means check up on this outrageous statement)

    The call to ask Hamas to recognise Israel is ludicrous in the circumstances. How can they? Isreal haven’t said where their country ends or starts. By recognising Isreal they would be giving legitimacy to the regime to annex even MORE Palestinian territory.

    They are scum (Right wing Israelis, not Jews) and little, if any, different from the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. I look forward to the day they commit nuclear suicide as Golda Meir suggested (in interview) they would in the event of Arab supremacy in the region.

  153. In case it’s not clear enough Simone, the missiles I spoke of were not launched anywhere near Lebanon, only in persecution of the Palestinian people.

    [Ed : deleted]

  154. I actually agree with you Boris, but there is one major sticking point. The logic of MAD may still apply to states, but probably doesn’t apply to non-state actors like Al Qaeda. The more nuclear states there are the more opportunities they have to buy nuclear material from somewhere. And no, we can’t just extend MAD to the state that sells them the stuff, because we might not know who it was.

    Perhaps the best thing would be to give strong assurances (and other treats) to these regimes in exchange for a disavowal of the processing of WMDs (and UN inspections). After all, if the only reason they want them is to protect themselves from the West then they might go for guarantees of their safety.

  155. The only way to stop rogue states disseminating nuclear material to terrorists is to do what Bush did with Pakistan after 9/11.

    i.e. Say ‘join the war on terror or we’ll scrap your nukes’.

    The Ayatollahs in Iran don’t seem as pliable as Gen. Musharref though.

  156. Toxy (or should that read “Toxic”?) said:
    October 18, 2006 7:01 AM | permalink

    “Nobody has tried to physically exterminate the Palestinian People.”

    Errmm, haven’t you forgotten the Israelis?

    No. I haven’t. We (yes, I am Israeli) have never tried to do anything like the Nazis did, there are no extermination camps, no gas chambers and no attempt to physically eradicate them as a people. The Nazis, on the other hand, attempted to wipe out every last Jew on earth. No country was willing to give refuge to the huge numbers of desperate Jewish refugees (who, BTW, did not resort to suicide bombing!)and, in the absence of a State of their own, a refuge, 6 million were slaughtered.

    So your proposition Simone is that suicide bombing is wrong because a religious text says so but dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas and schools is pretty much okay?

    You are confusing collateral damage with deliberate attempts to kill women and children. The Palestinian terrorists choose women and children as their primary targets.Furthermore, Hizbollah deliberately placed their rocket launchers and weapons stores in civilian areas, precisely to put Israel in the position of being forced to choose between risking civilian lives and leaving the Hizbollah arsenal untouched. At least the Israel Air Force dropped leaflets a sufficient time before the air-raids, warning civilians to evacuate the area, (a mistake, in my opinion, because the element of surprise was thereby lost and the Hizbollah had time to move their weapons to safety).

    Launching missiles at civilian cars from helicopters containing women and children is self evidently the action of a peaceloving and timorous nation and so much nicer than that nasty Arabian suicide bombing.

    Er – helicopters containing women and children???

    “And you certainly won’t read of Jewish terrorists going and murdering little children”

    You would in the 1930s and 40s when Irgun and the Stern gang were on the MI5 terrorist list. The IDF have also cheerfully killed nearly eight hundred Palestinian children in the occupied territories (NOT Lebanon) over the past six years. Nice going boys.

    The Irgun Zvai Leumi and Lehi certainly regarded Britain as an occupying power. They did not, however, make a practice of deliberately murdering British women and children, either in the Land of Israel, or in the UK. And while the IDF has unfortunately, killed some Palestinian children, accidentally, it was most definitely not cheerfully. BTW, do you count, amongst the “children”, Palestinian minors who were engaged in terrorist activity against Israeli soldiers and/or civilians?

    The reason there is no peace in this region is simply because hard line Zionists will not allow it.

    No, it’s because for years, the Arabs refused to negotiate. It was the Arabs who rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan, not Israel.

    a country THAT WON’T EVEN RECOGNISE IT’S OWN BORDERS! (by all means check up on this outrageous statement)

    If you mean what I think you mean, this was to give a free hand to the Israeli Government TO CEDE TERRITORY in the event of a peace treaty.

    The call to ask Hamas to recognise Israel is ludicrous in the circumstances. How can they? Isreal haven’t said where their country ends or starts. By recognising Isreal they would be giving legitimacy to the regime to annex even MORE Palestinian territory.

    Hamas has declared repeatedly that they will never recognize Israel in ANY borders. Hamas is an extremist Islamic organization which espouses the extremist Islamic doctrine by which any land that was EVER under Islamic rule (and therefore, part of “Dar el-Islam”, the Abode of Islam”) is part of the Waqf or consecrated trust of the Islamic nation and therefore cannot ever be ceded to “the Infidel”.

    Israelis are the lowest form of human life on this planet. Fortunately their days are numbered
    The best thing that could happen to this planet would be having ‘Israel’ crossed off it and ‘Palestine’ written over the top in crayon.

    And what then is to become of the 5 million Jews living here? Or do you propose to add us to the 6 million murdered by the Nazis, while the so-called “Free World” stood by? Do we not also have a right to a land of our own? Or is that a right to be enjoyed only by the Palestinians?
    Well, answer me, Toxic Waste. Let’s see you in your true colours…

  157. Simone said: No. I haven’t. We (yes, I am Israeli) have never tried to do anything like the Nazis did, there are no extermination camps, no gas chambers and no attempt to physically eradicate [Ed: comment deleted]

  158. Nice one Moses, couldn’t have put it better.

    Three cheers for all Jews who understand the difference between having a homeland and..[Ed: deleted]

    You’ve got my vote Moses.

  159. Moses Hess said:
    October 19, 2006 8:35 AM | permalink

    and if the in-bred descendants of 7th Century Khazar converts to Judaism, the Ashkenazi, don’t like it they can leave and go back to where they came from, and then do the world a favour and drop the façade of being Jews, and give Judaism back to real Jews who celebrate its morality and shun the actions and mindset of these usurpers.

    Who are “the real Jews” of whom you speak? Who are you to tell me I am a descendant of Khazars? Where does this absurd idea spring from? Are you aware that DNA studies have proved the Middle Eastern descent of Ashkenazi Jews? Do you think people who were not Jews would willingly accept the persecution that has historically been the lot of my people, by pretending to be Jews when they are not? The Khazars were a Central Asian tribe that converted to Judaism but were later overcome by the Kievan Rus and more or less disappeared. The Jews of the Holy Land were scattered all over the face of the earth, some of them ending up in Arab countries, some of them ending up in Spain (the Sephardic Jews) from whence they were scattered once again, after the Expulsion in 1492 and some of them ending up in Germany (the Ashkenazi Jews) from whence they spread also to eastern Europe.

    BTW, Moses, your intemperate and insulting language – not to mention your shameful apologia in defence of the Nazis – show you up for what you are. Despite your Jewish-sounding name, you are nothing but a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

  160. Toxy said:
    October 19, 2006 8:48 AM | permalink

    Nice one Moses, couldn’t have put it better.

    Three cheers for all Jews who understand the difference between having a homeland and rapacious, murdering Israelis who only deserve contempt and international condemnation

    You still haven’t answered me, have you?. Where is our homeland to be?

  161. Moses Hess said:
    October 19, 2006 8:35 AM | permalink

    The accounts of the visit were printed in Goebbles’ own newspaper Der Angriff under the heading of “A Nazi travels to Palestine”, and was a celebration of the closeness of the ideals of Nazism and Zionism, i.e. a total separation of the races and blind fanatical adherence to Nationalism and the horrors of feelings of racial superiority and indifference to the suffering of those viewed as
    inferior that attends these feelings of extreme Nationalism, as witnessed by the murder of Jews by Nazi’s and Arabs by Zionists. The medallion bares a Swastika on the one face and a Magen (Star of David) on the other.

    Excuse me? You are quoting GOEBBELS as a reliable source??? Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda??? The man whose declared “information” policy was, that the bigger a lie and the more often repeated, the more likely it is to be believed???!
    Why don’t you try reading Herzl instead, on the goals and ideals of modern Zionism?

  162. “Where is our homeland to be? ”

    Given your behaviour over the last 60 years, Mars would be favourite.

  163. Simone Said: Why don’t you try reading Herzl instead, on the goals and ideals of modern Zionism? – [Ed: unacceptble comments deleted]

  166. Moses Hess said:
    October 19, 2006 12:44 PM | permalink
    We’re an ancient people and this is our historical homeland. (wrong, you are a bunch of European peasants who have chosen to adopt the anachronistic beliefs and practices of some highly unsuccessful tribe of goat-herders from the Middle East who had written a stylized and fanciful history for themselves circa 700BCE to compensate for the inadequacy and to prop-up the ruling priest class).

    From your gratuitously insulting and highly inflammatory language, I deduce that you hate what you would no doubt call “the real, original Jews” as much as you hate those of us alive today. Oh, and do try to make up your mind. Are we “European peasants” or are we Turkic Khazars? You really should try to be more consistent, you know?

    The Hebrews lived on the margins of real cultures and civilizations like Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, Assyria, and Phoenicia that gave the world philosophy, science, art, education not to mention the aqueduct.

    Ah, yes, the Greeks, who conquered by force of arms, large tracts of Europe and Asia. The Romans, who followed in their footsteps and imposed their rule, again, by brute force, spreading their colonialist rule as far as Spain to the West, Britain to the north, and much of Africa. Persia, that tried, but failed, to conquer Europe (I’m sure they’ll be happy to give it another go, as soon as they get their nuclear bomb – thus to return to the original topic of this comments board). Shall I continue?
    BTW, since you omitted China, Japan, India and various other nations from your list of benefactors of the human race, are we to assume that in your opinion, nothing which they gave to the world qualifies as philosophy, science or art?

    What did the Hebrews give us, eh, Circumcision

    Well, the Ten Commandments, for a start, generally accepted as the basis for all Western systems of morality.
    Workers’ rights. Animal rights. Social welfare laws. Poetry (Have you read the Song of Songs lately?)

    doesn’t that pasty-faced gaze you see in the mirror give the game away?

    Now, now, Moses, let us not descend to personal insults. You have never met me, so you have no way of knowing what I look like. I am generally considered quite attractive and am in no way pasty-faced.

    Anti-Semitic is a label designed to scare anyone from speaking out against Zionist fascism.

    In your particular case, Moses, you have made it very clear that what you hate is Jews and Judaism. For example:
     after the complete failure for Judaism to prove its absurd claim as “G-d’s” little favourites and the smashing of the Temple Cult. – “Light unto nations” don’t make me laugh. You are nothing more than some club or at best cult that have hijacked the Judaism-brand which has made you unwelcome in your real ancestral lands.

    These are the words of one who hates Jews, pure and simple.
    Well, fortunately, now that we have our own country back,
    we don’t have to be terrified of anti-Semitic neo-Nazi thugs hell-bent on exterminating us in pogroms, gas chambers or at the stake. Because if anyone tries, this time, we’ll be fighting back.

  167. “Well, the Ten Commandments, for a start, generally accepted as the basis for all Western systems of morality.”

    Really? I always assumed it was because Jews were the only community in the world so morally bankrupt that they needed the rules written down.

  168. Toxy said:
    October 18, 2006 7:01 AM | permalink

    So your proposition Simone is that suicide bombing is wrong because a religious text says so but dropping cluster bombs on civilian areas and schools is pretty much okay?

    I don’t suppose you were referring, by any chance, to the the rockets containing cluster bombs fired by Hizbollah on Israeli cities, were you (see today’s report by Human Rights Watch)?

  169. Brian said:
    October 19, 2006 7:49 PM | permalink

    “Well, the Ten Commandments, for a start, generally accepted as the basis for all Western systems of morality.”

    Really? I always assumed it was because Jews were the only community in the world so morally bankrupt that they needed the rules written down.

    Ah, Brian, Brian, you are not making a very coherent argument, are you? You always assumed that WHAT was because the Jews were the only community so morally bankrupt that they needed the rules written down?
    Why would this cause more or less the whole civilised world to accept them as the basis for morality?
    BTW, how refreshing to meet an anti-Semite who makes no pretence of being merely anti-Zionist! You may be an unremitting bigot, but at least you’re not a hypocrite.

  170. Toxy said:
    October 19, 2006 12:03 PM | permalink

    “Where is our homeland to be? ”

    Given your behaviour over the last 60 years, Mars would be favourite.

    Oh, no, dear Toxic Waste, I’m afraid that really wouldn’t suit me at all. You see, men are from Mars, women are from Venus…

  171. Yeah and Isrealis give the impression of being from Hell; some sort of demonic storm-troopers bent on annihilating what’s left of the original inhabitants. i.e. the real children of Israel.

    Now, you raised some interesting points in self-righteous outrage.

    “there are no extermination camps, no gas chambers and no attempt to physically eradicate them as a people. The Nazis, on the other hand, attempted to wipe out every last Jew on earth.”

    So, I presume your justification for Isreal’s sub-voce ethnic cleansing is that providing it never quite reaches the excesses of the Nazis it’s legitimate? As long as you’re just under the radar with respect to concentration camps and only rub Palestinians out one at a time rather than using a Goebbels inspired production line, you’re on the right side of the international community.

    So, the bottom line is, it appears, that any attrocity committed in the name of preserving Israel is justified on the basis that “at least we aren’t as bad as the Nazis!”. Small comfort to the millions of lives your evil regime has destroyed over the past century since the inception of the Zionist experiment.

    I’m also getting tired of the ‘Anti-Semite’ epithet hurled with increasing indignation as soon as anyone has the temerity to suggest that perhaps the Israeli government is going a bit far with their latest foray into genocide. Naturally, Israelis try to keep the fact that Palestinians are ALSO semites as quiet as possible, not wishing to devalue the power of ‘Anti-Semite!’ as a rallying cry. The term has been hijacked by an egocentric (and dangerous) regime to allow themselves carte blanche in annexing anything that ever had Palestine written on it.

    Anti-Semite definition 1930: noun, Person or sub-national group antagonstic to members of the Jewish faith.

    Anti-Semite definition 1970: noun, derogatory, Person or sub-national group expressing disagreement with the policies and activities of the Israeli government but veiled with connotations of same group wishing to re-enact the worse excesses of Nazi persecution of Jewish population.

    Bollocks! If you guys start playing fair with the Palestinians, no-one (certainly not me anyway) would begrudge you your bit of ‘God-given’ real-estate in the Middle-East.

    But you don’t behave reasonably to the indigents you displaced! Regardless of your indignant rhetoric you behave like animals and no amount of denial will ever change the facts which, if people take the time and trouble, are available for all to see.

    My views really don’t matter, I’m just representative of the growing number of people who are becoming aware of your atrocities and have taken the time to examine your blood-spattered, barbarous history.

    Like slavery, the Nazis, South African apartheid etc etc etc behaviour like Israel’s, no matter how much your despicable government tries to hide it from the press and the world at large, eventually attracts the attention of a critical mass of people who will boycott your goods, stop playing sports with you and (I sincerely hope) stop supplying you with arms.

    Then perhaps you’ll start acting like decent people and try to make ammends for the rape of the descendents of your alleged ancestors.

    Your time’s coming and there is nothing you can do about it except tidy up your act and make friends with your neighbours rather than acting like an adolescent brat with more money than sense.

    Enjoy! I’d give your regime 20 years max before it falls apart and you re-integrate with the existing Palestinian population and produce a REAL democracy in the region instead of the specious and corrupt version you hold up to half-witted Americans as a shining example of freedom in the Middle-East.

    Some questions and, if you can’t answer them, don’t bother to reply.

    1) Were David Ben-Gurion and the members of the Stern Gang/Irgun considered terrorists by the UK and the US in the 1930s? If so in what way are they different from Hamas and the PLO?

    2) Is Isreal in breach of the Geneva convention in settling occupied areas of the West Bank? (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49)

    3) Has Israel recognised it’s own borders to the satisfaction of the United nations (even though they exceed the provisions of the original partition plan)?

    4) Can a Palestinian man drive his own car on a ‘settlement’ road in the West Bank, theoretically in his ‘own’ country?

    5) Is Hamas the duly elected government of the Palestinian Authority or are they a terrorist organisation?

    6) Has the IDF exterminated over 700 children in Gaza and the West Bank since 2000? Of these, how many were bearing arms of any kind?

    7) In the event that Hamas recognises Israel, would the Israeli government withdraw from the West Bank or would they claim that this recognition comprises acceptance of the territories currently administered by Israel and consequently Israel should keep the occupied territories of the West Bank? Effectively leaving the Palestinians with Gaza?

    8) Have Israeli forces destroyed some 5000 Palestinian homes since 2000 on the pretext that the home owners have terrorist affiliations? The latter occuring without any due process of findings of a court of law.

    9) Is it true that Isreal applies two separate systems of law in the same area (the West Bank) and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality and religion?

    10) Isn’t 9) exactly the same as apartheid?

    11) Isn’t it true that the Holocaust was the best thing that could possibly have happened to further the Zionist cause and has given IDF barbarians a get out of jail free card for any excess?

    The ONLY difference between you evil bastards and the Nazis is that Zionists seem to take a much longer view of things. The Nazis wanted to rub out the Jewish population in a matter of years, you lot don’t seem to mind if you exterminate or evict them over the course of a few decades. Clever. I have absolutely no doubt that, if you thought you could get away with it, Gaza and the West Bank would be depopulated at a rate which would make the Adolph Hitler weak with envy.

    You’re scum. I’ll count the seconds until some farsighted US administration recognises the true nature of your qualities and suspends military aid.

    Of course, if Israel were to change its ways and, like South Africa, reconcile with the victims of its past, it would enjoy my utter support.

    But you won’t will you.

  172. By the way, I’ve read that ad hominem abuse is frowned upon here, my name’s ‘Toxy’ not ‘Toxic Waste’.

    If you can’t be lucid at least attempt to be polite.

  173. Before you start lying about the Geneva Convention issue:

    The United Nations 1980 Security Council Resolution 465:

    “Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

    I presume your defence centres on “God says it’s all right”

  174. Or how about:

    The United Nations 1979 Security Council Resolution 446:

    “Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

  175. OR even

    B’Tselem, the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, in a document entitled “International Law,” from Land Expropriation and Settlements, states:

    “The establishment of settlements on the West Bank violates international humanitarian law, which establishes the principles applying during war and occupation. Moreover, the settlements lead to the infringement of international human rights law.

    The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying power to transfer citizens from its own territory to the occupied territory (Article 49). The Hague Regulations prohibit the occupying power to undertake permanent changes in the occupied area, unless these are due to military need in the narrow sense of the term, or unless they are undertaken for the benefit of the local population.”

    (These comments from Jews who, contrary to your opinion, attract my deepest admiration)

  176. We (yes, I am Israeli) have never tried to do anything like the Nazis did (simone)

    For what it’s worth, Simone, I, this mere Englishman – who counts many Jews among his friends – have ceased to believe in Israel. It all ended with the first bomb on Beirut airport.

    I just gave up my support for Israel completely at that point.

    My advice. Emigrate. Get out of that small sad country, as quickly as possible.

  177. I’d like to re-post something that got posted on Boris a few months ago:

      Yossie said:
      August 9, 2006 12:31 PM | permalink

      Why real Jews don’t support Israel. It is an abomination:

      FIRST – Because this is diametrically opposed and completely contradictory to the true essence and foundation of the people of Israel, as it explained above. Because the only time that the people of Israel where permitted to have a state were two thousand years ago when the Glory of the Creator was upon us. And likewise in the future when the Glory of the Creator will once more be revealed, and the whole world will serve Him. Then He Himself (without any human effort or force of arms) will grant us a kingdom founded on Divine Service.

      However, a wordily state, like those possessed by other peoples, is contradictory to the true essence of the People of Israel. Whoever calls this the salvation of Israel shows that he denies the essence of the People of Israel, and substituted another nature, a worldly materialistic nature, and therefore sets before them, a worldly materialistic “salvation.” And the means of achieving this “salvation” is also worldly and materialistic i.e. to organize land and army.

      However, the true salvation of the People of Israel is to draw close to the Creator. And this is not done by organization and force of arms. Rather, it is done by occupation to Torah and good deeds.

      SECOND – Because of all of this and other reasons Torah forbids us to end the exile and establish a state and army until the Holy One, blessed be He, in His Glory and Essence redeems us. This is forbidden even if the state is conducted according to the law of the Torah. Because arising from the exile itself is forbidden, and we are required to remain under the rule of the nations of the world, as it explained in the book VAYOEL MOSHE. And the Holy One, blessed be He, has warned us that if we transgress this injunction, He will bring upon us (may we be spared) terrible punishment.

      THIRD – Aside from arising from exile, all the deeds of the Zionists are diametrically opposed to the Faith and the Torah. Because the foundation of the Faith and Torah of Israel, is that the Torah was revealed from heaven, and there is reward for those who obey it and punishment for those who transgress it. The entire People of Israel are required to obey the Torah, and whoever doesn’t want to, ceases to be part of the Congregation of Israel.

      FOURTH – Aside from the fact that they themselves do not obey the Torah, they do everything they can to prevent anyone they get under their power, from fulfilling the commands of the Torah. They do this both with force and with trickery. Their claims to freedom of religion are lies. They fight will all of their strength to destroy the Faith of Israel.

      Yossie BZ (Jewish)
      South Africa

  178. Simone said: “From your gratuitously insulting and highly inflammatory language, I deduce that you hate what you would no doubt call “the real, original Jews” as much as you hate those of us alive today. Oh, and do try to make up your mind. Are we “European peasants” or are we Turkic Khazars? You really should try to be more consistent, you know?” – Not at all, I am completely indifferent to real Jews as I am to the French or Inuits.
    Simone then said:”Ah, yes, the Greeks, who conquered by force of arms, large tracts of Europe and Asia. The Romans, who followed in their footsteps and imposed their rule, again, by brute force, spreading their colonialist rule as far as Spain to the West, Britain to the north, and much of Africa. Persia, that tried, but failed, to conquer Europe (I’m sure they’ll be happy to give it another go, as soon as they get their nuclear bomb – thus to return to the original topic of this comments board). Shall I continue?” – Please do, you forgot to mention the culture, art, science, learning, architecture, mathematics that these peoples brought to the region where the Hebrews were sitting around chopping the ends off the penises of defenceless children (without anesthetic, which incidentally, the Egyptians had possessed for some time already). And don’t be nasty about the Persians, they were the sponsors to the Hebrews and allowed the Priestclass to return from exile where they had been exposed to education, civilization and personal hygiene for the first time, tutoring them in matters esoteric, which they totally cocked-up and misunderstood, producing some utter nonsense called Genesis and Exodus (misinterpreted and confusing allegory that became “history”), at about the same time as your ancestors were dealing with European marauders.
    BTW, since you omitted China, Japan, India and various other nations from your list of benefactors of the human race, are we to assume that in your opinion, nothing which they gave to the world qualifies as philosophy, science or art? – I was referring to the Hebrews being on the margins of real cultures, geographically, heaven forbid that in your twisted head Eretz Yisrael stretches to Japan as well!!!
    What did the Hebrews give us, eh, Circumcision
    “Well, the Ten Commandments, for a start, generally accepted as the basis for all Western systems of morality. Workers’ rights. Animal rights. Social welfare laws. Poetry (Have you read the Song of Songs lately?)”…ha ha ha the ten commandments, in the face of the prevailing science, art, learning and law of the time you want me to believe there was anything in those worth while and not already considered or in place in normal human societies. Have you heard of Buddhism? I rented the DVD of the Ten Commandments, absolutely tedious; I only watched the first five!
    Simone said: “Now, now, Moses, let us not descend to personal insults. You have never met me, so you have no way of knowing what I look like. I am generally considered quite attractive and am in no way pasty-faced.” – Perhaps to another pasty-faced Khazar that likes bed linen with strategically placed holes, but not me love.
    Furious Simone said: “These are the words of one who hates Jews, pure and simple. Well, fortunately, now that we have our own country back, we don’t have to be terrified of anti-Semitic neo-Nazi thugs hell-bent on exterminating us in pogroms, gas chambers or at the stake. Because if anyone tries, this time, we’ll be fighting back. – I think we’ve established that it’s not your country and as for jack-booted thugs carrying out all forms of murder, beatings, humiliation, deportation, don’t waste your time going to the holocaust museum watching black and white photographs and grainy newsreel. Go to Gaza and watch it in colour! Now I’m bored with you Simone, come back when you and your friends have come up with something sensible. I don’t like Zionist Jews Simone, simple, the rest I’m indifferent to.

  179. Very interesting idlex, I didn’t know that. I’ll take the liberty of adding this nugget of information to my artillery of criticism.

    So Jews who follow the Torah (strictly) don’t support Israel and it’s increasingly genocidal policies?

    Figures. No-one with any conscience possibly could.

    Sure, Simone, sure…. I’m an anti-Semite, I hate Jews, I’d like to gas the entire Jewish congregation, Have I forgotten the horrors of the Holocaust? etc etc etc.

    Same tired old record. You lot can only hide behind that sort of rubbish for so long before it wears out, maybe you’d better get it transcribed to digital. I suppose a few pogroms would be quite useful right now to freshen up the old IDF license to kill. I’m quite surprised Mossad hasn’t organised any, ‘one cow in Palestine ‘and all that. It’s only Israeli Jews that count isn’t it, so getting a couple of million rubbed out in Eastern Europe probably would bother you too much. They should have moved to Israel anyway, according to Zionist dogma, to bolster the Jewish population before the Arabs gain a majority and the whole world has to re-think the concept of democracy.

    It won’t be long before ‘anti-Semite’ gets redefined again to ‘Vehement objector to Israeli government policy and supporter of Palestinian human rights’. I’m certainly going to start using it in that context.

    Then you’ll have a problem won’t you? Much easier to shout ‘Nazi’ and ‘anti-Semite’ and have the poor schmuck asking a few pointed questions about IDF collective punishment running for cover.

    Of course it’s quite hard for Jews to be ‘anti-Semites’ without committing suicide so you’ve got a cunning little euphemism for them too; ‘self-hating Jew’ isn’t it? I suppose the guy idlex quoted (Yossie) comes under that heading and his family and pets too probably. Good job he isn’t an Israeli citizen, he’d probably get his citizenship revoked. That’s the standard government reaction to internal criticism isn’t it Simone? Any Israeli timorously suggesting that “please sir, I think the IDF may have gone a bit far on this one and can we say ‘sorry’ to the survivors?” is likely to be run out of town faster than a Democrat in Texas; sans passport and citizenship. I have references if you dispute this.

    Start packing Simone. Ask a Palestinian how it’s done; they became pretty expert at this back in 1948 and have been obliged to recap this knowledge periodically ever since.

    20 years, Simone, 20 years max.

  180. Oops typo
    “…”so getting a couple of million rubbed out in Eastern Europe probably would bother you too much…”

    should read:

    “…so getting a couple of million rubbed out in Eastern Europe probably wouldn’t bother you too much…”

    sorry, I was in a hurry.

  181. From CNN “WASHINGTON (CNN) — The State Department has complained to the Israeli government about its discriminatory treatment of Arab-Americans traveling to the Palestinian territories, senior State Department officials said Thursday.

    Officials said that despite a longstanding policy of issuing visas to Americans traveling to the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli government has recently denied Palestinian-Americans and certain other Americans entry.

    During her recent trip to Israel, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the issue with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and U.S. diplomats have also recently complained to the Israeli Embassy in Washington, officials said.

    “They are being treated as Arabs and not Americans,” one senior official said. “They basically treat them as second-class citizens.”

    In a speech October 11 before the American Task Force on Palestine, Rice acknowledged “continuing problems of security” faced by Palestinian-Americans living and working in Gaza and the West Bank and pledged “to ensure that all American travelers receive fair and equal treatment.”

    David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, told CNN in a phone interview, “We are aware of the issue and it is being treated at senior levels, but we are waiting for more details from the administration on specific cases they have raised.”

    The Arab American Institute issued a statement Thursday thanking Rice for her efforts to defend the rights of Palestinian-Americans.

    “Arab-Americans have been regularly traveling to their ancestral homelands for generations and they have a significant role to play in the reconstruction of the economic and social life in the Occupied Territories,” Arab American Institute President James Zogby wrote. “It is important that their right and ability to continue to do so be reaffirmed.” – Simone, now now, don’t annoy the Americans it will only take a bi-Partisan agreement or another Eisenhower to remove the power of AIPAC and the Zionist Lobby and then you’ll really up the Euphrates without a paddle!

  182. Toxy said:
    October 19, 2006 11:57 PM | permalink

    By the way, I’ve read that ad hominem abuse is frowned upon here, my name’s ‘Toxy’ not ‘Toxic Waste’

    You are right. I beg your pardon. I got carried away after reading your comments advocating genocide.
    I quote:
    Israelis are the lowest form of human life on this planet. Fortunately their days are numbered

    The best thing that could happen to this planet would be having ‘Israel’ crossed off it and ‘Palestine’ written over the top in crayon.

    I will try to amend my ways in future and remember that I am a lady, no matter how great the provocation.

  183. “…after reading your comments advocating genocide…”

    Where are these comments? My view is that Israelis will, in the fullness of time, and when they stop behaving like the Nazis you use to justify every IDF murder, become Palestinians. Thus becoming one big ‘happy’ family and the point at which I will have no further cause for complaint.

    I understood you are a barrister. Aren’t you obliged to understand some Latin? Any rudeness in my rhetoric is generic to supporters of the Israeli government (and other such scum) as a group. There is nothing personal about it. Were you to withdraw your support from this ignominious regime I would withdraw all such comments insofar as they relate to you. How could I do otherwise?

    I challenge you again. Where do I advocate genocide? This is just a typical Israeli reaction to criticism by blowing any comments totally out of proportion so they can dive back behind the philosophical safety of the Holocaust and escape any contemporary condemnation.

    I’m not a supporter of murder in any form. This is one of the main reasons I find the Israeli government so incontravertibly detestable.

    And, by the way, I see that you’ve completely failed to answer any of the questions I put to you here

  184. Simone, this is a word of geniune and concerned advice. Please stop equating criticism of the Israeli government with an imminent genocidal attack on Jewish Israelis.

    When I tell one of my sons to, for example, “tidy his room!” with a hint of censure. He doesn’t infer that I am about to launch into a homicidal attack on him (and any of his friends unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire).

    Isn’t this habit indicative of some type of psychosis?

  185. “Blessed are the people of Jerusalem, except when they are nasty to Arabs.”

    “Did you hear that Brian?!?”

    “Hear what, Reg?”

    “That bloke just said he was going to launch an intercontinental balistic missile at Tel Aviv!”

    “I thought he just said we ought to be nice to the Arab population Reg.”

    “Oh sure! Yeah, that what they want you to believe, Brian, but it’s just a thinly disguised gentile plot to wipe out the remains of a once great people. Typical that is!”

    “But Reg, he’s the head of the UN”

    “Come off it Brian, that may weigh up in your nice comfy little life but, in the real world, you know I’m right! They’re always trying to wipe out the Jews under one pretext or another. I mean, all we have to do is massacre just ONE little Arab town and the whole world’s building gas chambers again! Tuh, I ask you!

    “Anyway, come on Brian, I’m bored here. Lets go and wind up some Palestinians at an IDF roadblock so they get shot.”

    And so on throughout the rest of history.

  186. Very amusing and depressingly realistic Brian.

    Are you an Israeli too? Honestly, I have no gripe with Israelis who decry their government’s actions, only those who support, inter alia, wholesale murder, land grabbing and oppression.

  187. orth Korea’s nuclear test last week has highlighted the lack of options available to democratic states in managing rogue states. The failure of the international community to prevent nuclear proliferation, both in the Indian sub-continent and now North Korea, means that the potential for other states to develop their own weapons has increased. Iran may be next, but the march of nuclear power is likely to be stalled rather than halted.

    The prospect of long-range nuclear weapons in the hands of the mad man, Kim Jong Il, is bad enough, but the idea that a fundamentalist islamic regime gains nuclear capabilities raises a whole host of other issues.

    In the Cold War world there was a balance of power between the two rival superpowers. Mutually assured distruction worked as a doctrine between the US and the USSR because of the rationality of the actors. Game theory was the planet’s true saviour.

    Dealing with mad men is an entirely different proposotion and while we can dress it up as religion, it is really a misplaced view of what’s rational. Let us assume for a moment that Pakistan removes Musharraf as President and that a religious government is installed in his place. What would prevent them from launching a nuclear strike against the US or the UK, particularly if they felt their interests were being threatened in Afghanistan.

    Cold war theory would suggest that mutually assured destruction will prevail and that a rational Pakistan would not launch strikes. However, let us take a different perspective, one in which this life is not the end, but the beginning. A rabidly islamic state might decide that Jannah is preferable to this life. If they further believe that defense of the Islamic way of life is dependent upon attacking the west (witness 9/11) then a nuclear bomb will only hasten their entry into paradise. If you are a true believer, then this is certainly not mutually assured destruction.

    Sam Harris in his excellent book “The End of Faith” states:

    “In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime – as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day – but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception fould plunge us into a state of hot war of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population would be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen. Indeed, given the immunity to all reasonable intrusions that faith enjoys in our discourse, a catastrophe of this sort seems increasingly likely.”

  188. …on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns.

    Are the rest of us any less crazy? The American neocons who started these crazy wars are delusional. Bush is crazy. So is Blair. Hitler was delusional. The Soviet Union was utopian madness. China’s Mao was crazy. You don’t have to be religious to have crazy ideas, although it probably helps.

    I think most of the ideas which we hold to be rational, sensible, balanced, etc, are quite likely seen by others as crazed religious dogmas. And they may actually be exactly that.

  189. In order of plausibility (most to least)

    Buddha
    Santa Claus
    Robin Hood
    Jesus
    Theories of David Icke
    US Neo-Conservative foreign policy
    The tooth fairy
    Neo-Darwinistic evolution
    Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs during 2nd gulf war
    Allah (may his name be blessed)
    G-d (Judaic)
    God (Christian)
    The resurrection
    Israeli commitment to peace process/road map
    David Cameron

  190. “Are the rest of us any less crazy?”

    Yes, some of us (individuals) are but, if you’re talking governments, probably not.

    Spiritual religion, in any form, is just a hypothesis attempting to describe the underlying nature of the universe. Strictly speaking, no better or worse than, say… physics.

    The only difference between predictions based on ‘religious’ theorems and ‘scientific’ postulates is that those made on the basis of scientific theories tend to be more reliable and reproducible. That still doesn’t make them right!

    One of the things I find most ‘weird’ about scientific theories is that researchers stick with them even when they know they’re wrong. And that, in order to replace a ‘null-hypothesis’ one must replace it with another theory, rather than simply saying “this one doesn’t work and I have no clue as to what would work better”. Surely that’s like saying “I know this is the wrong way to go home but, in the absence of any other ideas I’ll carry on walking this way.” Wouldn’t a sensible person try to find a map, ask directions or, at least, not make the situation worse by continuing to walk in the wrong direction?

    Theologians don’t tend to have that latter problem. If a theory about God etc becomes untenable, they just make up a new one (cite 144,000 places in Heaven for Jehovah’s witnesses)

    Does that make them any less or more mad than a political theorist who does, effectively, much the same thing? Good question. My view is that anyone who pursues a theory known to be dodgy in a lot of areas is probably not playing with a full deck. Unfortunately that knocks out quite a lot of the scientific community in the fields of theoretical physics and biologists supporting the current theory of evolution.

    So, in my opinion, ‘madness’, deriving from agreed null-hypotheses abounds all over the place and is not, contrary to common opinion, limited to rabid Islamic fundamentalists.

    However, it’s important to consider ‘dangerous madness’ and ‘safe madness’. I take the view that a person should be able to practice whatever dotty belief system they want providing it doesn’t materially spill over to affect others. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism etc etc etc: believe whatever you want, it’s a fundamental human rite (sic). I consider this ‘safe madness’ like my belief that Manchester City may one day win the treble; it doesn’t affect anyone else in any detrimental way.

    “Dangerous madness”, however, is where a belief system lends itself to causes which will have a direct and detrimental effect on others. Islamic martyrdom (suicide bombing) is an example of this but then, in my (humble) opinion, so is US Neo-con policy. Naturally I would also include Israeli governmental policy in my list of ‘dangerous government lunacy’.

    Surely it’s a better principle to dispense with all these demonstrably dangerous theorems and stick to those we know work like, for example, being ‘nice’ to each other.

    Not 21st century enough though these days is it?

  191. “Anti-Semitism is so instinctive that it may quite simply be called one of the primal instincts of mankind, one of the important instincts by which the race helps to preserve itself against total destruction. I cannot emphasize the matter too strongly. Anti-Semitism is not, as Jews have tried to make the world believe, an active prejudice. It is a deeply hidden instinct with which every man is born. He remains unconscious of it, as of all other instincts of self preservation, until something happens to awaken it. Just as when something flies in the direction of your eyes, the eyelids close instantly and of their own accord. So swiftly and surely is the instinct of anti-Semitism awakened in a man…there is not a single instance when the Jews have not fully deserved the bitter fury of their persecutors.” (Samuel Roth (Jewish), Jews Must Live, (1934), p. 64)

  192. “The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.”

    ~ Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, La Revue de Paris

  193. “The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

  194. Moses Hess said:
    October 20, 2006 7:26 AM | permalink
    Simone said: “Now, now, Moses, let us not descend to personal insults. You have never met me, so you have no way of knowing what I look like. I am generally considered quite attractive and am in no way pasty-faced.” – Perhaps to another pasty-faced Khazar that likes bed linen with strategically placed holes, but not me love.

    You are descending to the level of personal insults again, which is almost invariably the last resort of those who know their argument to be weak. Furthermore, I’m afraid you’ve lost me with the reference to bed-linen with strategically placed holes. Would you care to elucidate?

    As for your last three posts – why don’t you add the notorious Tsarist forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as well?
    And you claim to hate only “Zionists” and to be indifferent to other Jews? Every word you write drips with ANTI-JEWISH venom. Please don’t try to insult my intelligence – or the intelligence of anyone else reading this message board.

  195. Brian said:
    October 19, 2006 12:51 PM | permalink

    “Zionists Eunt Domus”

    Domi sumus. Domus nostra in Sion est. Quoque non placet, in malam rem abeat.

  196. Toxy said:

    I’m also getting tired of the ‘Anti-Semite’ epithet hurled with increasing indignation as soon as anyone has the temerity to suggest that perhaps the Israeli government is going a bit far with their latest foray into genocide. Naturally, Israelis try to keep the fact that Palestinians are ALSO semites as quiet as possible, not wishing to devalue the power of ‘Anti-Semite!’ as a rallying cry. The term has been hijacked by an egocentric (and dangerous) regime to allow themselves carte blanche in annexing anything that ever had Palestine written on it.

    Please explain to me how we can possibly “keep quiet” a fact that anybody can look up in a dictionary or an encyclopaedia. However, perhaps you should do a little more research on the meaning of the word “antisemitism”. Because, while it is true that Arabs are also Semites, the term, since coined in the 19th century, has been used almost exclusively to refer to hatred of Jews.

    The German political agitator Wilhelm Marr, who also founded the “League of Anti-Semites” (“Antisemiten-Liga”), the first German organization committed specifically to combatting the alleged threat to Germany posed by the Jews, and advocating their forced removal from the country,
    coined the word

    antisemitismus

    in his book “The Way to Victory of Germanicism over Judaism” in 1879. He used the phrase to mean Jew-hatred or

    Judenhass

    and he used the new word antisemitism to make hatred of the Jews seem rational and sanctioned by scientific knowledge, as did the Nazis, in the 20th century.

  197. To those of you who have compared Israel to the apartheid state of South Africa, I would like to point out that Israeli Arabs (who, by your definition, are undoubtedly Palestinians) have full civic and civil rights, take part in elections to the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament), there are Arab Knesset Members, Arab judges – including a Supreme Court Judge – and that the Arab Knesset members, in common with all other Knesset Members, enjoy an almost absolute Parliamentary immunity which several of them have frequently abused by meeting with Arab terrorist leaders, in violation of Israeli law and by making public statements in support of terrorist acts against the State of Israel (to which, as Knesset members, they have sworn allegiance) which, without the said parliamentary immunity, would have landed them in the dock. Stripping them of such Parliamentary immunity to stand trial for what, in many cases, borders on TREASON, has almost always proved impossible, requiring, as it does, the support of the Knesset. The Knesset, comprised of our “evil, fascist,murderous” leaders, have almost always foiled any such attempt. That is because, despite all your vicious lies, Israel is a vibrant democracy. Something which, I fear, cannot be said of any other state in the Middle East.

  198. Oh, and now I come to think of it, there are also Arab Israeli diplomats in the Israeli Foreign Service, we have been represented in the Eurovision Song Contest by an Arab Israeli singer and there has even been an Arab Israeli Miss Israel.

  199. Moses Hess said:
    October 21, 2006 10:01 AM | permalink

    “The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

    You did notice the date of this speech, didn’t you, Moses. 1934.
    By 1933, Hitler, whose book “Mein Kampf” had been published in two volumes in 1925 and 1926, had been swept to power by a massive majority. Hitler had made clear what was to be the fate of the Jews long before the enactment of the Nuremberg Laws, and when such an overwhelming majority of the German electorate apparently agreed with him, it’s hardly surprising that a man of vision, such as Jabotinsky, would call for the destruction of a country whose apparent aim was the destruction of the Jews.

  200. You still haven’t answered any of my questions Simone, running scared?

    I won’t even bother to comment on your rubbish about Arab equality in Israel and the examples you cited are similar to the window dressing attempted by South Africa prior to the collapse of the white supremacist regime there. I’m not particularly interested (yet) in what you do within your own borders; it’s the occupied territories where your abominable two tier system becomes clearly visible.

    Oh, by the way, here’s an interesting little snippet I came across today.

    “2001 It is discovered that US drug agent’s communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.”

  201. Toxi said:
    Is Hamas the duly elected government of the Palestinian Authority or are they a terrorist organisation?

    Both. And don’t forget that before the last elections to the Palestinian Authority, when Israeli right-wing politicians called on the Israeli government to prevent the participation of Hamas in the elections, the government, being committed to democracy on the West Bank and to letting the Palestinians choose their own leaders, refused to prevent participation by Hamas.

    In the event that Hamas recognises Israel, would the Israeli government withdraw from the West Bank or would they claim that this recognition comprises acceptance of the territories currently administered by Israel and consequently Israel should keep the occupied territories of the West Bank? Effectively leaving the Palestinians with Gaza?

    Israel already indicated a willingness to withdraw from the West Bank within the context of a peace treaty.
    But since, as recently as YESTERDAY, Hamas leaders stated that they would NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, recognize the Jewish State of Israel, the question is purely academic, isn’t it?
    Oh, and Toxy, while you are going on and on about the UN resolutions which Israel has supposedly violated, you might try to remember the UN Partition Resolution of November 29th, 1947 – which the Arabs violated. If they hadn’t done so, there would have been a Palestinian State in 1948 already.

  202. Toxy!

    So you are now subscribing to the conspiracy theory that the Jews were behind the 9/11 bombings?
    I am not sure whether you are evil or merely sick. Which is it?

  203. “UN Partition Resolution of November 29th, 1947”

    Resolution 181 (November 29th, 1947) was vitiated by the security council as being unenforceable and unfair to Arabs. In other words Israel was stolen from the Paelestinians without any UN consent by armed invaders. Hardly suprising they were somewhat annoyed in the circumstances. Of course Israel does its best to keep the latter gem of information under wraps.

    Oh and insofar as you rely on the provisions of resolution 181, just check on the number of people who voted as a result of bribery and intimidation. It was, naturally, rejected by all countries who would have been directly affected. i.e. the whole of the Middle-East.

    By all means check up on this.

    I’ve no doubt you’ll now raise the matter of the ‘Balfour decalaration’. Sorry to burst your bubble but this document is valueless. Britain had no mandate, at the time, to make any recommendation regarding the disposal of Palestine.

    In 1948 there was already a Palestinian state, there just wasn’t a Palestinian government. A fact you’ve exploited ever since.

    Still not impressed Simone, think of some better arguments; these are impotent. I’m not impressed by “God gave it to us” either.

  204. Toxy!
    Are you ready to stake the credibility of ALL your claims on the veracity of your claim that Israel was behind 9/11?

  206. “I am not sure whether you are evil or merely sick. Which is it?”

    I’m just posting information I’ve read on the net. I have no view on the matter either way, others are welcome to draw conclusions if they feel they have all the facts at their disposal. I certainly don’t. I simply consider the article indicative that my deep distrust of the Israeli administration is shared by others including, it would appear, Fox News.

    Your question as to whether I am “evil or sick” is simply a trick of sophistry you’ve obviously picked up at the bar. Ad hominem remember, or should I make allowances for arrogant Israelis?

  207. “Are you ready to stake the credibility of ALL your claims on the veracity of your claim that Israel was behind 9/11?
    ”
    I’m placing none of them on this matter. Try answering the questions I put to and stop resorting to trying to change the subject.

    This is becoming ridiculous.

  208. As for Toxy’s so-called “evidence” of Israeli involvement in 9/11, I really must ask the following:

    Who “revealed” them to be Mossad? Was it proven in a court of law? Is there proof that the person who “revealed” it is honest? Who are the witnesses who “tracked” them? Why is being in Liberty Park proof of involvement? Were all people in Liberty Park guilty? Where is the proof that the company was a cover for the Mossad? What was the “advance warning” that the Israeli company received?
    In fact,your entire so-called “proof” is a series of speculative claims, which, even if true (and where’s the proof that they are?) don’t add up to a hill of beans.

  209. “Toxy, I have never used the argument “God gave it to us.””

    I didn’t say you had, I said I am not impressed by this argument not that you were the person who had presented it. It is simply an argument which has been used in the past to justify Israeli jack-booting opression of Palestine.

  210. “s for Toxy’s so-called “evidence” of Israeli involvement in 9/11, I really must ask the following:”

    I didn’t call it evidence I said it was an interesting snippet of information. You will note I made no comment wither way as to it’s veracity or accuracy.

    Please get back to the point and answer the questions I put to you or go away.

  211. Toxy said:
    October 21, 2006 1:22 PM | permalink

    “Are you ready to stake the credibility of ALL your claims on the veracity of your claim that Israel was behind 9/11?
    ”
    I’m placing none of them on this matter. Try answering the questions I put to and stop resorting to trying to change the subject.

    Toxy dear, you are the one who brought up the subject of 9/11, and not I. Now you have realised how ridiculous it has made you appear and are running away.

    Now, I have to go and have lunch. I suggest you go and lie down, maybe have a nice cup of tea, and try to rest your fevered brain. Failing that -try getting some professional help. You are becoming delusional.

  212. I work for Fox, I knew about the program that was to be aired and was then pulled about Israeli involvement in 9/11. It was also known at the top of the neo-con chain of command. America needs to wake up.

  213. “Failing that -try getting some professional help. You are becoming delusional.”

    More ad hominem, clearly a sign of a weakening argument.

    To summarise:

    I put the following questions to Simone and she has done her best to ignore them and divert attention to other matters.

    “1) Were David Ben-Gurion and the members of the Stern Gang/Irgun considered terrorists by the UK and the US in the 1930s? If so in what way are they different from Hamas and the PLO?

    2) Is Isreal in breach of the Geneva convention in settling occupied areas of the West Bank? (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49)

    3) Has Israel recognised it’s own borders to the satisfaction of the United nations (even though they exceed the provisions of the original partition plan)?

    4) Can a Palestinian man drive his own car on a ‘settlement’ road in the West Bank, theoretically in his ‘own’ country?

    5) Is Hamas the duly elected government of the Palestinian Authority or are they a terrorist organisation?

    6) Has the IDF exterminated over 700 children in Gaza and the West Bank since 2000? Of these, how many were bearing arms of any kind?

    7) In the event that Hamas recognises Israel, would the Israeli government withdraw from the West Bank or would they claim that this recognition comprises acceptance of the territories currently administered by Israel and consequently Israel should keep the occupied territories of the West Bank? Effectively leaving the Palestinians with Gaza?

    8) Have Israeli forces destroyed some 5000 Palestinian homes since 2000 on the pretext that the home owners have terrorist affiliations? The latter occuring without any due process of findings of a court of law.

    9) Is it true that Isreal applies two separate systems of law in the same area (the West Bank) and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality and religion?

    10) Isn’t 9) exactly the same as apartheid?

    11) Isn’t it true that the Holocaust was the best thing that could possibly have happened to further the Zionist cause and has given IDF barbarians a get out of jail free card for any excess?

    The ONLY difference between you evil bastards and the Nazis is that Zionists seem to take a much longer view of things. The Nazis wanted to rub out the Jewish population in a matter of years, you lot don’t seem to mind if you exterminate or evict them over the course of a few decades. Clever. I have absolutely no doubt that, if you thought you could get away with it, Gaza and the West Bank would be depopulated at a rate which would make the Adolph Hitler weak with envy.”

    She has claimed that resolution 181 would have furnished the Palestinians with their own state back in 1948 but has neglected to inform us that resolution 181 was, in fact, never ratified by the UN because it was vitiated by the UN security council. this did not prevent the original Zionist regime from claiming the land anyway and almost immediately expanding the territory by force of arms.

    Israel controls the occupied territories of the West Bank and has Gaza in a strangle hold preventing medical aid, water and food from entering the region as they see fit.

    As to the West Bank, Israel has implemented settlements which are in clear violation of the Geneva convention and have chosen to ignore all resolutions of the UN pertaining to this matter. They operate a two tier system where Palestinians are treated more or less like cattle. the system is virtually identical to South African ‘Bantustans’ so vilified by the rest of the world.

    This is an evil regime bent of the obliteration of the Palestinian population they encountered in 1948 and little, if any, better than the Nazi regime they use to counter any criticism of their actions in the 21st century.

    I hope anyone reading this will boycott Israeli products and support sanctions against this dreadful regime in the hope that they will mend their ways and treat the people of Palestine with compassion and dignity.

    The prosecution rests.

  214. Simone’s tactic will now, I have no doubt, be to paste as much irrelevant tripe below this latter argument such that it becomes lost in the nonsense and midrash.

    By doing so she will confirm the nature of Israel. As a spent regime needing to resort to spin, bribery and intimidation of world leaders to continue its rapacious destruction of what was, 60 years ago, Palestine.

    May God have mercy on their souls.

    I certainly won’t.

  215. >>”Are you ready to stake the credibility of ALL your claims on the veracity of your claim that Israel was behind 9/11?
    ”
    I’m placing none of them on this matter. Try answering the questions I put to and stop resorting to trying to change the subject.

    This is becoming ridiculous.<< Simone's question remains a valid one. If you introduce a claim into a discussion you are, by implication, either endorsing it or seeking to challenge it. If you introduce the claim that Israel was behind 9-11 without yourself challenging it, then you are endorsing it? If you are endorsing it, then we can use is as a measure of your veracity in general. To put it in other words: are you being as truthful when you suggest that Israel is responsible for 9-11 as when you suggest other things?

  216. Toxy, funny how the reinforcements are arriving to focus in on this point and not the others you raised. Interesting ah? We all need to see what’s going on in the United States.

  217. I must confess I do find it strange.

    It was also odd when I felt (uncharacteristically) compelled to cut and paste that article from an e-mail I received this morning; against my better judgment I might add, knowing that Simone would almost certainly fixate on this matter and thus draw attention away from the issues I wished her to consider or, preferably, admit to be true.

    Perhaps strange forces are at work!

    Thank you for your corroboration.

  218. “To put it in other words: are you being as truthful when you suggest that Israel is responsible for 9-11 as when you suggest other things?”

    I completely fail to see how one matter can influence the others.

    I have completely qualified my introduction of this information and your protestations are lending it far more credibility than it would seem to deserve at face value.

  219. “To put it in other words: are you being as truthful when you suggest that Israel is responsible for 9-11 as when you suggest other things?”

    For the record I haven’t suggested that the article I posted has any truth in it whatsoever. I used it as an illustration that the Israeli government inspires deep distrust even among it’s friends allies and supported such as the United States.

    The only thing that makes me think it has a grain of truth in it is the incoming attack of what appears to be the cyber-Mossad.

    However, let’s, for arguments sake, say it’s not true. How would that influence any other statement I have made? Or, were we in a court of law and I had charged someone with eight offences, would their acquital on one charge make them less liable for the seven of which they have been found guilty?

    How about the USS Liberty? perhaps you’d like to comment on Israeli involvement in that debacle.

    If you were to ask me at a personal level whether I believe this allegation to be true I would have to say that I wouldn’t put it past the Israeli government to be involved in this and would be utterly unsurprised to discover it to be true.

    Whether it is or not is for others to determine. I am only interested in the freedom of Palestine.

  220. >>I put the following questions to Simone and she has done her best to ignore them and divert attention to other matters.<< I will answer them! >>) Were David Ben-Gurion and the members of the Stern Gang/Irgun considered terrorists by the UK and the US in the 1930s?<< The members of Lehi (what you call the Stern Gang) and Etzel (what you call the Irgun) were considered terrorists by the British authorities. Ben Gurion was probably not (although it varied from Briton to Briton and official to official). I can't speak for the Americans, but they were mostly supportive of Ben Gurion and the Hagannah. Some right-wingers were sympathetic to Etzel. >>If so in what way are they different from Hamas and the PLO?<< I don't understand. Are you saying that the definition of a terrorist is one whom the British or Americans think is one. Did Ben Gurion send gunmen to shoot random passengers at European airports as the PLO did? Did Etzel hire Japanese sub-contractor terrorists to murder 27 Pueto Rican Pilgrims - as the PLO did? Did Ben Gurion send suicide bombers to blow up a resturant just when the Israelis and Palestinian leaders had signed a peace agreement and were trying to put that sort of thing in the past (as Hamas did)? >>2) Is Isreal in breach of the Geneva convention in settling occupied areas of the West Bank? (Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49)<< It's questionable who the West Bank belongs to. It was earmarked to form part of the Palestinian State. But it was occupied by the Jordanians in 1948 and annexed by them in 1950. They claim this was with the consent of the Palestinians in the Jericho Conference of December 1948. But the Jordanians accepted the Rabat Summit decision of 1974 that appointed the PLO the "sole levgitimate representative of the Palsetinian people." But the last Palestinian election was won by Hamas. Add to this confusion the fact that the Jordanians had used the West Bank as a springboard for shelling Israel in 1967 - opening the fighting on that front. They had been urged to do so by mass demonstrations of the West Bank residents. Israel responded by occupying the territory that the Jordanians were using as the springboard for their aggression - i.e. the West Bank. The settlements only began after 1973. (Personally I am against the settlements. But saying it is against the Geneva Conventions is open to dispute.) >>3) Has Israel recognised it’s own borders to the satisfaction of the United nations (even though they exceed the provisions of the original partition plan)?<< I don't understand the question. Israel applied Israeli law initially to the Armistice boundaries of 1949. After the liberation of the eastern parts of Jerusalem they extended Israeli sovereingty to that area. I believe they later applied Israeli law to the Golan Heights (as a means of putting pressure on the intransigent Syrians). Israeli law follows Israelis into the territories, but Arabs in the West Bank were subject to Jordanian law - as Jordan was the previous possessor. Israel's boundaries will be finalized when there is peace. As long as the Arabs harbour dreams of destroying Israel, this is a long way away. >>4) Can a Palestinian man drive his own car on a ‘settlement’ road in the West Bank, theoretically in his ‘own’ country?<< No, for security reasons. Hopefull one day there will be peace, the Palestinian will recognize the rights to their state and he will be able to do so. Better still (my personal preference) the settlements will be withdrawn. >>5) Is Hamas the duly elected government of the Palestinian Authority or are they a terrorist organisation?<< They are both. In the same way that the National Socialist Workers party was the democratically elected government of Germany. Being elected doesn't mean that they are not terrorists. >>6) Has the IDF exterminated over 700 children in Gaza and the West Bank since 2000? Of these, how many were bearing arms of any kind?<< Define Children. The UN definition is anyone under 21. Is it the UN definition that you are using? I don't know how many were bearing arms? How many of the people blown up in suicide bombings since 2000 were bearing arms? >>7) In the event that Hamas recognises Israel, would the Israeli government withdraw from the West Bank or would they claim that this recognition comprises acceptance of the territories currently administered by Israel and consequently Israel should keep the occupied territories of the West Bank? Effectively leaving the Palestinians with Gaza?<< The present Israeli government probably wants to hang on to parts of the West Bank. There were previous Israeli governments that were ready to give up more, but past activities of Hamas - and even the intrasigence of Yasser Arafat and the PLO - have consigned those Israeli governments to the past. Some of the people who were in those governments have also become hardened because of the acts of Hamas and the PLO. Hopefully, a moderate government will be able to get back into power in Israel - and hopefully the Palestinians won't blow it next time! >>8) Have Israeli forces destroyed some 5000 Palestinian homes since 2000 on the pretext that the home owners have terrorist affiliations? The latter occuring without any due process of findings of a court of law.<< Yes - a valid criticism. No defence. Yet another symptom of the steady hardening of Israeli attitudes over the years... and even the decades. But remember that there are also many moderates in Israel who oppose these policies. Is there similar dissent amongst Palestinians in the face of PLO or Hamas extremism? >>9) Is it true that Isreal applies two separate systems of law in the same area (the West Bank) and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality and religion?<< Yes, see above. >>10) Isn’t 9) exactly the same as apartheid?<< No. It stems from the damned if they do and damned if they don't scenario. If they apply Israeli law to Arabs in the West Bank, it would denounced as permanent annexation. If they apply Jordanian law to Jews they'd be applying Jordanian law to people who have never had a say in the making of that law - this would not be acceptable to them. So they split the difference. It's an awkward compromise, but hardly apartheid. Israel is not responsible for Jordanian law. But Israel did make one modification, when they allowed West Bank women to vote in the 1974 Municipal elections in the West Bank. They were condemned for this, but the Jordanians gave women the vote a year later! Who says nothing good came of the Israeli occupation! >>11) Isn’t it true that the Holocaust was the best thing that could possibly have happened to further the Zionist cause<< The Zionist cause was a response to earlier antisemitism - of which the holocaust was the culmination. The Jews still have not made up the numbers lost in the holocaust - and also many Jews have drifted away from their faith because of the holocaust. (Although some have gone the other way admittedly.) Your argument is a bit like saying that policemen benefit from crime because it keeps them employed. >> and has given IDF barbarians a get out of jail free card for any excess?<< I agree that pro-Israelis have used the holocaust as an excuse a little too freely and it is starting to wear thin. It has also led to some holocaust-denying myths, so it may well prove to be counter-productive. Speaking for myself, I would never use the holocaust as an excuse. An action is either right or wrong. >>The ONLY difference between you evil bastards and the Nazis is that Zionists seem to take a much longer view of things. The Nazis wanted to rub out the Jewish population in a matter of years, you lot don’t seem to mind if you exterminate or evict them over the course of a few decades.<< I'll ignore the intemperate language. As to the point itself. I see no evidence to support it. The Palestinian population is growing. Improved Israeli medicine has reduced infant mortality in the Gaza Strip - or at leasrt it did while the Israelis were there. Infant mortality under Egyptian occupation of Gaza was appaling. If the Israelis wanted to get rid of the Palestinians, why give them improved medicine? Also let's not forget that the Israelis offered to give Gaza back to Egypt. They just wanted to get it off their hands. But the wily Sadat was smart enough not to want that hot potato. Again, that doesn't sound like they want to keep the territory while getting rid of the Arabs. >>She has claimed that resolution 181 would have furnished the Palestinians with their own state back in 1948 but has neglected to inform us that resolution 181 was, in fact, never ratified by the UN because it was vitiated by the UN security council.<< I don't know what you mean by this. The resolution was passed by the General Assembly and is a valid UN resolution. The Arab Higher Executive (which represented the Palestinian Arabs) and the Arab League (the collective voice of the Arab states) rejected the plan because they refused to accept a Jewish state in any part of the land. >> this did not prevent the original Zionist regime from claiming the land anyway and almost immediately expanding the territory by force of arms.<< The armies of the neighbouring states invaded before the British had even withdrawn. Britain even handed over startegically advantageous positions to the Arab Legion - in breach of the partition resolution. The Israelis had no alternative but to fight to defend themselves. And in some cases, self-defence means taking the fight to the enemy. >>Israel controls the occupied territories of the West Bank and has Gaza in a strangle hold preventing medical aid, water and food from entering the region as they see fit.<< At times they have created siege situations. But then again the Palestinians were quite happy to strangle the Jewish state at birth. They failed and having been paying the price for this ever since. >>As to the West Bank, Israel has implemented settlements which are in clear violation of the Geneva convention<< See above. >>and have chosen to ignore all resolutions of the UN pertaining to this matter.<< How many of the UN members have democratically elected governments? Why should Israel defer to them? >>They operate a two tier system where Palestinians are treated more or less like cattle.<< Giving them the vote in municipal elections? Giving them modern Israeli medicine? Allowing them to pettion the Israeli courts? And how many cattle become suicide bombers? >> the system is virtually identical to South African ‘Bantustans’ so vilified by the rest of the world.<< The only way they could give them full rights WITHIN Israel would be to ANNEX the West Bank. And the world would then condemn them for that! >>I hope anyone reading this will boycott Israeli products and support sanctions against this dreadful regime in the hope that they will mend their ways and treat the people of Palestine with compassion and dignity.<< The best way to get Israel to change is to (a) engage with Israeli moderates (b) persuade the Palestinians to change - i.e. recognize Israel's right to exist, and (c) stop creating the siege mentality that only hardens the Israeli mentality. If you want to boycott Israel, you will have to boycott many pharmaceutical products. Do you want African farmers to refuse Israeli agricultural and aid and agronomical technology? Do you want to boycott Israeli contributions to science, the arts, culture, etc. It was the siege mentality that created this mess in the first place. The defence rests

  221. “if you want to boycott Israel, you will have to boycott many pharmaceutical products. Do you want African farmers to refuse Israeli agricultural and aid and agronomical technology? Do you want to boycott Israeli contributions to science, the arts, culture, etc.” David Kessler

    There are alternatives fortunately.

    You answered some of my questions except those you claim you didn’t understand.

    Let me summarise:

    1) Yes (they were terrorists), and they are no different to the PLO. I note you omitted to mention that Hamas cannot be terrorists because, under the terms of the terminology of the US state department only sub-national groups qualify for the epithet ‘terrorist’. I think this comfortably gives the moral high ground to Hamas, as opposed to the ‘creators of Israel’ because they remained unelected at the time of their dissent.

    2) In other words, yes, you are in breach of the Geneva convention.

    3) You don’t understand this question. I recommend you investigate the matter more thoroughly. You will find I am correct in my assertion.

    4) No ‘for security reasons’. South Africa used much the same reasoning.

    5) They cannot be both (terrorists and an elected government), but if they are then so is the Israeli government and probably the US and Great Britain . I presume you rely on the argument that you (Israel) are ‘more worthy’ terrorists.

    6) I will take this as agreement, When someone resorts to arguing about what constitutes ‘children’ we can see the thrust of their argument. So Israel admits to the murder of children. Well they say admission is a step on the road to rehabilitation so ‘good show’.

    7) “The present Israeli government probably wants to hang on to parts of the West Bank. ” This says it all. In other words, recognising Israel means giving up a significant part of what remains of their territory. Not really surprising they are reluctant then.

    8) You agree the Israeli government is guilty of dehousing (which of itself implies more ‘collective punishment’, again a principle banned by the Geneva convention.)

    9)/10) You admit the practice of apartheid, a principle universally condemned.

    11) “agree that pro-Israelis have used the holocaust as an excuse a little too freely and it is starting to wear thin.” Fair enough, I will settle for this crumb of agreement.

    Given we have presented our respective cases the matter will be decided in the court of public opinion.

    That being said, given the admissions above, I don’t give much for your chances. I call for a guilty verdict and the dismantling of the State of Israel and the re-unification of Palestine and Israel as a true democracy.

    As should the rest of the world.

  222. Hi Herr Hess,

    I apologize for coming to this debate rather late, but I must correct you on a few points:

    >>Indeed even earlier the 3-million Russian Jews emigrating after the revolution (a revolution in which Zionist Jews played a large part) were rejected in their request to be allowed into Britain, primarily by the settled and integrated British Jewish community,

    ROTFL! Let me get this straight, you’re saying that Britain would have allowed in 3 million Russian Jews but for the objections of British Jews?

    As for Zionist Jews playing a part in the Russian revolution – Jews certainly did. But the key ideological difference between Zionist Jews and Communist Jews was that Communist Jews saw their salvation in creating a society where differences between people are to a large extent abolished by the state, Zionist Jews saw their salvation in having a Jewish state. Yet other Jews saw their salvation in going to America – where being different is a virtue not a vice. There was some overlap, but to call the Revoltionary Jews “Zionist” is to ignore the key ideological difference.

    >>The Nazis may well have killed large numbers of Jews, but conversely through mechanisms such as the transfer agreement (Ha’avara) were more responsible than any other European government for the support and development of Zionist settlement in Palestine during the 1930’s.<< Hitler only supported the transfer of Jews to Palestine as a means of putting pressure on the British. He liked to play off one side against the other. >> Adolf Hitler himself personally ensured that the Transfer Agreement remained in place as late as 1938, despite severe pressure from his cabinet ministers and reserve bank, at the damage such an agreement was having on their foreign currency reserves

    You mean that nice Mr Schickelgruber was helping the Jews even fter his frienly meeting with Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) in 1936?

    >> and in the face of a “Declaration of War” on Nazi Germany by Judaica << LOL! You mean those nasty Jews were fighting against Hitler at the same time as they were co-operating with him? What a patient and generous man! >>Incidentally, I have in my possession a most interesting medallion that celebrates the co-operation between Nazis and Zionists and was minted after a (6-month visit to Zionist settlements of Baron Von Mildenstein (who incidentally a few years later became chief of the Jewish section of the SD, the SS intelligence branch headed by Reinhard Heydrich)

    The only co-operation Jews made with Nazis was to get Jews out alive. You make the most legitimate activities sound nefarious. Are you sure you didn’t work for the very people you’re citing?

    >>The accounts of the visit were printed in Goebbles’ own newspaper Der Angriff under the heading of “A Nazi travels to Palestine”, and was a celebration of the closeness of the ideals of Nazism and Zionism,<< You seem to be overlooking the capacity of the Nazis to invent justifications for going against their own ideology when it was pragmatic for them to do so - as when, for example, they declared the Sioux Indians to be officially Aryan because a leading Nazi had a Sioux Indian grandmother. They also declared the Japanese to be officially Aryan - though apparently not the Chinese or Koreans! >> i.e. a total separation of the races

    Zionism doesn’t call for that. It only requires that Jews should have a country to go to. It doesn’t rule out having non-Jewish citizens too. It does not require that all Jews live in Israel – only that they CAN.

    >>and blind fanatical adherence to Nationalism

    So now ALL nationalism is Nazism?

    >> and the horrors of feelings of racial superiority

    I don’t feel superior to the Catholic Leonardo da Vinci, or to Bill Gates or to the unknown Chinese man who invented the iron plough.

    >>and indifference to the suffering of those viewed as inferior

    Indifference to ones enemies is the consequence of war and conflict. The British didn’t feel sorry for the people of Dresden, the POWs in Burma did not feel sorry for the Japanese at Hiroshima and I still remember the ugly face of the fat cow in the West Bank who danced for joy on hearing the news of the destruction of the World Trade Centre.

    >>The medallion bares a Swastika on the one face and a Magen (Star of David) on the other.

    That proves nothing but the stupidity of the individual who created it! Did you buy it on eBay? Or is it a familr heir loom?

    >>A long list of Zionist killers from Ben-Gurion through Begin, Dayan, Sharon and now the arch-(Ashke)nazi Netanyahu, believe in the ultimate Zionist delusion of Eretz Yisrael which has part of its dream in Israel’s northern border being at the Litani River.

    Words like “(Ashke)nazi” are only written by human scum.

    >>Zionism’s goal during the war this summer, that they had been planning for 18-months,<< Prove. >> was to ethnically cleanse Southern Lebanon and occupy (militarily at first) Lebanon to the Litani, thereafter, in years to come, the plan was to annex the land for settlement,

    Prove

    >>hence the most cruel and colossal assault and dropping of 3-million cluster bombs in the last 72-hours of the conflict when a ceasefire had been agreed.

    Prove

    >>The whole world should celebrate Nasrallah’s victory over the increasingly impotent IDF, grown weak, in their indulgence of power and democracy and no match for fighters with a purpose, (oh how the wheel has turned!)

    So, er let me get this straight… the nasty Israelis POINTLESSLY dropped 3 MILLION cluster bombs in 72 hours in a “cruel and collossal assault” AND ALSO Nasrallah won?

    (But if he was winning, then surely Israel’s action would be justified in military terms even if not in moral terms? You seem to be saying that Israel used more force than they needed to WIN and also that they LOST! Which is it?)

    BTW, what was Nasrallah’s purpose? To drive them out of Lebanon?

    >>Nasrallah knew that the IDF would come one day to murder and destroy and ethnically cleanse as they have throughout their despicable history, and he stopped them, turned the tables and has given new hope to a new generation of Arabs

    So he was stockpiling weapons to use on Israel if Israel invaded Lebanon? And then kidnapped Israeli soldiers and used the weapons on Israel to get them to invade so he could drive them out?

    >>that Israel is indeed a temporary aberration,

    It’s a successor to the Israel that predated the Arab expansion from the Arabian Penninsula!

    >> and that one day soon it will be destroyed,

    Ah so no pretense then about the objectives – his or yours Herr Hess.

    >>but not as in the delusions of Zionists and their supporters with Jews being thrown into the sea, but in the destruction of the political Zionist State to be replaced by a unitary Palestine a home for both Arab and Jew,

    Where Jews will enjoy the same rights as Christians in Sudan, Kurds in Iraq, Bahai believers in Iran, Druze in Syria, etc, etc, etc?

    Will they also have the same human rights as Jews had in Syria, Iraq and the Yemen? And please don’t reply with the usual codswallop about “that’s because of Zionism.” If the Arabs oppress Jews it’s because they choose to not because they have to.

    >>and if the in-bred descendants of 7th Century Khazar converts to Judaism,<< Your not still spouting that codswallop about the Khazars being the Ashkenazi Jews are you? The Khazars were conquered by Christians after that. >> the Ashkenazi, don’t like it they can leave and go back to where they came from,<< Spoken like a true opponent of nationalism and a sincere critic of racism! >> and then do the world a favour and drop the façade of being Jews, and give Judaism back to real Jews who celebrate its morality and shun the actions and mindset of these usurpers.

    So you’re okay with the Sephardim then? Are they allowed to live in Israel? Sorry Palestine. What’s that? Yes, but only as a protected minority? You mean like the way they lived in Iraq, Syria and the Yemen. Well I’m sure they’ll be very comforted to hear you say that Herr Hess.

    >>It’s the land of Palestine actually,

    Really? You mean the Roman name, derived from the Philistines has more legitimacy that the Israelite name? Now tell us why with some semblance of a reasoned argument.

    >>and have you never heard of the bombing of the King David Hotel?

    You mean the South Wing of the King David Hotel? That was being used as a military government building? Where they gave warning for people to leave. Where most of the casualties were in fact Jews?

    >>What about Deir Yassin?

    You mean that village that commanded one of the approaches to Jerusalem, that was the scene of a fierce battle in which an undisciplined force broke through and AFTER the battle committed some atrocities which brought shame on the Jewish people?

    >>where those brave “fighting Jews” of Menachim Begin butchered 235 women

    110 actually. The higher figure (which was actually 254) was invented by the Eztel-Lehi forces themselves to portray it as a great victory. After news of the massacre emerged the figure was taken up by the Jewish Agency who wanted to discredit Etzel and Lehi.

    The burial detail counted 107 bodies. Three bodies had been burned, making a total of 110. The interesting thing is that while the Jews claimed 254, the Arabs themselves said it was 110. It is a supreme irony that on obne of the rare occasions when the Arabs told the truth, it was the Jews who were believed!

    >> and children and old men, including some 35 pregnant women, sliced apart with swords and ornamental knives.<< Let's not forget the 180 Jews murdered by the Arabs at Kfar Etzion. The 76 doctors nurses and patients murdered by the Arab Legion when they ambushed the Hadassah medical convoy. you might say these were retaliations for Deit Yassin. But what of the Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad and at the Western Wall in 1929? Why single out Deir Yassin? >>There will never be peace in the Middle East while Zionism is supported by weak-kneed and easily bought political stooges in the US and the American population remains so uneducated,

    But I thought peace was going to happen when Israel is destroyed “one day soon” (YOUR words Herr Hess) by Nasrallah and co.

    And peace as in the historic peace that has always existed between Iran and Iraq? Iraq and Kuwait? Syria and Lebanon? Egypt and Libya

    >> unless of course Arabs convert en masse to Buddhism

    It wouldn’t be such a bad idea. At least Buddhists do not seek to proselytyze at the point of a sword.

    >>and allow the IDF to re-draw the borders of Eretz Yisrael from the Nile to the Euphrates and up to the Litani.

    This would be the Israelis who gave up the Sinai Penninsula TWICE! Who offered to give back the Gaza Strip! Who withdrew from Lebanon dispite the ongoing threat of sneak attacks?

    >>The Zionists use Judaism as a tool for land grabbing,

    And then gave back land that they won!

    >>ethnic cleansing,

    That’s why the Palestinian population is growing! That’s why they provided Israeli medicine to reduce infant mortality in Gaza.

    >> murder, rape, torture and humiliation

    Unlike the Arabs who would never do
    and they need to be stopped. It’s about time you savages left all the occupied land of Palestine

    >>and Washington DC.

    Oh yes, the Jewish conspiracy. Well bye now, Mr Civilized Herr Hess, this Khazar savage has to go off to eat his dinner – it’s Arab baby on the menu today!

  223. >>There are alternatives fortunately.

    There are indeed. But why should people boycott them in order to indulge your hatred of the Jewish State.

    >>You answered some of my questions except those you claim you didn’t understand.

    I explained why I didn’t understand. Also don’t assume that because I answered your loaded questions that this let’s you off the hook from having to answer some hard questions yourself.

    >>1) Yes (they were terrorists), and they are no different to the PLO.

    I said yes Etzel and Lehi were considered terrorists by the British. Not by the Americans. And Britain was somewhat more ambivalent about Ben Gurion and the Hagganah, who defended the Jews against the Arabs. Please understand Toxy that the definition of a terrorist is NOT: what pro-Arab British Foreign office officials think. You’ll have to do better than that. And kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth.

    They did commit SOME acts that I would consider to be terrorist acts. But most of their actions were of a military nature, defending the Jews against Arab violence.

    >>I note you omitted to mention that Hamas cannot be terrorists because, under the terms of the terminology of the US state department only sub-national groups qualify for the epithet ‘terrorist’.

    I don’t know what you mean by “sub-national”, But in any case the definition of the word terrorist is not in the gift of the US State department. Hamas deliberately murder civilians with no related military objective: ergo they are terrorists.

    >> I think this comfortably gives the moral high ground to Hamas, as opposed to the ‘creators of Israel’ because they remained unelected at the time of their dissent.

    Hamas were also unelected at the time when they started murdering Jews. If you think that being elected now gives them the high moral ground, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.

    >>2) In other words, yes, you are in breach of the Geneva convention.

    I don’t recall saying that. I said that it is debatable who the West Bank belongs to. A credible case could be made out for Israeli sovereignty on the grounds that the Arabs forfeited it by using it as a springboard for acts of aggression against Israel. you haven’t said which country you claim it belongs to or on whta basis in international law you make that claim. Please state which country owns it and the legal reasoning in support of that claim.

    >>3) You don’t understand this question. I recommend you investigate the matter more thoroughly. You will find I am correct in my assertion.

    Israel’s boundaries will be determined ultimately by a genuine peace agreement. At the moment there is an ongoing state of war. Why should Israel tie itself down when it’s very right to exist in ANY boundaries is rejected by the fanatics of the Muslim world. Any decision Israel makes will be controversial within Israel. Why should they have to grapple with that difficulty at this stage when the Palestinians and Syrians do not recognize their right to exist as a state at all?

    4) No ‘for security reasons’. South Africa used much the same reasoning.

    A spurious analogy. There are genuine security issues – as proven by the suicide bombings. The fact that South Africa used a similar argument doesn’t mean that the argument can never be used. It depends on the circumstances.

    >>5) They cannot be both (terrorists and an elected government)

    They most certainly can. Being elected doesn’t give one the right to send in suicide bombers. There is no such thing as a democratic mandate to walk into a restaurant and blow people up.

    >> but if they are then so is the Israeli government and probably the US and Great Britain .

    In those cases where governments have targeted the innocent, those actions can be branded terrorism. That includes not only Israel, Britain and the US, but also France (Rainbow Warrior), Iraq (Kurds and Shi’ites), Iran (Kurds and Arabs), Syria, Indonesia, Sudan and many others. If committing SOME acts of terrorism is enough to justify the dismantling of a country and replacing it with this utopian Israel-Palestine democracy (for which the precendents in the arab world are not very encouraging) then how many other countries shoudl also be dismantled?

    >> I presume you rely on the argument that you (Israel) are ‘more worthy’ terrorists.<< No, I rely on the fact that we try to attack missile bases, etc and sometimes get it wrong. They very rarely try to attack military targets. >>6) I will take this as agreement, When someone resorts to arguing about what constitutes ‘children’ we can see the thrust of their argument<< Puerile demagoguery. I note that you haven't said what YOU mean by children. You hide behind ambiguity and then question my motives when I seek to rip away the veil? How dishonest! And of course you have ignored your own question of how many were bearing arms. You haven't offered any evidence that they weren't bearing arms. If a 20 year old is bearing arms, should he be allowed to hide behind his age? I think not. >>So Israel admits to the murder of children. Well they say admission is a step on the road to rehabilitation so ‘good show’.

    I don’t recall such an admission. I am not the State of Israel and I didn’t admit any such thing. I invited you to answer your own question – with evidence please. Your silence spoke volumes.

    >>7) “The present Israeli government probably wants to hang on to parts of the West Bank. ” This says it all. In other words, recognising Israel means giving up a significant part of what remains of their territory.

    You ignored the word “present” Other Israeli governments have been more flexible and future Israeli governments would be if the Arabs were more reasonable.

    >>Not really surprising they are reluctant then.

    They could have got 97% of the West Bank back (and argued for the rest later) if they’d accepted the deal with Barak. The trouble is they wanted east Jerusalem, which is another matter altogether and was not part of the area designated to form part of the Arad state.

    8) You agree the Israeli government is guilty of dehousing (which of itself implies more ‘collective punishment’, again a principle banned by the Geneva convention.)

    I agree. It is wrong. That is why I oppose the practice. It is also opposed by many Israelis. To say that the remedy is to abolish Israel is silly. What did the Arabs do to the Jewish minority living in the parts of mandatory Palestine that fell to Arab control. You think a state run by Arabs would have a better human rights record. A look at the countries they have got suggests otherwise.

    >>9)/10) You admit the practice of apartheid, a principle universally condemned.

    No I didn’t. I pointed out that the Administered Territories are not part of Israel and that the govenance of these territories represents a compromise between conflicting forces both within Israel and the world as a whole.

    If the Israelis tried to force Israeli law on the West Bank there would be an outrcry from the Arabs themselves. The duel legal system is a compromise between conflicting forces. To call it apartheid is brazenly dishonest. South Africa didn’t face demands that it hand over territory to its neighbours.

    >>11) “agree that pro-Israelis have used the holocaust as an excuse a little too freely and it is starting to wear thin.” Fair enough, I will settle for this crumb of agreement.

    Now would you agree that some malicious anti-semites have questioned the holocaust as a means of spreading hatred against Jews, whether they be Zionist or not?

    >>Given we have presented our respective cases the matter will be decided in the court of public opinion.<< Not quite. I answered your loaded questions. But there are more questions that you need to answer>

    1) Has the Syrian treatment of the Druze been fair? (This is relevant because your peace plan depends on the Muslims having a good record in their treatment of minorities.)

    2) Did the Syrians invade Lebanon in 1975 – seven years before the Israelis did?

    3) Has Iraq treated the Kurds fairly?

    4) Has Iraq treated the Shi’ites fairly?

    5)Has Iran treated the Kurds fairly?

    6) Has Syria treated the Lebanese fairly?

    7) Has Sudan treated the Christians fairly?

    8) Have Iraq, Syria and the Yemen treated the Jews fairly?

    9) Has the Islamic world treated women fairly?

    10) In the 1948 war, did the Arabs allow any Jew to remain alive in those parts of Palestine that fell into Arab hands (the West Bank, Gaza Strip and eastern Jerusalem) – in other words did they tolerate even a tiny minority?

    11) When the Jordanians had possession of eastern Jerusalem, did they allow Jews to enter the city or pray at the Western Wall or to enter the Temple Mount?

    12) Did the Jordanians (in that period) allow Israeli Muslims to enter the city and pray at the Aksa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock?

    13) Did the Jordanians let Israeli Christians enter and pray at the Garden Tomb or Church of the Holy Sepulchre, after the first two years (i.e. from 1950 on)?

    14) Did the Saudi’s allow Israeli Moslems to make the Haj to Mecca before the mid 1970s?

    15) Did the Arabs allow any synagogue to remain standing in east Jerusalem – there were 58 before the Jordanian conquest in 1948?

    16)Do the Israelis prevent Jews from holding organized prayers on the Temple Mount?

    17) If the Muslims regained the Temple Mount, would they bend over backwards like that and stop Muslims praying there to accomodate Jewish sensibilities?

    18) How many Arab states are there? How many of these are democracies?

    19) How many Muslim states are there? How many of these are democracies?

    20) What is the likelyhood that this new Arab Israeli state that you want to create would be a democracy given the Arab/Muslim record in this regard?

    When you can answer MY questions Toxy, then we can have a real discussion of BOTH sides of the coin.

  224. Wow, it’s all kicked off again, this time about the Arab / Israeli conflict huh?

    Personally I think that early Zionist immigration to Palestine was good for the locals. They drained marshes, built new cities and brought new advanced methods of agriculture with them.

    The problem in my view stems from Arab Nationalist intolerance of Jewish immigration to their homelands.

    It always strikes me as a bit ironic the way that groups representing Muslim immigrant communities over here, such as MPAC, rant and rave about a problem that stems from Arab and Muslim intolerance of immigration to Palestine.

  225. David Kessler, I thought you’d rested your case, evidently not. Just add that to the list of lies told by Israeli representatives at every turn and opportunity.

    As to answering YOUR questions, I’m under no obligation to do so because I do not represent a military presense in someone else’s territory nor do I hold a population group under a tyranical heel.

    You arguments such as “Have Iraq, Syria and the Yemen treated the Jews fairly?” are without any virtue whatever. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If this latter, simple concept could ever penetrate the Israeli national psyche there may be a hope for peace in this region. As it is I have no doubt you’ll continue with this “eye for an eye” philosophy which, as Ghandi observed, leaves everyone blind.

    The rest of your arguments are simply puerile and specious, intended only to deceive.

    I have no further time for you.

  227. Moses Hess said:
    October 21, 2006 7:05 PM | permalink

    Steven L said:”Personally I think that early Zionist immigration to Palestine was good for the locals. They drained marshes, built new cities and brought new advanced methods of agriculture with them.”

    That’s because you are an ignorant westener with absolutely no idea of the history of Palestine, its people, culture and econony, neither have you the slightest idea of the degree of propaganda and spin fed to people like you by Zionism. So stay out of it.

    Steven, welcome back. Yes, it’s starting up again. Don’t be put off by Herr Hess’s boorish manners. I’m afraid he’s losing it. I fear his choice of nom-de-guerre reveals all. The petty fuhrer now thinks he can decide who will post to this board and who can’t.

  228. >>
    “ROTFL! Let me get this straight, you’re saying that Britain would have allowed in 3 million Russian Jews but for the objections of British Jews?”<< >>Hopefully not<< What on earth do you mean "hopefully not." First you accuse us of keeping our brothers out and then you apply retroactive hope? Hope of what? That they'll allow them in (in the year 2006?)???? >>It seems to me that your people had made themselves most unwelcome in their native land by acts of sedition and revolution, …. So first of all you try grabbing power in Russia, that fails…

    Sorry, but I think your history is a little shaky. The Russian Revolution did take place as far as I recall. You said they played a part in that revolution didn’t you? So let me get this straight: the Jews played a major part in creating a revolution in Russia and then chose to leave the country where they’d succeeded in creating a revolution? You’ll have to do better than that Herr Hess.

    >> Wrong, the Bolshevic Jews the wanted to usurp the power of the country and they got stopped.

    But before, you said Zionist Jews. Now it’s Bolshovic Jews. Either way, you’re talking codswallop. The Bolshevic Jews supported the revolution because they were Bolshovics, not because they were Jews. The Many Jews who wanted to leave did so because they had as little faith in Bolshovism as they did in Tsarism. There may have been a few disgruntled ex-revolutionaries among them, but that’s hardly relevant to the issue – unless you have proof that most of these 3 million were Bolsheviks.

    “>>Hitler only supported the transfer of Jews to Palestine as a means of putting pressure on the British. He liked to play off one side against the other.” – Blah blah blah, proof please, perhaps there was some prior agreement with Zionists, call it a mutually beneficial state of affairs!

    You’re saying you refuse to believe that Hitler liked to play off one side against the other? Your saying that Jews didn’t have legitimate grounds to try and persuade Hitler to let Jews go? And that trying to persuade him amounted to co-operation?

    >>”>> Adolf Hitler himself personally ensured that the Transfer Agreement remained in place as late as 1938, despite severe pressure from his cabinet ministers and reserve bank, at the damage such an agreement was having on their foreign currency reserves. You mean that nice Mr Schickelgruber was helping the Jews even fter his frienly meeting with Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) in 1936?” – Perhaps he was betrayed, perhaps the Zionists went back on their word<< Or perhaps he hated the Jews from start to finish and the Jews were simply trying to save their brothers from Hitler by whatever means was available, whether it be compromise or conflict. >> (not like a Jew is it

    Don’t you mean a Khazar, Herr Hess? Either way, you’re showing your true colours Herr Hess – and after I accepted your story about the medallion!

    >>and he needed to assess the long term wisdom of a Zionist State,<< From his point of view it probably wasn't wise. I get the impression that you share his point of view? >> not that I know such a meeting took place, you might have just made it up,<< It's actually well-known amongst those who take an interest in the subject. There's even a picture of them. >> it’s what you do isn’t it?

    Do you mean me as an individual or “you” as in “you Jews”? At any rate your ignorence on this point speaks volumes!

    >>”LOL! You mean those nasty Jews were fighting against Hitler at the same time as they were co-operating with him? What a patient and generous man!” – A man of his people, know what I mean!!

    I don’t actually. But if you’re going to act as his cheer leader, maybe you should get kitted out with a short skirt and pom-poms!

    “>>The only co-operation Jews made with Nazis was to get Jews out alive. You make the most legitimate activities sound nefarious.

    >>Bollocks, “one cow in Palestine is worth 500 000 Jews in Europe” – Blah blah blah, I haven’t a clue what you mean. Could you be a bit more coherent?

    >>Zionists stopped the repatriation of Jews to anywhere other than populated Palestine. President Truman made over 400 000 visas available for Jews that survived the holocaust to come to America, did the Zionists let him bring them? .. answers on a postcard please David.

    You’ve shifted from talking about BEFORE the war to talking about AFTER. Before the war – when the Jews needed to get away in order to survive, – the doors were slammed in their faces. After the war it was another matter. But if 400,000 of them had actually arrived in America, how owuld they have been greeted after the initial welcome wore off? With returning soldiers looking for jobs? Remember the film Gentlemen’s Agreement – about POST-war antisemetism in America?

    “>>You seem to be overlooking the capacity of the Nazis to invent justifications for going against their own ideology when it was pragmatic for them to do so – as when, for example, they declared the Sioux Indians to be officially Aryan because a leading Nazi had a Sioux Indian grandmother. They also declared the Japanese to be officially Aryan – though apparently not the Chinese or Koreans!” – Irrelevant and you’ve ignored the point,

    No it’s highly relevant and it it YOU my dishonest adverssary who have chosen to ignore the point. You cite the self-deluded rantings of Goebals as evidence that the Nazis and Zionists shared common principles. I pointed out that the Nazis were perfectly ready to deviate from their ideology, and then rationalize about it, when it suited them. I realize the point went over your head but then again so would a kick in the groin.

    >> whilst we’re on the point of Aryan racial superiority what is it that you people teach your children about anyone that’s not in your club?<< That they are fellow human beings. >>You disgust me!

    Oh gee, I’m sorry. And I was just starting to like you. Does that mean we won’t be going steady? Do you want your ring back?

    >>”Zionism doesn’t call for that. It only requires that Jews should have a country to go to.” – Someone else’s as it happens,

    The Jebusites? Philistines? Hittites? The Arabs came from Arabia – who asked them to expand beyond it’s borders? And whose country are you living in?

    >> but then that’s always been the way of the Rabbi and the flock, eh David?

    Your showing your colours again Herr Hess? Didn’t you learn anything in Spandau?

    >>It doesn’t rule out having non-Jewish citizens too.” – Mendacity David, Zionists would love to expel or liquidate all the Palestinians in “Israel”,<< The evidence suggests otherwise. But who needs evidence when they've got a medallion that no one else can see? >> just ask Benny Netanyahu you know, the Ashke(Nazi).

    As I said “Ashke(Nazi)” is a term used exclusively by moron scum-bags.

    >>”So now ALL nationalism is Nazism?” – My mistake, I should have called it what it is, fascism, which best describes the Zionist entity.

    Fascism with an elected parliament? Fascism with an electoral system based on proportional representation? Fascism in a country which has two official languages: Hebrew and Arabis? Fascism in a country where Arabs who oppose the state’s right to exist are allowed to sit in it parliament? Fascism where 400,000 people (8 percent of the population) turn out to demonstrate against their government – in a peaceful demonstration?

    You have a peculiar definition of fascism.

    >>”I don’t feel superior to the Catholic Leonardo da Vinci, or to Bill Gates or to the unknown Chinese man who invented the iron plough. – As well you shouldn’t David, that’s very good of you, but I don’t believe you,

    I’m hurt, mortally hurt. To be disbelieved by some one as ethical and decent as you 🙁

    >> you’ve been conditioned since they mutilated your genitalia.

    My genitalia, your brain, we should form a mutual support society!

    >>What is it you lot say about goy-women and the term you use?

    You mean Shiksa? What’s the big deal? We make jokes about our own women preferring shopping to sex. So we make jokes about Shiksas? And we make jokes about many other things? Nobody died of a bit of light banter.

    >>”>>The medallion bares a Swastika on the one face and a Magen (Star of David) on the other.
    That proves nothing but the stupidity of the individual who created it! Did you buy it on eBay?” – Or is it a familr heir loom?” – A point of departure that suggests all is not what it seems,<< I note how adroitly you sidestepped the question. But tell us the truth Herr Hess. Does it exist? Was it your grandfather's? Did he get the Magen David off a dead Jew at one of the camps and file it down and weld it together with a swastika as a sick joke? Did he bequethe it to you? Do you treasure it and sleep with it under your pillow? Which side do you look at on the long lonely nights when you please yourself? "Words like "(Ashke)nazi" are only written by human scum." - Then stop behaving like them and then the term wouldn't apply. No Herr Hess - YOU stop behaving like them. >>Netanyahu should be locked up or put in a glass box like Eichmann.

    No he shouldn’t. And he won’t be. Keep dreaming, it’s all you’ve got

    “Zionism’s goal during the war this summer, that they had been planning for 18-months,
    Prove.” – It’s obvious

    Cobblers! Why would they need to plan it for 18 months? Why would they need to let Nasrallah stiockpile all those weapons within that period? The reason he was able to stockpile the weapons was because they were reluctant to make war, if war could be avoided. THAT’S OBVIOUS.

    “>> was to ethnically cleanse Southern Lebanon and occupy (militarily at first) Lebanon to the Litani, thereafter, in years to come, the plan was to annex the land for settlement, Prove” – It’s in “your blood” you can’t help it. Hope you enjoyed the subtlety.

    I would have called it stupidity rather than subtlety. But I note your belief that moral character is in the blood. Interesting… Herr Hess… very interesrting…

    >>hence the most cruel and colossal assault and dropping of 3-million cluster bombs in the last 72-hours of the conflict when a ceasefire had been agreed.
    Prove” – Amnest International I believe.

    Can you be more specific. Although I tend to disbelieve most of what you say, I’d like to check it out.

    “>>So, er let me get this straight… the nasty Israelis POINTLESSLY dropped 3 MILLION cluster bombs in 72 hours in a “cruel and collossal assault” AND ALSO Nasrallah won?” – Yes nincompoop, to make life unlivable for anyone attempting to live in southern Lebanon, i.e. if we can’t have it your can’t, shades of Golda’s nuclear suicide coming to the fore?

    So let me get this straight, you’re saying life is unliveable in the south of Lebanon? Your saying people haven’t gone back? Anyone who knoas anything about Israel would know that if that had been their aim then far more buildings would have been destroyed.

    “the IDF tried to inflict unimaginable casualties on the civilian population for years to come out of spite.

    “Unimageniable casualties?” Compared to Iraqi or Iranian Kurds? Compared to the 20,000 Arabs the Syrians killed at Hama? The casualties in Lebanon were high, but “unimaginable”? And for a man with YOUR imagination?

    >> And let’s face it, spite is what Judaism is all about.<< Judaism? Or Khazarism? Careful Herr Hess, you're dropping your facade? >>To win, all Nasrallah had to do was not lose, it’s easy David, keep up.<< Other way round my wily adverssary, all Israel has to do is not to lose. >>”My favourite picture is that of over a dozen burning Israeli tanks in the Bekaa valley, I get a warm cosy feeling knowing that the end of Zionist fascism was signalled by that image. Just a shame that once again so many had to die.

    Really? I would have thought that you’d be happy?

    >>”It’s a successor to the Israel that predated the Arab expansion from the Arabian Penninsula!” – Nonsense.

    Is that the best you do? Pathetic!

    “>>but not as in the delusions of Zionists and their supporters with Jews being thrown into the sea, but in the destruction of the political Zionist State to be replaced by a unitary Palestine a home for both Arab and Jew,
    Where Jews will enjoy the same rights as Christians in Sudan, Kurds in Iraq, Bahai believers in Iran, Druze in Syria, etc, etc, etc?” – Grow up, there are problems throughout the world, but very few peoples look upon the rest of humanity with such contemp as the Jews. It’s about time you stopped being Jews, it not good for you, or us.

    You’re evading again. You spoke of a halcyon future when Israel is replaced with a home for both Arab and Jew (it’s not clear which Jews you mean). I invited you to take a look at the human rights records of Muslim (and especially Arab) countries to find a precedent for your confidence in this alterantive to the status quo. You dodged the issue for the obvious reason that the facts don’t support you.

    “Will they also have the same human rights as Jews had in Syria, Iraq and the Yemen? And please don’t reply with the usual codswallop about “that’s because of Zionism.” If the Arabs oppress Jews it’s because they choose to not because they have to.” – Don’t lecture me on human rights

    Then don’t evade the question. You sing the praises of a hypothetical combined Jewish-Arab state, and then fail to look at how the Arabs treat Jews in their midst. If you are going to preach solutions, then you and your solutions must be ready to stand up to scrutiny. If not, you stand branded by your silence or evasiveness.

    >> you people are ethnically incapable of understanding the meaning.

    Ethnic morality is a Nazi concept. I rejected it out of hand. If you believe otherwise, the onus probandi is on you.

    >> How about Zionist attrocities carried out in Iraq against Jews to compel them to leave,

    I know of no such attrocities.

    >>You lot have adopted a mindset from a tribe of misfits that causes you to be by your nature be anti-goy, I’m just returning the sentiment,

    Tribe of misfits? This is the measure of your intellect? Anti-goy? I’ve said nothing to suggest that? If you can quote one thing I’ve said to support that allegation I shall be most impressed – and humbled.

    >>Treat others as you would be treated.

    I prefer to treat others as they treat me. Hence my rough treatment of you after reading your hate-infested rantings.

    >>You should go back to your ancestral homelands in Eastern Europe

    I prefer to live in Britain. Where do your ancestors come from? Where do you live?

    >>and stop torturing the Palestinian Arabs.

    They should recognize Israel and accept the right of the Jews to our ancestral homeland. They should of course have a state too. But it isn’t helped by people like you.

    “So you’re okay with the Sephardim then? Are they allowed to live in Israel? Sorry Palestine. What’s that? Yes, but only as a protected minority? You mean like the way they lived in Iraq, Syria and the Yemen. Well I’m sure they’ll be very comforted to hear you say that Herr Hess.” – Not really, on reflection Judiasm is incapable of being begign it’s viral, so no I think it’s harmful to me and mine and will now treat it so.

    Okay so it’s not just the Khazar-Ashkenazim that you want to drive out of Israel But also the sephardim? Glad you’re dropping the facade. So tell me Herr Hess, where would you send them?

    >> But please, be clear on this I’m not an anti-Semite, I’m anti-Jew as being pro-Jew is not in my interests.

    No difference. Anti-semite means anti-Jew. Don’t confuse the origins of the word with its meaning.

    “>>your Israelite kingdom lasted maybe 30-years, at best 130-years, otherwise it’s been in excess of 3000 of non-Jewish dominated land, except for the current and collapsing abherration.

    WRONG! From when Joshua entered (1200 BCE) until the Babylonian conquest (586 BCE) and then from the return in 538 BCE until the Roman invasion. That’s the the greater part of 1000 years.

    >>Liar “Not all the 91 one people killed were members of the British Security Forces. There were 15 Jews among the dead, including women who had been working as secretaries in the building.”

    And the wounded? And as i said ir brought shame on the Jews because it was so out of character.

    >>Liar, an Arab village, no Zionist settlers, attacked without provication. You’re right about the strategic importance, but “fierce battle” that would imply able-bodied young men of military age being on both sides, and you know there were none in the village at the time.

    WRONG! There were many Arab men in the village and they all had rifles. The Etzel-Lehi fighters were pinned down by heavy fire and when they broke through they went on the rampage. Needless to say, the Arab men deserted.

    >>Your people are savages,

    Look whose talking!

    >>the worst excesses of Easten European brutality was visited on the once peaceful Arabs.

    Yes that’s why they kill their own brothers. Look art what the Muslims did to the Pagan Arabs! Look at what they do to each other now.

    “>>where those brave “fighting Jews” of Menachim Begin butchered 235 women
    110 actually. The higher figure (which was actually 254) was invented by the Eztel-Lehi forces themselves to portray it as a great victory. After news of the massacre emerged the figure was taken up by the Jewish Agency who wanted to discredit Etzel and Lehi.” – Liar

    It’s well-documented. Even if you don’t believe the records of the Jewish burial detail, look up what the Arabs said at teh time. Where’s your proof that it was 235?

    “>> and children and old men, including some 35 pregnant women, sliced apart with swords and ornamental knives.
    Let’s not forget the 180 Jews murdered by the Arabs at Kfar Etzion. The 76 doctors nurses and patients murdered by the Arab Legion when they ambushed the Hadassah medical convoy. you might say these were retaliations for Deit Yassin. But what of the Arab massacres of Jews in Hebron and Safad and at the Western Wall in 1929? Why single out Deir Yassin?” – Why not? Or indeed why, you’ve given the world show many other examples of your “light unto nations” philosophy in the last 60 years, savages.

    Once again, when you can’t answer (which is most of the time) you evade.

    “>>There will never be peace in the Middle East while Zionism is supported by weak-kneed and easily bought political stooges in the US and the American population remains so uneducated, But I thought peace was going to happen when Israel is destroyed “one day soon” (YOUR words Herr Hess) by Nasrallah and co.” – Yes, and there will be a measure of resrimination, try the “Truth and Reconcilliation” approach of the South Africans.

    You contradicted yourself. I pointed it out. You evaded again with this preposterous comparison between the Palestinians and the ANC. Arafat was no Mandela and mandela never used the methods that the PLO or Hamas used.

    “It wouldn’t be such a bad idea. At least Buddhists do not seek to proselytyze at the point of a sword.” – Or stop your theft of property, possessions, rape and murder.
    “>>David you really are not very good, your handlers won’t be impressed. You were told to give the Sinai back by Eisenhower

    The Israelis never wanted Sinai. They were told to INVADE Sinai by the French and British, to create a pretext for their action. All Israel wanted was Sharm-el Sheikh (to reopen the international Straits of Tiran) and to stop the Fedayeen attacks from Gaza. It was only with supreme reluctance that they even went as far as the suez canal.

    >>the Egyptians frightened the kosher shite out of you during Yom Kippur<< They frightened us in 1948 and 1967 too. And we reacted the way frightened people do. So why aren't they celebrating? Why aren't you? Why do you sound so angry? Aren't these events panning out the way you want them to? >>and Nasrallah threw you out of Lebanon. Your point is what?

    We left Lebanon before. But we haven’t left the State of Israel. It is our country and we intend to stay there and no small-minded, lobotomized drooling neo-Nazi who hallucinates medallions is going to drive us out – neither is is some lunatic FOTIGAP.

    “>>Force, the only thing you understand.

    You mean like when Sadat drove the Israelis out of Sinai at Camp David? As when he forced us to offer him the Gaza Strip – and then refused to accept it?

    “>>ethnic cleansing,
    That’s why the Palestinian population is growing! That’s why they provided Israeli medicine to reduce infant mortality in Gaza.” – You make me sick!

    Can’t answer again. Sorry Herr Hess, I keep doing that don’t I? Stating facts that refute your spurious claims.

    “>>Well bye now, Mr Civilized Herr Hess, this Khazar savage has to go off to eat his dinner – it’s Arab baby on the menu today!” – Did it have its throat cut, in the correct manner and choked to death on its own blood? Savages? yes you are.

    You mean you object to shehita too? (Except that they don’t choke on their own blood. The blood draining rapidly causes death.) But why don’t you like it? You think pre-stunning is better? You think that killing animals for meat is all right as long as you give ’em an electric shock?

    BTW Herr Hess, you don’t do irony very well. Leave it to the professionals.

  229. Moses Hess said:
    October 21, 2006 6:21 PM | permalink

    Hopefully not, the point being British Jews didn’t want the “effluent of Europe” as they described them, due in some part to the human excrement dripping off the sides of the ship that carried them
    you’ve been conditioned since they mutilated your genitalia. What is it you lot say about goy-women and the term you use
    Judiasm is incapable of being begign it’s viral

    You talk like a Nazi, and you have the surname of a Nazi leader, so we must draw the obvious conclusion, must we not?

  230. >>David Kessler, I thought you’d rested your case, evidently not. << May I respectifully remind you Toxy that YOU had first rested YOUR case. If you can come back on rebuttal then I can come back on surebuttal. If you took my resting of my case as an opportunity to misrepresent what I said and have the last word without fear of being challenged then you were badly mistaken. >>Just add that to the list of lies told by Israeli representatives at every turn and opportunity.<< I am not an Israeli representative (although I sometimes say "we" because of the strength of my beliefs). I am an individual with a point of view - like you. >>As to answering YOUR questions, I’m under no obligation to do so because I do not represent a military presense in someone else’s territory nor do I hold a population group under a tyranical heel.

    Neither do I. I asked the questions because I credited you with a modicum of honesty. I apologize for my presumptuousness!

    >>You arguments such as “Have Iraq, Syria and the Yemen treated the Jews fairly?” are without any virtue whatever. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    You are completely missing the point. You implied that a joint Jewish-Arab state would be a remedy to the conflict. I asked those questions to raise the issue of whether there is enough tolerance in the Arab and Muslim world to make such a solution workable. If I thought there was, I might go for such a solution myself. Sadly there isn’t – as your silence on my questions tacitly acknowledged.

    If you cannot see this, your moral compass need resetting.

  231. Kate said:
    October 21, 2006 8:33 PM | permalink

    You talk like a Nazi, and you have the surname of a Nazi leader, so we must draw the obvious conclusion, must we not?

    Somewhat baldly stated, but to the point.

  232. ‘Steven, welcome back. Yes, it’s starting up again’ (Simone)

    Thanks, I can’t be bothered to read everything I’ve missed there’s just far too much of it.

    Sounds like you guys are having fun though. Does anyone think this Arab/Israeli thing is reconcilable any more?

    The Arab states seem to have stopped direct hostilities against Israel now, favouring sponsoring Hamas /Hezbollah etc.

    Iran’s Islamic regime has also come to the fray over the last couple of decades. Does anyone think there will ever be a war between Israel and Iran directly? Whilst the US control Iraqi airspace I can’t see it happening unless Iran do something pretty bad to them. How far would Iran have to go before Israel just decided to start bombing it though?

  233. >>Steven L said:”Personally I think that early Zionist immigration to Palestine was good for the locals. They drained marshes, built new cities and brought new advanced methods of agriculture with them.”<< Quite right. All well-documented facts. Indeed many Arabs flocked to the Jewisjh areas because of the increaed job opportunities there. Also apart from natural population increase, the Arab population of Palestine rose by 75% between the two world wars because of Arab immigration (some legal some illegal) from Trans-Jordan. They too were seeking job opportunities afforded by Zionism. HERR HESS wrote>>That’s because you are an ignorant westener with absolutely no idea of the history of Palestine, its people, culture and econony,<< Needless to say Herr Hess's rudeness was not matched by any display of intelligence or reasoned argument. But then again he's still reeling from intellectual battering I've been giving him. >> neither have you the slightest idea of the degree of propaganda and spin fed to people like you by Zionism.

    Then he says>>So stay out of it.

    As if our jackbooted friend has the right to tell us who may and may not participate in the debate.

    Keep those contributions coming Steven. We need more voices of calm and reason like you to counter the likes of a meshigana who hallucinates imaginary medallions and sees other people’s mutiliated testicles as an excuse for his delusion-driven hatred.

  234. Some of Toxy’s remarks:

    >>They are scum (Right wing Israelis, not Jews) and little, if any, different from the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. I look forward to the day they commit nuclear suicide as Golda Meir suggested (in interview) they would in the event of Arab supremacy in the region.

    >>The best thing that could happen to this planet would be having ‘Israel’ crossed off it and ‘Palestine’ written over the top in crayon.

    >>They are scum (Right wing Israelis, not Jews) and little, if any, different from the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. I look forward to the day they commit nuclear suicide as Golda Meir suggested (in interview) they would in the event of Arab supremacy in the region.

  235. Oh yes and this one for Toxy’s proposed Jewish himeland:

    >>Given your behaviour over the last 60 years, Mars would be favourite.

    Intelligence! Wit! Decorum!

  236. HERR HESS said>> The Hebrews lived on the margins of real cultures and civilizations like Egypt, Rome, Greece, Persia, Assyria, and Phoenicia that gave the world philosophy, science, art, education not to mention the aqueduct. What did the Hebrews give us, eh, Circumcision?

    And Babylon – you’ve forgotten the great Arab-Islamic contribution to culture – rather surprising in view of your ideology.

    But tell me Herr Hess, where are those great civilizations now?

    And look at the contributions to science and the arts made by the modern Hebrews – sorry Khazars. Looks like we’ve had a field day over-compensating!

  237. >>By the way, I’ve read that ad hominem abuse is frowned upon here, my name’s ‘Toxy’ not ‘Toxic Waste’.

    >>If you can’t be lucid at least attempt to be polite.

    This from the person who calls right wingt Israelis scum!

  238. More from the Lexicon of Toxy’s double standards:

    >>Any rudeness in my rhetoric is generic to supporters of the Israeli government (and other such scum) as a group. There is nothing personal about it. Were you to withdraw your support from this ignominious regime I would withdraw all such comments insofar as they relate to you. How could I do otherwise?<< So calling people who differ from your opinion "scum" is all right as long as you don't name them! >>I challenge you again. Where do I advocate genocide?

    Well let’s see then?

    >>The best thing that could happen to this planet would be having ‘Israel’ crossed off it and ‘Palestine’ written over the top in crayon.

    I don’t think you meant merely changing the country’s name!

    >>I look forward to the day they [the Israelis] commit nuclear suicide

    So no advocacy of genocide there then…

  239. Simone said:”Well, the Ten Commandments, for a start, generally accepted as the basis for all Western systems of morality.”

    Brian replied “Really? I always assumed it was because Jews were the only community in the world so morally bankrupt that they needed the rules written down.”

    So writing down rules of conduct is a sign of moral bankruptcy Brian?

  240. More on the Toxy demagoguery saga:

    TOXY>>I’m just posting information I’ve read on the net. I have no view on the matter either way,

    First make slanderous accusations designed to exonerate the guilty and blame the innocent. Then when challenged, try to weasel out of it.

    TOXY>>others are welcome to draw conclusions if they feel they have all the facts at their disposal. I certainly don’t.

    But that didn’t stop you trying to stir things up against the Jewish state.

    TOXY>>I simply consider the article indicative that my deep distrust of the Israeli administration is shared by others including, it would appear, Fox News.

    “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest!”

    Simone asked: “Are you ready to stake the credibility of ALL your claims on the veracity of your claim that Israel was behind 9/11?”

    Toxy evaded: “I’m placing none of them on this matter.”

    In other words, “I wanted to sling some mud, but because the lie won’t stand up to scrutiny I don’t want to sacrifice my whole credibility. So I’d better back pedal.

    Toxy said: “Try answering the questions I put to and stop resorting to trying to change the subject.”

    In other words, “you answer my loaded questions, but don’t ask me any – even on a subject that I raised in the first place – because I don’t want to get caught out.”

    TOXY: “I didn’t call it evidence I said it was an interesting snippet of information. You will note I made no comment wither way as to it’s veracity or accuracy.”

    In other words: “Damnit I just meant to stir up hatred against the Jewish state! I didn’t think I’d be taken to task and challenged to prove my secondhand accusations.”

    Then Toxy said: “I have completely qualified my introduction of this information and your protestations are lending it far more credibility than it would seem to deserve at face value.”

    So there we have it. 1) smuggle in a false and very serious accusation via the back door; 2) Claim neutrality on the accusation; 3) Claim that the anger the slanderous accusation generates is proof that it is true.

    Well let me spell it out to you Toxy. We have had enough of being slandered by scum (I don’t mean you of course, I mean those who slander Israel). We stand up to it because enough Jews have suffered because of that kind of malicious slander. We no longer take it lying down.

    You think that “neutral” repetition of some one else’s accusations is reasonable? Well let’s see then. Suppose some one said: “So and so told me that Toxy is a drug dealer. I’m not saying I agree, but I did hear it from so and so.” Would THAT be a legitimate form of discourse?

    Of course not.

    Well sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  241. David Kessler said” “>>Hopefully not, What on earth do you mean “hopefully not.” First you accuse us of keeping our brothers out and then you apply retroactive hope? Hope of what? That they’ll allow them in (in the year 2006?)????” – Your point is meaningless, British Jews did not want these 3 million vagrants let into Britian partly because they were aware that a great number of them brought with them the seeds of their revolutionary & nationalistic nature. The Jews of Britian wanted it to be someone else’s problem. You focus on the “hopefully not” comment to try to cleverly point out that I’m anti-Jewish, I already told you I am. I am not an anti-Semite, as the Palestinians and greater Arab communities are Semites, as we have estavlished, you pasty-faced Khazars, you just wallow in your adopted Jewishness,

    “>>It seems to me that your people had made themselves most unwelcome in their native land by acts of sedition and revolution, …. So first of all you try grabbing power in Russia, that fails…
    Sorry, but I think your history is a little shaky. The Russian Revolution did take place as far as I recall. You said they played a part in that revolution didn’t you? So let me get this straight: the Jews played a major part in creating a revolution in Russia and then chose to leave the country where they’d succeeded in creating a revolution? You’ll have to do better than that Herr Hess.” – Winston Churchill, for one, warned in a article published in the February 8, 1920, issue of the London Illustrated Sunday Herald that Bolshevism is a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.”:
    There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate, Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combatting Counter-Revolution [the Cheka] has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. – Churchill was later quoted as saying that the Balfour Declaration and his own bullying of Arab leaders to accommodate Zionist settlement was pay-back for Zionists bringing the United States into World War I at the point when Britian was considering surrender.

    >> Wrong, the Bolshevic Jews the wanted to usurp the power of the country and they got stopped.
    But before, you said Zionist Jews. Now it’s Bolshovic Jews. Either way, you’re talking codswallop. The Bolshevic Jews supported the revolution because they were Bolshovics, not because they were Jews. The Many Jews who wanted to leave did so because they had as little faith in Bolshovism as they did in Tsarism. There may have been a few disgruntled ex-revolutionaries among them, but that’s hardly relevant to the issue – unless you have proof that most of these 3 million were Bolsheviks.” – A Jew (one that has been born into the club and takes on board the turgid philosophy spewed into their forming and innocent minds is a Jew unless totally assimilated and has abandoned the club, then he is a member of the society in which he finds himself. Whilst he’s a Jew he thinks only fir Jewish interests.

    “>>Hitler only supported the transfer of Jews to Palestine as a means of putting pressure on the British. He liked to play off one side against the other.” – Blah blah blah, proof please, perhaps there was some prior agreement with Zionists, call it a mutually beneficial state of affairs! You’re saying you refuse to believe that Hitler liked to play off one side against the other? Your saying that Jews didn’t have legitimate grounds to try and persuade Hitler to let Jews go? And that trying to persuade him amounted to co-operation?” – You are ignoring Zionist collaboration with the Nazi’s from their rise to power their total agreement with the Nuremburg Laws, the flying of the Star of David over Zionist training camps run by the SS, the offer in January 1941 by Zionists to fight with the Nazis against their “common enemy”, Britain. And you have audacity to say that Hitler would go against his principles to be expedient.

    >>”>> Adolf Hitler himself personally ensured that the Transfer Agreement remained in place as late as 1938, despite severe pressure from his cabinet ministers and reserve bank, at the damage such an agreement was having on their foreign currency reserves. You mean that nice Mr Schickelgruber was helping the Jews even fter his frienly meeting with Haj Amin al-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) in 1936?” – Perhaps he was betrayed, perhaps the Zionists went back on their word. Or perhaps he hated the Jews from start to finish and the Jews were simply trying to save their brothers from Hitler by whatever means was available, whether it be compromise or conflict.” – Perhaps he was doing what was agreed with the Zionists, we get you into power with your fascist ideals, your part of the bargain is you make life in the Reich intolerable for Jews so we can encourage them into Palestine. What was is David, jealousy on the part of the Jewish Nationalists as to the contribution assimilated Jews were making in Germany, a case of, “we should be getting the credit, they are Jews not Germans”?

    >> (not like a Jew is it
    Don’t you mean a Khazar, Herr Hess? Either way, you’re showing your true colours Herr Hess – and after I accepted your story about the medallion!” – No I mean Jew, member of the club that had as its creed the ascertion that it right to lie, cheat, steal, and kill from and of non-Jews. It really matters not your ancestry up to being made a member of the club.

    “>>and he needed to assess the long term wisdom of a Zionist State,
    From his point of view it probably wasn’t wise. I get the impression that you share his point of view?” – On the one hand I am staring to see the wisdom of seperating Jews from other races, but at the expense of the Palestinians, well that’s just not fair. My personal preference is to educate Jews away from Judaism, that’s probably best.

    “>> not that I know such a meeting took place, you might have just made it up,
    It’s actually well-known amongst those who take an interest in the subject. There’s even a picture of them.
    >> it’s what you do isn’t it? Do you mean me as an individual or “you” as in “you Jews”? At any rate your ignorence on this point speaks volumes!” – So he met the Mufti, I think after he was betrayed by the Zionists and the wholesale slaughter of people began the rules changed. Hitler still had a job to do, and I don’t think for an instance wiping out Jews was his main priority. Yes I do think Jews are liars as a group when it comes to non-Jews, your mendacity and that of the State of Israel are two examples.

    “>>The only co-operation Jews made with Nazis was to get Jews out alive. You make the most legitimate activities sound nefarious. >Bollocks, “one cow in Palestine is worth 500 000 Jews in Europe” – Blah blah blah, I haven’t a clue what you mean. Could you be a bit more coherent?” – Ok, Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to bring them to power and create a situation in Germany and elsewhere where Jewsih communities were bullied and smashed in order raise the Jewish numbers in Palestine. A similar situation to Ben-Gurion authorizing terrorist attacks on Jews in Iraq to compel to leave.

    >>Zionists stopped the repatriation of Jews to anywhere other than populated Palestine. President Truman made over 400 000 visas available for Jews that survived the holocaust to come to America, did the Zionists let him bring them? .. answers on a postcard please David. You’ve shifted from talking about BEFORE the war to talking about AFTER. Before the war – when the Jews needed to get away in order to survive, – the doors were slammed in their faces. After the war it was another matter. But if 400,000 of them had actually arrived in America, how owuld they have been greeted after the initial welcome wore off? With returning soldiers looking for jobs? Remember the film Gentlemen’s Agreement – about POST-war antisemetism in America? ” – Pick your side David, “the no-one loves us or wants us” to “oh well, so yes humantarian offers were on the table, but we turned them down, cos it doesn’t suit our cause” just highlights your Jewishness (club not race).

    “No it’s highly relevant and it it YOU my dishonest adverssary who have chosen to ignore the point. You cite the self-deluded rantings of Goebals as evidence that the Nazis and Zionists shared common principles. I pointed out that the Nazis were perfectly ready to deviate from their ideology, and then rationalize about it, when it suited them. I realize the point went over your head but then again so would a kick in the groin.” – No I can cite many Jewish authorities who are ashamed at the evidence that exists that proves deepseated collusion and common purpose between Nazis and Zionists to the point where Jews that won’t play their role in Zionism are totally expendable.

    “>> whilst we’re on the point of Aryan racial superiority what is it that you people teach your children about anyone that’s not in your club?That they are fellow human beings.” – I quote a Jewish source “…the word “shiksa” is a Yiddish term of disgust derived from the biblical Hebrew word shakaytz, meaning “to abominate an unclean thing.”
    Shiksa is the “N” word of the Jewish community. It is so often used jokingly that we can forget that it’s a vile, sexist, racist word. Somehow, perhaps because sexism is still tolerated in a way that racism is not, “shiksa” is more acceptable than the equally despicable “shvartze.” Yet, when asked, most people who use the term “shiksa” will defend their word choice with the argument that it is common parlance for denoting a non-Jewish woman, and not intended as an insult. But, whatever the intention, it remains a crass insult, and reveals a state of mind that embarrasses us as a community. ” See David, you are a liar, but that’s ok you’re only lying to a goy.

    [Ed: deleted]

  242. Simone said “As for your last three posts – why don’t you add the notorious Tsarist forgery “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as well? And you claim to hate only “Zionists” and to be indifferent to other Jews? Every word you write drips with ANTI-JEWISH venom. Please don’t try to insult my intelligence – or the intelligence of anyone else reading this message board.” – Well to be honest it started with a dislike for Israeli practices against Arabs but that lead to more research, and quite honesty I find the entire structure of your religion/cult/club or whatever it is completely reprehensible. Whilst you mention the “Protocols” (I haven’t read it, but intend to) Concerning “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” Mr. Henry Ford said on February 17, 1921: “The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on . . . They have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.” But he was just an anti-Semite I’m sure you’ll say. Perhaps he too was compelled at some point to look into the doctrines of Judaism and found as Tacitus the Roman historian found

    “These ceremonies, in whatever way introduced, are by their antiquity maintained. The rest of their institutions are unhallowed, filthy, and from their depravity only drew their influence. For here from every quarter all who were most profligate and wicked, accumulated tribute and rich offerings, rejecting the worship and divinities of their own country. Hence the encrease and improvement of the Jewish State, as also because they are inflexible in their faith and adherence to one another, and prone to mutual acts of compassion; but towards the whole human race besides they retain deadly and implacable hate. With all others they refuse to eat, with all others to lodge; nay, they who are a people abandoned to sensuality, avoid the embraces of all foreign women. Amongst themselves nothing is accounted unlawful. They instituted circumcision on purpose to be distinguished by a peculiar mark” – The works of Tacitus Book V. What’s changes I might ask? Why do you who process the Jewish mental disorder, as it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that it is, demand that other accept you and treat you fairly, when you think the following?
    “The sad secret of Jewish culture, however, is that the first part of that old anti-Semitic charge is essentially true. Indeed, Jews do believe themselves spiritually superior to the rest of the world. Call it being God’s chosen people or call it belief in the innate superiority of Jewish blood, the result is the same: contempt for the goyim. This is simply the converse of ethnic pride, its morally reprehensible flip side. If others display physical skills superior to yours, then denigrate the value of such skills, sneer that they are proof of their owners’ brutishness. You are built of too fine and pure and delicate a fiber to indulge in such nonsense; yours is the world of the mind and the spirit. In the same way, you must discount the value of lack of inhibition or of high libido: a cultured and refined people (guess who) hide their light under a bushel because they actually prefer to do so and because to do so is, well, nicer. This just hints at the number of bizarre misconceptions traditional Jewish society believed and still believes about non-Jews.” – Ex-Jew David Dvorkin
    How about these little pearls of Jewish wisdom and “light unto nations” Let the Talmud speak for itself:
    Moed Kattan 17a: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
    Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
    Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.
    Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.
    Baba Kamma 37b. If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full.
    Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile (“heathen”) it does not have to be returned.
    Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
    Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has “exposed their money to Israel.”
    Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile.

    Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.
    Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.
    Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows.
    Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations.
    Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.
    Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.
    Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.
    Gittin 70a. On coming from a privy (outdoor toilet) a man should not have sexual intercourse till he has waited long enough to walk half a mile, because the demon of the privy is with him for that time; if he does, his children will be epileptic.
    Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: “Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.”

    Rabbi Meir Kahane, told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are “dogs” is derived “from the Talmud.” (CBS 60 Minutes, “Kahane”).
    University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein’s philosophy: “They believe it’s God’s will that they commit violence against goyim,” a Hebrew term for non-Jews. (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p. 5).
    Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, “We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing.” (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
    Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail.” (NY Daily News, Feb. 28, 1994, p.6).

    Just remind me again why we should have anything other than contempt for your world view and attitude towards the rest of mankind? The outward manifestation of which speaks with crystal clarity in your cynicism, deceit and contempt for human life in Palestine. Your entire raison d’etre is revolting and offensive. So yes, I’ve become anti-Jew and quite frankly I view it as a badge of honour that should be worn by all civilized individuals.

  243. Back again Mr Hess? I thought you’d want to stay out of the sunlight. Oh well, looks like I’m going to have to do a little bit of fly-swatting again.

    First of all, your posts are virtually unreadable because you tend to run your own words together with those you are quoting. Thus other readers will find it hard to distinguish between mine and yours by layout alone. Fortunately they will be able to tell by distinguishing between my common sense and your hate-ridden, envy-motivated codswallop.

    However I will try to educate you – though I admit I have about as much chance of succeeding as the Arabs have of destroying Israel.

    >>British Jews did not want these 3 million vagrants let into Britain partly because they were aware that a great number of them brought with them the seeds of their revolutionary & nationalistic nature.

    Firstly, British Jewish opinion on any issue is invariably divided. I challenge you to prove that on this issue all British Jews were of one mind. We are a diverse people by nature.

    Secondly, there was no way that Britain would have allowed in three million people of ANY race or religion in one go regardless of what British Jews thought. Are you sure you’re not inventing figures here? You’ve already told us about three million Russian Jewish refugees AND three million cluster bombs. Are you sure you’re not fixated on the number three million? If so, don’t worry: there’s treatment available for that sort of thing.

    Thirdly, as for the refugees being vagrants – look whose talking!

    >>You focus on the “hopefully not” comment to try to cleverly point out that I’m anti-Jewish, I already told you I am. I am not an anti-Semite, as the Palestinians and greater Arab communities are Semites, as we have estavlished, you pasty-faced Khazars, you just wallow in your adopted Jewishness,

    Again you betray your lack of scholarship. Anti-semite means hostile to Jews, not hostile to all semites. You are confusing etymology word lexicography. As for your use of the pejorative “pasty-faced” – again, remember what they say about people who live in glass houses.

    “>>There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.

    Certainly Jews have played a major part in Communism. They have also played a major part in capitalism. They have also played a major part in physics, mathematics, music, literature, philosophy, law etc. We are achievers. I make no apology for that.

    But to address the specific issue of the Russian revolution. Jews had always been persecuted for being different. They responded in one of three ways. Some said that the solution was to have a country of our own: they became Zionists. Some responded by trying to create a society where differences between people are abolished: they became Communists. And some decided to go to a country where being different is a virtue: they went to America. The latter were probably the smartest! (As I said before there was some overlap, but the underlying thesis is correct.)

    >>Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people.

    The revolution could not have succeeded without the support of vast numbers of non-Jews. And after the overthrow of the Jews they kept the revolution. So it’s not as if the Jews were doing something that the other Russians didn’t want. It’s just that Russian anti-semitism reared its ugly head.

    >> – Churchill was later quoted as saying that the Balfour Declaration and his own bullying of Arab leaders to accommodate Zionist settlement was pay-back for Zionists bringing the United States into World War I at the point when Britian was considering surrender.

    A more plausible theory is that the Balfour Declaration was pay-back for Haim Weizmann’s work on explosives that helped the war effort. But this is irrelevant because Israel’s legitimacy does not derive from the Balfour Declaration. It derives from the fact that we built a country on a small, sparsely populated corner of the fading Turkish empire.

    I said: >>before, you said Zionist Jews. Now it’s Bolshovic Jews. Either way, you’re talking codswallop. The Bolshevic Jews supported the revolution because they were Bolshovics, not because they were Jews.

    You replied: >>A Jew (one that has been born into the club and takes on board the turgid philosophy spewed into their forming and innocent minds is a Jew unless totally assimilated and has abandoned the club, then he is a member of the society in which he finds himself. Whilst he’s a Jew he thinks only fir Jewish interests.

    I don’t know how anyone can believe such drivel: “turgid philosophy” indeed. But the Jews who supported the revolution were assimilated – to the point that they didn’t practice the religion. As you said yourself, they were atheists! Your claim that they were acting in Jewish interests and not in furtherance of the socialist ideology would be more credible if you had some evidence.

    “>>You are ignoring Zionist collaboration with the Nazi’s from their rise to power their total agreement with the Nuremburg Laws

    Prove that the mainstream Zionist movement supported the Nuremburg laws.

    >>the flying of the Star of David over Zionist training camps run by the SS

    The Star of David was used in Nazi Germany to mark out Jews. But prove that these were Zionist training camps.

    >>the offer in January 1941 by Zionists to fight with the Nazis against their “common enemy”, Britain

    Now I realize the full extent of the willfully dishonest game that you have been playing all along! You are referring to an offer made ONE maverick Zionist (Avraham Stern, calling himself Ben Yair) to cooperate with the German’s against Britain. Stern was the after Etzel itself suspended all hostilities with Britain (over mandatory Palestine) in order to work WITH the British in fighting against the Nazis. Indeed, the leader of Etzel – David Raziel – lost his life on a mission FOR the British.

    Stern later realized the error of his ways and regretted his actions. He was stupid and one could say evil, but hardly a representative of mainstream Zionism at the time of his actions. To equate the actions of Stern with Zionist policy is willfully dishonest – and it offers a broader insight into your mendacious methodology.

    >>And you have audacity to say that Hitler would go against his principles to be expedient.<< It's not audacity my wily, devious friend: it's fact. Now that your dishonest manipulation of the Stern incident is laid bare, your pseudo-righteous indignation rings hollow. >>”>>Perhaps he was doing what was agreed with the Zionists, we get you into power with your fascist ideals, your part of the bargain is you make life in the Reich intolerable for Jews so we can encourage them into Palestine.

    If your dishonesty hadn’t already been exposed and discredited, you might have got away with this spurious argument. As you have no evidence to show that Jews encouraged Hitler, you’re simply wasting our time.

    >> No I mean Jew, member of the club that had as its creed the ascertion that it right to lie, cheat, steal, and kill from and of non-Jews. It really matters not your ancestry up to being made a member of the club.

    I know of no Jews who engage in such PRACTICES. You must have been associating with the wrong Jews.

    “>>On the one hand I am staring to see the wisdom of seperating Jews from other races

    Careful, you’re in danger of becoming a Zionist!

    >>but at the expense of the Palestinians, well that’s just not fair.

    Your brotherly love is touching… only it rings rather hollow.

    >>My personal preference is to educate Jews away from Judaism, that’s probably best.

    Like the atheist Jews of the Russian Revolution? Many Jews today are highly secularized – including many Zionists. That doesn’t seem to spare them your contempt. I suspect that you have another solution, but lack the courage to declare it.

    “>> So he met the Mufti, I think after he was betrayed by the Zionists and the wholesale slaughter of people began the rules changed. Hitler still had a job to do,

    Firstly, he wasn’t betrayed by Zionists, because the Zionists owed him nothing. He was the enemy who sought to harm the Jewish people. They sought to help the Jewish people. Secondly, you use the passive tense to refer to the “wholesale slaughter” as if it were trivial and thirdly, you don’t say what was this job that Hitler had to do, but you strongly imply that you agree with it.

    >>I don’t think for an instance wiping out Jews was his main priority.

    No, but it is yours! Hitler initially he used them as slave labour and only killed the old and the sick. Towards the end of the war they kept the death camps going.

    >>Yes I do think Jews are liars as a group when it comes to non-Jews, your mendacity and that of the State of Israel are two examples.<< The man who tried to pretend that the Avraham Stern incident was indicative of mainstream Zionism is hardly in a position to accuse me of mendacity! ">> Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to bring them to power and create a situation in Germany and elsewhere where Jewsih communities were bullied and smashed in order raise the Jewish numbers in Palestine.

    Prove!

    >>A similar situation to Ben-Gurion authorizing terrorist attacks on Jews in Iraq to compel to leave.

    Prove!

    >> Pick your side David, “the no-one loves us or wants us” to “oh well, so yes humantarian offers were on the table, but we turned them down, cos it doesn’t suit our cause” just highlights your Jewishness (club not race).

    Do I need to repeat myself. I’ll try to say it in simple English so that you will understand. Before the war when Jews needed to escape, the doors were closed. After the war visas to America were available. The visas weren’t turned down because it didn’t “suit our cause” but because if such a large number of Jews had arrived it would not have taken long for people like you to come out of the woodwork and start stirring up hatred. The fact that your anger is directed at diaspora Jews as well as those in Israel provides a perfect illustration of this. I’m not saying that such Jews would definitely have faced a tide of hostility if they had flocked into America, but they might have done. The risk was there and Zionism offered a reasonable alternative.

    >> I quote a Jewish source “…the word “shiksa” is a Yiddish term of disgust derived from the biblical Hebrew word shakaytz, meaning “to abominate an unclean thing.”
    Shiksa is the “N” word of the Jewish community. It is so often used jokingly that we can forget that it’s a vile, sexist, racist word. Somehow, perhaps because sexism is still tolerated in a way that racism is not, “shiksa” is more acceptable than the equally despicable “shvartze.” Yet, when asked, most people who use the term “shiksa” will defend their word choice with the argument that it is common parlance for denoting a non-Jewish woman, and not intended as an insult. But, whatever the intention, it remains a crass insult, and reveals a state of mind that embarrasses us as a community. ” See David, you are a liar, but that’s ok you’re only lying to a goy.

    WRONG AGAIN Herr Hess. Once again you and your Jewish source are confusing the origins of a word with its meaning. Words are defined by their usage not their etymology. Words take on meanings according to how they are used and their meanings can change over time.

    “>> You still disgust me, you arrogant little twerp. I want nothing from you and there is certainly nothing you can give.

    Like I said, you don’t do irony very well. But when you use words like “arrogant little twerp” I know I’m winning the debate!

    >> Moses Hess was born Moritz Hess in Bonn in 1812…. Blah, blah, blah

    But why did you take his name? I note that you have told us very little about what you believe (only what you don’t believe).

    >>Zionists are fascists, by association therefore Nazis, and that prick is one of the worst.

    Calling some one a prick because you don’t agree with him is another sign of intellectual impotence.

    I wrote: >>”Fascism with an elected parliament? Fascism with an electoral system based on proportional representation? Fascism in a country which has two official languages: Hebrew and Arabis? Fascism in a country where Arabs who oppose the state’s right to exist are allowed to sit in it parliament? Fascism where 400,000 people (8 percent of the population) turn out to demonstrate against their government – in a peaceful demonstration?”

    Your reply: >>Spurious and irrelevant

    The relevance is glaringly obvious to anyone but a half-wit! You call Israel fascist, when the evidence shows that it is a democracy.

    >>You’re a Jew, you’re in the club, you are conditioned to think of non-Jews as sub-human, you can’t help it, only hide it.

    You’re not really in any position to tell people what MY views are. You are barely capable of giving an honest account of your own: “My personal preference is to educate Jews away from Judaism” indeed!

    You wrote:>> you’ve been conditioned since they mutilated your genitalia.

    I wrote:>>My genitalia, your brain, we should form a mutual support society!”

    You wrote: Tosser.

    So you don’t like it when your miserable, pathetic sarcasm is thrown back in your face? Tough luck! This means I’m winning

    >> I thin you’ve been exposed as lying about this matter. [the Shiksa question]

    I’ve already dealt with your dishonesty on this matter (see above).

    >>By the way the medal was available from William Rosenblum of Rosenblumcoins.com, I’ll ask Bill Rosenblum if he has another for you, but I don’t think he works on Saturdays.

    I found the site, but not the medal. I’ll write to him and check it out. By the way is “Bill” one of those you classify as “scum” or is he sufficiently assimilated to be spared this appellation?

    >>Why put him in a sound-proof box, what were worried he might say that the world might hear. Oh I’m sure it was for his own safety, this guy you are going to kill, needs protecting.

    It was a bullet-proof box and yes it was for his own protection. There was some anger towards him, but like every accused he was entitled to a fair trial and he got one. Am I to understand that you sympathize with him? Is that because you think he didn’t kill any Jews or because you think he was right to do so. And for once in your life, please give a straight answer and don’t evade.

    >>I’m not going to go over the Lebanon war again as it is OBVIOUS that Israel planned it and cocked it up and your just trying to muddy the waters.

    It’s obvious to me that they DIDN’T plan it and that’s why they cocked it up.

    >>You have not once denied your club’s aim at Eretz Yisrael. That speaks volumes.

    Once again I’ll try and spell it out to you. There are many different Jews and many different OPINIONS. We don’t all agree with each other. We are highly diverse and individualistic (even the Bolshevik Jews) and we seldom agree with each other on anything. I know that you don’t want to accept this but that is because you are in retreat from reality.

    >>Prior to Zionist insanity there were 50 000 Jews living peacefully side by side with their Palestinian neighbour as they had for probably 2000 years.

    So you concede that there was a Jewish presence for 2000 years. Good, we’re making progress. But it couldn’t have stayed a Turkish colony forever, with or without Zionism. And initially the Arabs worked with the Zionists against the Ottoman empire. Why shouldn’t more Jews have returned to that sparsely populated Turkish colony to build a home there?

    Without quoting the entire exchange again, I note that you haven’t answered my question about how this combined Jew-Arab state that you profess to believe in will work, given the treatment of minorities in many Arab and Islamic countries.

    You>> How about Zionist attrocities carried out in Iraq against Jews to compel them to leave

    Me>>I know of no such attrocities.”

    You>>That is either because you are ignorant or are lying, I lean toward the latter as you have some “previous”.

    That’s rich! Coming from the man who tried to portray Avraham Stern as a mainstream Zionist!

    “>> The Hebrews ruled by a rather peculiar preist class were misfits

    With whom did they misfit? Rule by priests? So what. Traditionally human leadership was based on two things: strength and mysticism – the chief and the medicine man – King Arthur and Merlin, Attila the Hun and his Astrologer. The Hebrews were unexceptional in this regard. Somewhere along the line, mysticism gave way to genuine scholarship and knowledge – in the case of Judaism, when the priest gave way to the Rabbi.

    You quote that anti-Semitic hypocrite Martin Luther to the effect that:

    “Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, that it is no sin to kill if a Jew kills a heathen, but it is a sin if he kills a brother in Israel?

    Personally I wouldn’t know because I’ve never read the Talmud: I’m an assimilated Khazar! But then again, how many Jews do live by the Talmud. I suspect that the Talmud has been read more by anti-semitic scum (looking for excuses) than by Jews (who, for the most part, live in the modern world).

    But then it turns out that you are quoting Israel Shahak (who in turn is quoting Luther). Now Israel Shahak is a leading Israeli Bolshevik who called Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky a “Nazi.” Shahak also wrote an article in praise of Stalin. So much for your sources!

    >> The “facts on the ground” are that you are there now, so the solution is to stop being racist facists and integrate the Palestinians, all of them, into one society. But you can’t do that can you, because of Judaism that causes you to hate all other nations?

    The Palestinians are Muslims and as such they would not want to treat the Jews as equals. The most we could hope for is to be a so-called “protected minority” – their euphemism for second class citizens. We won’t accept that status, so the only solution is separation. Israeli Arabs can of course remain in Israel – as they want to.

    >>Unfortunately, the archaeology of early Israel is silent in the sense that the excavated monuments are virtually bereft of historical inscriptions, thus failing to provide confirmation of the chronological framework for the biblical narratives.” – Rohl (A Test of Time, p10)

    Also failing to provide a refutation.

    >>”The third period of settlement, from 1200 BC, was a response to the collapse of Canaanite cities in the face of invasion by the Sea Peoples.
    Fringe pastoralists/ subsistence farmers became the original ‘Israelites’ – most in the central highlands of Samaria, rather fewer further south in Judaea.”

    This doesn’t prove discontinuity from the later Israelite Kingdoms.

    >>And as for the contempible idea of the escape from Egypt, you really don’t want to go there.

    Actually I do. There is a theory (which Freud believed) that Moses, Aaron and the Cohanim were actually an educated class of Egyptians who converted to monotheism and passed it on to the Israelite slaves. Some Jews are deeply offended by this theory but I find it fascinating.

    “>> Out of character, Shatila, Sabra,

    Come off it, Hessy, you know those massacres were carried out by the Christian Militia of the Jemayal clan after the murder of basher Jemayel. And they’d suffered a lot at the hands of the Syrian-Palestinian alliance with the murder of 12,000 Christians at Damur.

    >> Old men with rifles against indisciplined blood-thirsty murders, read the UN attache’s report, once again you’re lying.

    Young men with rifles. But when the Etzel-Lehi force broke through, they deserted.

    >>I thought you people didn’t like quibbling about the numbers of dead when it comes to massacres, isn’t it “Denial”, or does that only apply to massacres against Jews?

    The fact is you got it wrong and are too proud or mendacious to admit it.

    YOU>>There will never be peace in the Middle East while Zionism is supported by weak-kneed and easily bought political stooges in the US and the American population remains so uneducated

    ME>>But I thought peace was going to happen when Israel is destroyed “one day soon” (YOUR words Herr Hess) by Nasrallah and co.”

    YOU>>Yes, and there will be a measure of resrimination, try the “Truth and Reconcilliation” approach of the South Africans.

    Me>>You contradicted yourself. I pointed it out. You evaded again with this preposterous comparison between the Palestinians and the ANC. Arafat was no Mandela and mandela never used the methods that the PLO or Hamas”

    YOU:>>Once again David you’re lying, I never made such comparison, I simply said you would best served trying a SA-style “TRC” when political Zionism is at an end and the Zionist State is disbanded.

    Whether you made the comparison explicit or not that was the clear indication. And you are STILL evading my central point that your “solution” won’t work because the PLO and Hamas lack the decency of the ANC. If they had some one like Mandela, then Israel could find some one to work with him.

    >>In exchange for a small Nuclear Reactor in the Negev, from which you have amassed an arsenal of over 200 nuclear bombs. God bless the French.

    The French are very pluralistic. They sold nuclear technology to the Iraqis too!

    >>You got kicked out and humbled twice

    We never wanted to be their in the first place. We went there to sort out a problem. Yes we did sustain heavy casualties and yes some Israeli politicians were arrogant. Other Israelis criticized them for their arrogance. So what. All this proves is that Israel is a country with many schools of thought, not a vast Zionist conspiracy with an agreed game-plan.

    >> you begged the US to take Egypt out of any future military scenario, which they did. Sadat paid for it with his life. It was just an expedient peace, certainly not one Israel enjoyed.

    So when we capture territory we’re wicked expansionists and when we give up territory in return for peace were pursuing an expedient plan and aren’t sincere. You seem to have a bit of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose approach to reality.

    >> “I think a post appeared on this board from a Jew working for an NGO in the West Bank or Gaza who was appalled at the treatment of Palestinians and the manner in which medicines and other medical help was deliberately withheld from the Arabs by Zionist IDF thugs. He went on to report that a woman trapped at a checkpoint, refused access to a hospital gave birth in a car, I’m not sure if both mother and baby dies, but certainly one. Just one shining example of Jewish medical assistance.

    In times of tension and security alert, people do get held at checkpoints. But the reason she was trying to pass that checkpoint was precisely because such help is NORMALLY available – and it was the Zionist Jews who made it available.

    >>You still make me sick, you filthy Zionist apologist and anti-goy Jew.

    As I said before Herr Hess, I know that when you use language like that it means that I have won the debate.

  244. Sory, a bit got deleted from my message:

    Stern was the leader of a tiny faction that broke away from Etzel after Etzel broke away… etc

  245. He is very wisdom man .I think if west politican chenge there selfish behaiver against iran .there would be good space for goowill in honner relations .

  246. David Kessler, sorry i’m not being rude, just i’m a bit busy, unlike who wouls appear to be a fulltime Israeli/Zionist apologist (probably pays reasonably well) i have a real job to do, and some of devious claims and responses require a little research. Please be patient… and all that.

  247. Moses Hess said:
    October 23, 2006 1:04 PM | permalink

    “David Kessler, sorry i’m not being rude, just i’m a bit busy, unlike who wouls appear to be a fulltime Israeli/Zionist apologist (probably pays reasonably well) i have a real job to do, and some of devious claims and responses require a little research. Please be patient… and all that.”

    As far as I can see, David Kessler only wrote in over the weekend, so, to this interested – and highly entertained – observer, it would appear that he also has a regular job during the week. You, on the other hand, have been spouting your drivel for quite a while before that. So, didn’t your “full-time” job bother you then, or does it only crop up conveniently when someone takes the time to answer your parrot talk with serious, well-researched arguments and irrefutable facts? I suppose the truth is, you need time to run off into a corner and lick your wounds. BTW, what is this “research” you talk about? As far as I can see, most of your claims are just copied off some neo-Nazi site on the Internet. Is that your idea of research? That shouldn’t take you too long. But by all means do some proper research for a change. I shouldn’t think it will make much difference.It seems to me that David Kessler has been running rings around you. By the looks of things, he will continue to do so.

  248. Moses Hess also said:
    “Rabbi Meir Kahane, told CBS News that his teaching that Arabs are “dogs” is derived “from the Talmud.” (CBS 60 Minutes, “Kahane”).
    University of Jerusalem Prof. Ehud Sprinzak described Kahane and Goldstein’s philosophy: “They believe it’s God’s will that they commit violence against goyim,” a Hebrew term for non-Jews. (NY Daily News, Feb. 26, 1994, p.5).”

    Meir Kahana’s “Kach” movement was outlawed by the Israeli Government as a terrorist movement, so it’s hardly fair to claim that Kahana’s philosophy is mainstream Jewish/Zionist/Israeli philosophy. And Dr. Baruch Goldstein (I assume he’s the Goldstein you referred to) was almost universally condemned in Israel except by the extreme right – and by that, I mean the VERY extreme right. Even the Likud condemned him. Once again, you are taking marginal personalities and trying to present them as representative of mainstream Zionist/Israeli/Jewish philosophy. As David Kessler has already pointed out, this is dishonest in the extreme.

  249. Toxy said:
    October 21, 2006 1:48 PM | permalink

    I put the following questions to Simone and she has done her best to ignore them and divert attention to other matters.

    (There follows a list of some 11 questions.)

    What whoppers you tell, Toxy!
    At the point you wrote that I had answered none of your questions, I had, in fact already answered three of them, numbers 3, 5 and 7 (one of them, if I’m not mistaken, before you asked the question!). True, I didn’t number my answers the way David Kessler did. Perhaps that’s what made it so easy for you to ignore them and simply pretend I was avoiding answering. As for the others, since I did not have the facts ready to hand and UNLIKE YOU, I like to check my facts rather than simply shoot my mouth off, I intended to reply in a later post. By the time I got back to you, you had introduced a completely new subject, a vicious and unsubstantiated implication that Israel was behind the 9/11 bombings,knowing perfectly well that I wasn’t going to let that go unanswered and then, having diverted my attention, you had the colossal nerve to suggest that     I,

    had changed the subject so as not to answer you!
    At any rate, it appears that David Kessler has got in before me and answered you so very thoroughly that there is hardly anything left for me to say! Most of what he says, I agree with.

    The prosecution rests

    Since, at this point, you had presented not one shred of evidence, but only asked me questions (the accused doesn’t testify during the prosecution case, remember) and simply spouted uncorroborated facts, David Kessler might perfectly legitimately have replied: “No case to answer”.
    The fact that he did choose to answer – and that you chose to twist what answers you could to suit your purpose and ignore all the rest, speaks volumes for his intellectual integrity -and your own lack thereof.

  250. Moses Hess said:

    >>David Kessler, sorry i’m not being rude, just i’m a bit busy, unlike who wouls appear to be a fulltime Israeli/Zionist apologist (probably pays reasonably well)

    I hope you’re not implying that I’m paid to represent Zionism or Israel. If so that accusation would be false. I can’t call it libelous of course because in order for it to be libel it would have to cause right thinking people to hold the subject of the comments in ridicule and contempt. And obviously no right thinking person would condemn me if I WERE a paid Israeli spokesman. In effect you are not libelling me but paying me a complement that I don’t deserve.

    By the way, it is quite common for Zionist supporters to devote their time unpaid to the cause. Look at all those students and friends of Justus Weiner who helped him in his expose of that dishonest Egyptian academic Edward Said!

    >>i have a real job to do

    So have I. That’s why I do most of my writing at the weekend.

  251. s it only observers outside the conventional mainstream who have noticed that by its murderous assault on Lebanon and simultaneously on Gaza, Israel finally exposed, for even the most deluded to see, the total bankruptcy of its very founding idea?

    Can it be that the deluded are still deluded? Can it truly still be that Israel’s bankruptcy is evident only to those who already knew it, those who already recognized Zionism as illegitimate for the racist principle that underlies it?

    Can it be therefore that only the already converted can see coming the ultimate collapse of Zionism and, with it, of Israel itself as the exclusivist state of Jews?

    Racism has always been the lifeblood of Israel. Zionism rests on the fundamental belief that Jews have superior national, human, and natural rights in the land, an inherently racist foundation that excludes any possibility of true democracy or equality of peoples. Israel’s destructive rampage in Lebanon and Gaza is merely the natural next step in the evolution of such a founding ideology. Precisely because that ideology posits the exclusivity and superiority of one people’s rights, it can accept no legal or moral restraints on its behavior and no territorial limits, for it needs an ever-expanding geography to accommodate those unlimited rights.

    Zionism cannot abide encroachment or even the slightest challenge to its total domination over its own space — not merely of the space within Israel’s 1967 borders, but of the surrounding space as well, extending outward to geographical limits that Zionism has not yet seen fit to set for itself. Total domination means no physical threat and no demographic threat: Jews reign, Jews are totally secure, Jews always outnumber, Jews hold all military power, Jews control all natural resources, all neighbors are powerless and totally subservient. This was the message Israel tried to send with its attack on Lebanon: that neither Hizbullah nor anything in Lebanon that nurtures Hizbullah should continue to exist, for the sole reason that Hizbullah challenges Israel’s supreme authority in the region and Israel cannot abide this effrontery. Zionism cannot coexist with any other ideology or ethnicity except in the preeminent position, for everyone and every ideology that is not Zionist is a potential threat.

    In Lebanon, Israel attempted by its wildly reckless violence to destroy the nation, to make of it a killing zone where only Zionism would reign, where non-Jews would die or flee or prostrate themselves, as they had during the nearly quarter-century of Israel’s last occupation, from 1978 to 2000. Observing the war in Beirut after the first week of bombing, describing the murder in an Israeli bombing raid of four Lebanese army logistics techs who had been mending power and water lines “to keep Beirut alive,” British correspondent Robert Fisk wrote that it dawned on him that what Israel intended was that “Beirut is to die . . . . No one is to be allowed to keep Beirut alive.” Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz (the man who four years ago when he headed the Israeli Air Force said he felt no psychological discomfort after one of his F-16s had dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment building in Gaza in the middle of the night, killing 14 civilians, mostly children) pledged at the start of the Lebanon assault to take Lebanon back 20 years; 20 years ago Lebanon was not alive, its southern third occupied by Israel, the remainder a decade into a hopelessly destructive civil war.

    The cluster bombs are a certain sign of Israel’s intent to remake Lebanon, at least southern Lebanon, into a region cleansed of its Arab population and unable to function except at Israel’s mercy. Cluster bombs, of which Israel’s U.S. provider is the world’s leading manufacturer (and user, in places like Yugoslavia and Iraq), explode in mid-flight and scatter hundreds of small bombs over a several-acre area. Up to one-quarter of the bomblets fail to explode on impact and are left to be found by unsuspecting civilians returning to their homes. UN surveyors estimate that there are as many as 100,000 unexploded cluster bomblets strewn around in 400 bomb-strike sites in southern Lebanon. Scores of Lebanese children and adults have been killed and injured by this unexploded ordnance since the cease-fire last month.

    Laying anti-personnel munitions in heavily populated civilian areas is not the surgical targeting of a military force in pursuit of military objectives; it is ethnic cleansing. Fully 90 percent of Israel’s cluster-bomb strikes were conducted, according to UN humanitarian coordinator Jan Egelund, in the last 72 hours before the cease-fire took effect, when it was apparent that a UN cease-fire resolution was in the works. This can only have been a further effort, no doubt intended to be more or less a coup de grace, to depopulate the area. Added to the preceding month of bombing attacks that destroyed as much as 50 or in some cases 80 percent of the homes in many villages, that did vast damage to the nation’s entire civilian infrastructure, that crippled a coastal power plant that continues to spill tons of oil and benzene-laden toxins along the Lebanese and part of the Syrian coastlines, and that killed over 1,000 civilians in residential apartment blocks, being transported in ambulances, and fleeing in cars flying white flags, Israel’s war can only be interpreted as a massiv act of ethnic cleansing, to keep the region safe for Jewish dominion.

    In fact, approximately 250,000 people, by UN estimate, are unable to return to their homes because either the homes have been leveled or unexploded cluster bomblets and other ordnance have not yet been cleared by demining teams. This was not a war against Hizbullah, except incidentally. It was not a war against terror, as Israel and its U.S. acolytes would have us believe (indeed, Hizbullah was not conducting terrorist acts, but had been engaged in a sporadic series of military exchanges with Israeli forces along the border, usually initiated by Israel). This was a war for Israeli breathing space, for the absolute certainty that Israel would dominate the neighborhood. It was a war against a population that was not totally subservient, that had the audacity to harbor a force like Hizbullah that does not bow to Israel’s will. It was a war on people and their way of thinking, people who are not Jewish and who do not act to promote Zionism and Jewish hegemony.

    Israel has been doing this to its neighbors in one form or another since its creation. Palestinians have obviously been Zionism’s longest suffering victims, and its most persistent opponents. The Zionists thought they had rid themselves of their most immediate problem, the problem at the very core of Zionism, in 1948 when they forced the flight of nearly two-thirds of the Palestinian population that stood in the way of a establishing Israel as an exclusive Jewish-majority state. You can’t have a Jewish state if most of your population is not Jewish. Nineteen years later, when Israel began to expand its borders with the capture of the West Bank and Gaza, those Palestinians who it thought had disappeared turned out to be still around after all, threatening the Zionists’ Jewish hegemony.

    In the nearly 40 years since then, Israeli policy has been largely directed — with periodic time-outs for attacks on Lebanon — toward making the Palestinians disappear for certain. The methods of ethnic cleansing are myriad: land theft, destruction of agricultural land and resources, economic strangulation, crippling restrictions on commerce, home demolition, residency permit revocation, outright deportation, arrest, assassination, family separation, movement restriction, destruction of census and land ownership records, theft of tax monies, starvation. Israel wants all of the land of Palestine, including all of the West Bank and Gaza, but it cannot have a majority Jewish state in all of this land as long as the Palestinians are there. Hence the slow strangulation. In Gaza, where almost a million and a half people are crammed into an area less than one-tenth the size of Rhode Island, Israel is doing on a continuing basis what it did in Lebanon in a month’s time — killing civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure, making the place uninhabitable. Palestinians in Gaza are being murdered at the rate of eight a day. Maimings come at a higher rate. Such is the value of non-Jewish life in the Zionist scheme of things.

    Israeli scholar Ilan Pappe calls it a slow genocide (ElectronicIntifada, September 2, 2006). Since 1948, every Palestinian act of resistance to Israeli oppression has been a further excuse for Israel to implement an ethnic cleansing policy, a phenomenon so inevitable and accepted in Israel that Pappe says “the daily business of slaying Palestinians, mainly children, is now reported in the internal pages of the local press, quite often in microscopic fonts.” His prediction is that continued killing at this level either will produce a mass eviction or, if the Palestinians remain steadfast and continue to resist, as is far more likely, will result in an increasing level of killing. Pappe recalls that the world absolved Israel of responsibility and any accountability for its 1948 act of ethnic cleansing, allowing Israel to turn this policy “into a legitimate tool for its national security agenda.” If the world remains silent again in response to the current round of ethnic cleansing, the policy will only escalate, “even more drastically.”

    And here is the crux of the situation today. Will anyone notice this horror? Has Israel, as proposed at the beginning, truly exposed by its wild summer campaign of ethnic cleansing in Lebanon and Gaza the total bankruptcy of its very founding idea, the essential illegitimacy of the Zionist principle of Jewish exclusivity? Can even the most deluded see this, or will they continue to be deluded and the world continue to turn away, excusing atrocity because it is committed by Israel in the name of keeping the neighborhood safe for Jews?

    Since Israel’s crazed run through Lebanon began, numerous clear-eyed observers in the alternative and the European and Arab media have noted the new moral nudity of Israel, and of its U.S. backer, with an unusual degree of bluntness. Also on many tongues is a new awareness of growing Arab and Muslim resistance to the staggering viciousness of Israeli-U.S. actions. Palestinian-British scholar Karma Nabulsi, writing in the Guardian in early August, laments the “indiscriminate wrath of an enemy driven by an existential mania that cannot be assuaged, only stopped.” American scholar Virginia Tilley (Counterpunch, August 5, 2006) observes that any kind of normal, peaceful existence is anathema to Israel, for it “must see and treat its neighbors as an existential threat in order to justify . . . its ethnic/racial character.” Even before the Lebanon war, but after Gaza had begun to be starved, political economist Edward Herman (Z Magazine, March 2006)condemned Israel’s “long-term ethnic cleansing and institutionalized racism” and the hypocritical way in which the West and the western media accept and underwrite these policies “in violation of all purported enlightenment values.”

    Racism underlies the Israeli-U.S. neocon axis that is currently running amok in the Middle East. The inherent racism of Zionism has found a natural ally in the racist imperial philosophy espoused by the neoconservatives of the Bush administration. The ultimate logic of the Israeli-U.S. global war, writes Israeli activist Michel Warschawski of the Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem (July 30, 2006) is the “full ethnicization” of all conflicts, “in which one is not fighting a policy, a government or specific targets, but a ‘threat’ identified with a community” — or, in Israel’s case, with all non-Jewish communities.

    The basically racist notion of a clash of civilizations, being promoted both by the Bush administration and by Israel, provides the rationale for the assaults on Palestine and Lebanon. As Azmi Bishara, a leading Palestinian member of Israel’s Knesset, has observed (al-Ahram, August 10-16, 2006), if the Israeli-U.S. argument that the world is divided into two distinct and incompatible cultures, us vs. them, is accurate, then the notion that “we” operate by a double standard loses all moral opprobrium, for it becomes the natural order of things. This has always been Israel’s natural order of things: in Israel’s world and that of its U.S. supporters, the idea that Jews and the Jewish culture are superior to and incompatible with surrounding peoples and cultures is the very basis of the state.

    In the wake of Israel’s failure in Lebanon, Arabs and Muslims have a sense, for the first time since Israel’s implantation in the heart of the Arab Middle East almost 60 years ago, that Israel in its arrogance has badly overreached and that its power and its reach can be limited. The “ethnicization” of the global conflict that Michel Warschawski speaks of — the arrogant colonial approach of old, now in a new high-tech guise backed by F-16s and nuclear weapons, that assumes Western and Israeli superiority and posits a kind of apocalyptic clash between the “civilized” West and a backward, enraged East — has been seen for what it is because of Israel’s mad assault on Lebanon. What it is is a crude racist assertion of power by a Zionist regime pursuing absolute, unchallenged regional hegemony and a neoconservative regime in the United States pursuing absolute, unchallenged global hegemony. As Palestinian commentator Rami Khouri observed in an interview with Charlie Rose a week into the Lebanon war, Hizbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine, having both grown out of earlier Israeli wars of hegemony, are the political response of populations “that have been degraded and occupied and bombed and killed and humiliated repeatedly by the Israelis, and often with the direct or indirect acquiescence, or, as we see now, the direct support of the United States.”

    Those oppressed populations are now fighting back. No matter how much Arab leaders in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia may bow to the U.S. and Israel, the Arab people now recognize the fundamental weakness of Israel’s race-based culture and polity and have a growing confidence that they can ultimately defeat it. The Palestinians in particular have been at this for 60 years, never disappearing despite Israel’s best designs, never failing to remind Israel and the world of their existence. They will not succumb now, and the rest of the Arab world is taking heart from their endurance and Hizbullah’s.

    Something in the way Israel operates, and in the way the United States supports Israel’s method of operating, must change. More and more commentators, inside the Arab world and outside, have begun to notice this, and a striking number are audacious enough to predict some sort of end to Zionism in the racist, exclusivist form in which it now exists and functions. This does not mean throwing the Jews into the sea. Israel will not be defeated militarily. But it can be defeated psychologically, which means putting limits on its hegemony, stopping its marauding advance through its neighborhood, ending Jewish racial/religious domination over other peoples.

    Rami Khouri contends that the much greater public support throughout the Arab world for Hizbullah and Hamas is “a catastrophe” both for Israel and for the United States because it means resistance to their imperial designs. Khouri does not go further in his predictions, but others do, seeing at least in vague outline the vision of a future in which Israel no longer enjoys ultimate dominion. Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli living in Britain, a jazz musician and thinker, sees Hizbullah’s victory in Lebanon as signaling the defeat of what he calls global Zionism, by which he means the Israeli/U.S. neocon axis. It is the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, Afghani, and Iranian people, he says, who are “at the vanguard of the war for humanity and humanism,” while Israel and the U.S. spread destruction and death, and more and more Europeans and Americans, recognizing this, are falling off the Zionist/neocon bandwagon. Atzmon talks about Israel as, ultimately, “an historic event” and a “dead entity.”

    Many others see similar visions. Commentators increasingly discuss the possibility of Israel, its myth of invincibility having been deflated, going through a South Africa-like epiphany, in which its leadership somehow recognizes the error of its racist ways and in a surge of humanitarian feeling renounces Zionism’s inequities and agrees that Jews and Palestinians should live in equality in a unitary state. British MP George Galloway (Guardian, August 31, 2006) foresees the possibility of “an FW de Klerk moment” emerging in Israel and among its international backers when, as occurred in South Africa, a “critical mass of opposition” overwhelms the position of the previously invincible minority and the leadership is able to justify transferring power on the basis that doing so later under duress will be far less favorable. Short of such peaceful transition, along with a move to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Galloway ­ along with many others — sees only “war, war and more war, until one day it is Tel Aviv which is on fire and the Israeli leaders’ intransigence brings the whole state down on their heads.”

    This increasingly appears to be the shape of the future: either Israel and its neocon supporters in the United States can dismantle Zionism’s most egregious aspects by agreeing to establish a unitary state in Palestine inhabited by the Palestinians and Jews whose land this is, or the world will face a conflagration of a scale not fully imaginable now.

    Just as Hizbullah is an integral part of Lebanon, not to be destroyed by the bombing of bridges and power plants, the Palestinians before their expulsion in 1948 were Palestine and still are Palestine. By hitting the Palestinians where they lived, in the literal and the colloquial sense, Israel left them with only a goal and a vision. That vision is justice and redress in some form, whether redress means ultimately defeating Zionism and taking back Palestine, or reconciling with Israel on the condition that it act like a decent neighbor and not a conqueror, or finally joining with Israeli Jews to form a single state in which no people has superior rights . In Lebanon, Israel again seemed bent on imposing its will, its dominion, its culture and ethnicity on another Arab country. It never worked in Palestine, it has not worked in Lebanon, and it will not work anywhere in the Arab world.

    We have reached a moral crossroads. In the “new Middle East” defined by Israel, Bush, and the neocons, only Israel and the U.S. may dominate, only they may be strong, only they may be secure. But in the just world that lies on the other side of that crossroads, this is unacceptable. Justice can ultimately prevail.

    Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

  252. Wow, what a very long post that was, Kathleen Christison!
    I can’t claim to have your credentials as a student of Middle East politics, but I would like to ask just one question.
    What is so inherently “racist” about the idea of the Jewish People having their own home? The Danes have Denmark, the Dutch have Holland, the Italians have Italy. Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own? And if you agree that they have as much right to a homeland as any other nation – what more logical place for that homeland than the land which was once theirs? After all – they don’t have any other. If you were to plonk them down in some other spot and say: “Establish your homeland there”, then the natives would have every right to call them colonialists.

  253. Kate asked: What is so inherently “racist” about the idea of the Jewish People having their own home? The Danes have Denmark, the Dutch have Holland, the Italians have Italy. Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own?
    Come on Kate, you know you are being disengenius, because;

    A)- “Jews” are not a race, and never will be unless the Ashkenazi are succsessful in their subterfuge and manage to revise Judaism into Zionism at the expense of original Judaic morality and against the principles of observant Jews.

    B) Jews are not a race.

    C) Jews are not a race.

    D)The Ashkenazi had a homeland in the countries of Eastern Europe, from where they originated and in which they chose to differentiate themselves. This should not make this sorry group of wanderers (agitators, revolutionaries or nationalists)the problem of the Palestinian and greater Arab people or their land. Give it up guys – it’s over! Let’s all sit around and find some peace. You’ve been exposed, a great many people have been murdered in support of your insanity, noe let’s stop before it gets out of hand. When Sharon dies, let Chauvanist Zionism die with him and let’s create a Great Palestine, together. Anti-semitism cannot be sustained forever, just to sustain you.

  254. Durban South Africa, September 2, 2001 (Reuters) – Israel was branded a “racist apartheid” state early on Sunday by thousands of non-governmental organizations meeting in South Africa.

    The NGO Forum accused the Jewish state of “systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing.” It called Israel “a racist apartheid state in which Israel’s brand of apartheid as a crime against humanity has been characterized by separation and segregation…and inhumane acts.”

    The declaration, adopted by 3,000 NGOs in 44 regional and interest-based caucuses, shocked Jewish groups. Jewish delegates walked out.

  255. Michael Tarzai said:
    October 25, 2006 9:33 PM | permalink

    “Kate asked: What is so inherently “racist” about the idea of the Jewish People having their own home? The Danes have Denmark, the Dutch have Holland, the Italians have Italy. Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own?
    Come on Kate, you know you are being disengenius, because;

    A)- “Jews” are not a race, and never will be unless the Ashkenazi are succsessful in their subterfuge and manage to revise Judaism into Zionism at the expense of original Judaic morality and against the principles of observant Jews.

    B) Jews are not a race.

    C) Jews are not a race.”

    Repeating a lie three times does not make it true. Prove that the Jews are not a race
    As has already been stated by someone else in this discussion, DNA evidence proves the contrary.

    “D)The Ashkenazi had a homeland in the countries of Eastern Europe, from where they originated and in which they chose to differentiate themselves”

    And what about the Sephardic Jews?
    What about the Jews from the Maghreb?
    What about the Jews from the Arabian peninsular?
    What about the rest of the non-Ashkenazi Jews (all these are now the majority in Israel)?
    And what kind of a “homeland” was it where pogroms were regularly instigated against them, where they were subject to discriminatory laws, where, in many cases, they were forcibly converted to Christianity’ and where, finally, six million of them were exterminated by the Nazis, in many cases, with the active collaboration of the (non-Jewish) locals?
    Oh, and for your information, the “Ashkenazim” were those Jews who were originally dispersed to Ashkenaz, that is to say, Germany – and only later did the term come to include Jews living in Eastern Europe.
    I think it is you who are being “ingenuous”?

    BTW – Palestinians are most definitely not a race. If there is an Arab “race”, as a opposed to a linguistic group, they are part of the Arab race. The Syrians for years claimed that “Palestine” was actually part of “Greater Syria”.

    BTW – if they aren’t a race, how can they be “racist”?

    But you still are evading the question. Are the English “a race”? After all, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes invaded the land of the Celts, imposing their culture – their very name – on England.
    What is “a race”? Or perhaps the defining word should be “a nation”? What makes a nation? Are the Jews any less “a nation” than the British, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Indians, the Serbs, the Armenians, the Zimbabweans, the Moroccans, the Tunisians, the Algerians, the Tanzanians, the Saudis, the Bulgarians, etc.?

  256. Sorry, Michael Tarzai, that should read “I think it is you who are being “disingenuous”.

  257. “As has already been stated by someone else in this discussion, DNA evidence proves the contrary.”

    This is a bald, unupported statement and, as it stands, no more ‘true’ than stating, say, “The Jews are not a race”.

    So someone has taken DNA from every single person purporting to be Jewish (or even a significant proportion) and demonstrated that these people all have the same racial origins using, say, mitochodrial DNA transmitted through the female line?

    Provide some compelling evidence, and I don’t mean two hundred URL entries where they same the same thing or your argument is no better than Michael Tarzai’s.

    I would require evidence from a worthy and respected technical journal or periodical not, for example, the ‘Tel Aviv Times’.

  258. “Many Jewish people maintain a strong sense of community with other Jews around the world since they are tied together by history, faith, and common values. Indeed, many Jewish people adhere to the idea that the Jewish community makes up a “race” of people when race is defined in a broad, scriptural sense. Authors Joseph Gael and Rabbi Alfred Wolf recognize in their collaborative work entitled Our Jewish Heritage that many Jews subscribe to the “Jews as race” paradigm because of their status of “chosen people” according to ancient tradition. Nevertheless, these Jewish writers state emphatically that “there is no such thing as a Jewish race” (Gael and Wolf, pg. 3). They explain that the Jews belong to a group of peoples that spoke a similar set of languages called Semitic. Moreover, even if the term “Semitic” was a reference to a specific racial constellation, the Jews have undergone considerable integration among indigenous peoples. The racial distinction falls apart especially when trying to account for black Ethiopian Jews or Chinese Jews who have come to reflect the Mongoloid traits of the surrounding population. (Gael and Wolf, pg. 3). Therefore, even the use of the term race to describe their own group by the Jews is an anthropological inaccuracy that often goes unaddressed within Jewish linguistic or cultural conventions. Cultural anthropologist Herskovits is quite explicit when he states “neither the word Aryan nor the term Jew has scientific validity as a racial designation.” Again, the term Aryan refers to a linguistic designation while the term “Jew” refers to a group with a common history whose members resemble the overall population of the geographic area they inhabit. The many terms that have been applied to the Jews: “race, people, nation, cultural entity, ethnic group, historic type, and linguistic unit,” all include at once cultural as well as biological traits of people in the group being considered (Herskovits, pp. 84-85). Herskovits concedes that there are physical characteristics that contribute to a stereotype used to justify anthropological classifications. He rejects such typification by pointing out that “the Jews derive historically and biologically” from Mediterranean elements of the Caucasoid race, which underwent three major dispersals during the Babylonian Exile of 586 BC., the extension of Hellenism just before the Christian Era, and the imposition of Roman rule before and after the start of the Christian Era (Herskovits, pg. 85).

    Nicholas Wade. “Geneticists Report Finding Central Asian Link to Levites.” The New York Times (September 27, 2003): A2. Excerpts:

    “A team of geneticists studying the ancestry of Jewish communities has found an unusual genetic signature that occurs in more than half the Levites of Ashkenazi descent. … The genetic signature occurs on the male or Y chromosome and comes from a few men, or perhaps a single ancestor, who lived about 1,000 years ago… The new report, published in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, was prepared by population geneticists in Israel, the United States and England… They say that 52 percent of Levites of Ashkenazi origin have a particular genetic signature that originated in Central Asia, although it is also found less frequently in the Middle East. The ancestor who introduced it into the Ashkenazi Levites could perhaps have been from the Khazars, a Turkic tribe whose king converted to Judaism in the eighth or ninth century, the researchers suggest. Their reasoning is that the signature, a set of DNA variations known as R1a1, is common in the region north of Georgia that was once occupied by the Khazar kingdom.
    The signature did reach the Near East, probably before the founding of the Jewish community, but it is still rare there. … The present descendants of the Khazars have not been identified. … If the patrilineal descent of the two priestly castes had indeed been followed as tradition describes, then… all Levites [should be descended] from Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob. … But the picture among the Levites was less clear, suggesting that they had a mixed ancestry. Dr. Hammer and Dr. Skorecki returned to the puzzle for their new report, based on data gathered from nearly 1,000 men of Ashkenazi and Sephardi origin and neighboring non-Jewish populations. … The paternal ancestry of the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Levites is different, unlike the Cohanim from the two branches…”

    Wow. Evidence that Ashkenazi Levites actually may have picked up a lot of genetic material in Central Asia. Fancy that! :p

    Oh, and Ashkenazi Levites have a mixed ancestry. Oh my, the ‘Jewish race’ has been tainted.

    Dean H. Hamer. The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes (Doubleday, 2004). Excerpt from pages 191-192:

    “A recent study by Skorecki and colleagues uncovered a subgroup of Ashkenazic Levites who have a Y-chromosome pattern that is not seen in other priests, or indeed any major Jewish group, but is common in people around the mouth of the Volga River. A little sleuthing revealed the historical connection. … || … Sometime in the eighth century, they [Khazars] decided to convert from paganism to monotheism. Most of the common people became either Christian or Muslim, but the royal family and many members of the nobility opted for Judaism. They continued to rule the region for nearly five hundred years as a Jewish state. The DNA evidence shows that many of the Khazar converts declared themselves to be not only Jews but of the priestly caste. Thus the infusion of new genetic lines.”

    Oooh, burn! Genetic evidence supporting the case that non-Hebrew Russian-Ukrainian + Turkic Khazars declared themselves converts to Judiasm (and even of the priestly caste!), who later spread their seed.

    Neil Bradman, Dror Rosengarten, and Karl L. Skorecki. “The Origins of Ashkenazic Levites: Many Ashkenazic Levites Probably Have a Paternal Descent from East Europeans or West Asians.” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Ancient DNA and Associated Biomolecules, July 21-25, 2002. Abstract excerpt:

    “…Levite haplotype distributions were compared with distributions in Israelite Jews and candidate source populations (north Germans and two groups of Slavonic language speakers). The Ashkenazic Levites were most similar to the Sorbians, the most westerly Slavonic speaking group… Comparisons of the Ashkenazic Levite dataset with the other groups studied suggest that Y chromosome haplotypes, present at high frequency in Ashkenazic Levites, are most likely to have an east European or west Asian origin and not to have originated in the Middle East.”

    *chuckles* Wow, Ashkenazic Levites are more likely to have east European or west Asian origins. But wait, didn’t all the ‘true Jews’ (Hebrews) first come from the Middle east? So by the above articles reasoning, it is doubtful if many Ashkenazic Levites are true Hebrews. Oops, another hole shot in the Jewish race myth.

  259. Congressmen blast Israel for slow pace of Ethiopian aliya
    By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER

    Two US congressmen have written to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urging him to increase the rate of absorption of Ethiopians and criticizing the government for bringing only 300 each month.

    Despite Sharon’s assurances in the summer of 2003 that the immigration was being accelerated, the letter said, “We have been distressed, however, to learn that the pace of immigration from Ethiopia has averaged only 300 each month in spite of the dire poverty faced by the Ethiopian Jewish community.”
    […]
    In their letter, Nadler and Rangel mention their interest in discussing “how we might be of additional help in completing the ingathering of the Ethiopian Jewish community to our great ally, Israel.”

    Though the document doesn’t specify the type of assistance possible, Nadler told The Jerusalem Post,/i>, “If Israel asks for additional funds for the absorption of refugees, we would certainly work to secure those funds, and there’s a good chance Congress would provide them.”

    In fact, in a letter to Sharon and Poraz written in 2003, the two questioned why Israel was requesting less American aid for absorbing refugees – $50 million in 2004, down from $60m. the year before.

    “It has come to our understanding that you are concerned about a lack of funds to handle the cost of implementing the [February 2003] decision. We are therefore puzzled to hear that Israel might be seeking fewer funds from Congress,” they wrote.

    Michael Janklowitz, a Jewish Agency spokesman, confirmed that US funding for resettling refugees fell from $60m. to its current level of $50m., but said that the allocation is the result of formula by the American government set on a per-capita basis. Since fewer people immigrated from the former Soviet Union, the amount of aid correspondingly dropped.

    He added that American Jewish communities have offered to provide funding for additional absorption of Ethiopians, and that the congressmen’s letters are merely the result of lobbying by the North American Conference on Ethiopian Jewry.

    Janklowitz also noted that at the end of November Jewish Agency chairman Sallai Meridor called on the government for the first time to increase the rate of absorption of Falash Mura.

    At that time, Meridor declared, “The economic arguments for the restrictions are baseless; quickening the pace of immigration would not raise costs… It is not right to hamper the pace of immigration from any country in the world; this is the only case of this happening in the history of the State of Israel. On the personal level, this is causing unnecessary suffering among those whose immigration has been approved.” Meridor spoke ahead of a hearing in an ongoing High Court case seeking to force the government to implement its February 2003 decision.

    You’re Jewish… as long as you’re not black. And then Israel claims that it doesn’t discriminate. How laughable!

  260. Tick Tock wrote:

    >>You’re Jewish… as long as you’re not black. And then Israel claims that it doesn’t discriminate. How laughable!

    And what was the “proof”? The fact that Israel is spending less on absorption of Ethiopian Jews than it used to. This policy may be objectionable and worthy of criticism, but to infer from this that Israel is racist is to extrapolate an awful lot from very little.

    If Israel was racist then why did they absorb so many in the first place? I remember the mass airlift of 20,000 Ethiopian Jews and the mood of celebration in Israel when it happened! That doesn’t sound to me like a racist country!

  261. Kate asked: What is so inherently “racist” about the idea of the Jewish People having their own home? The Danes have Denmark, the Dutch have Holland, the Italians have Italy. Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own?

    Michael Tarzai said: Come on Kate, you know you are being disengenius, because;A)- “Jews” are not a race, and never will be unless the Ashkenazi are succsessful in their subterfuge and manage to revise Judaism into Zionism at the expense of original Judaic morality and against the principles of observant Jews

    With the greatest of respect, Mr Tarzai, the Danes, Dutch and Italians are not races either, but merely members of races. They are however distinct cultures.

    Speaking for myself I am neither a theological Jew (I am an atheist) nor an ethnic Jew (I agree with you that Jews are not a single race). I am however part of the Jewish culture and tradition. In this respect I may choose to live in the country of my birth (Britain) or the revived country of the Jewish culture (Israel). The choice is mine.

  262. David Kessler said:
    October 27, 2006 10:07 AM | permalink

    “With the greatest of respect, Mr Tarzai, the Danes, Dutch and Italians are not races either, but merely members of races. They are however distinct cultures.”

    I never said they were, but I am pleased to see you pointing out the obvious to your hysterical co-religionist.

    Perhaps I might invite you to take a look at another point I raised with Kate? I said “The Ashkenazi had a homeland in the countries of Eastern Europe, from where they originated and in which they chose to differentiate themselves (from their fellow inhabitants).”

    I think Kate was denying that the Ashkenazi are descendants, at least to a great degree of the Khazar converts to Judaism. This conversion clearly confirms the myth of the Jewish race and renders ridiculous the prior claim to the land of Palestine over its rightful inhabitants.

    Becoming a Buddhist and adopting their religion and practices as my own, doesn’t make me Tibetan or give me any historical claim and right to live in Tibet. Neither would I expect to take on the national characteristics of a Tibetan or the racial profile of the Sinoids, just by such a conversion. I might well feel great sympathy with my co-religionists and the plight they are suffering and even feel an emotionally charged bond, perhaps amplified by that suffering, but that hasn’t changed the facts.

    If my descendents continue to follow Buddhist practices etc for the next 1000 years, (forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile) would they, theoretically, at the dawn of the new millennia, have any rights to displace the descendents of the current population of Tibet, who at that time may well be atheists or Hindus or even be a new nation inter-mixed with ethnic Chinese? The answer is obvious. However, Zionist apologists go to great lengths to hide these obvious truths amid a heap pf empty rhetoric and hot air designed to satisfy the mind of the casual observer to perpetuate the bias toward Zionist aggression. Irrespective, it’s still wrong.

  263. Michael Tarzai said:
    October 27, 2006 1:56 PM | permalink

    David Kessler said:
    October 27, 2006 10:07 AM | permalink

    “With the greatest of respect, Mr Tarzai, the Danes, Dutch and Italians are not races either, but merely members of races. They are however distinct cultures.”

    I never said they were, but I am pleased to see you pointing out the obvious to your hysterical co-religionist.

    First of all, I understand Mr Kessler is Jewish. I, on the other hand, am RC (lapsed). It seems to me you are so prejudiced against Jews that if anyone supports them, you immediately assume they themselves are Jewish.

    Secondly, I don’t think anything I said, or the way I said it, could possibly be described as “hysterical.” So I’ll thank you, as my Gran used to say, to keep a civil tongue in your head.

    Thirdly, I notice you totally ignored the rest of my post, in which I pointed out that the Palestinians are also not “a race”. If only “a race” is entitled to a land of its own, why are the Palestinians any more entitled than the Jews.
    You also ignored the other questions I posed to you.
    I repeat:
    And what about the Sephardic Jews?
    What about the Jews from the Maghreb?
    What about the Jews from the Arabian peninsular?
    What about the rest of the non-Ashkenazi Jews (all these are now the majority in Israel)?

    Finally, I notice you have not yet answered actually my question, why should the Jews not have a home of their own, just as the Italians, Danes, Dutch, etc. Even if, for the sake of argument, we say that neither the Jews nor the other peoples I have mentioned constitute “a race”, you have not yet explained why these other “non-races” are entitled to their own country and the Jews are not.

    Mr Kessler pointed out that the Italians, Danes and Dutch are distinct culture groups. This is certainly true of the Jews.

    Furthermore, I myself suggested that the defining word be “nation” rather than race. A nation is defined by a common language, culture and history. Taking that as my starting point, I repeat the question I put to you:
    What makes a nation? Are the Jews any less “a nation” than the British, the French, the Germans, the Spanish, the Indians, the Serbs, the Armenians, the Zimbabweans, the Moroccans, the Tunisians, the Algerians, the Tanzanians, the Saudis, the Bulgarians, etc.?

  264. Kate said:
    October 25, 2006 3:51 PM | permalink

    Wow, what a very long post that was, Kathleen Christison!
    I can’t claim to have your credentials as a student of Middle East politics…

    I wouldn’t be too impressed with her credentials, Kate. I took a moment to check out her book, “The Wound of Dispossession”, advertised on her own website. It included some details about the author. Here’s what she has to say about herself:
    Kathleen Christison graduated from Duquesne University with a B.A. in English literature in 1964. She worked as a political analyst with the CIA for 16 years, dealing with the Middle East for eight years. Since resigning from the CIA in 1979, she has been a freelance writer, dealing with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

    Simple arithmetic leads to the following conclusion. If she worked as a CIA analyst for 16 years, until 1979, that means she began her career as a CIA analyst in 1963 – before graduating from Duquesne University with her BA degree in English Literature.
    Since she herself mentions no other academic qualification, one is forced to the conclusion that the CIA recruited an English Lit. major to its ranks as a political analyst. One might have expected them to recruit a graduate (or at least a student) of Political Science, International Relations, Modern History – but no. If this is how the CIA recruits its analysts, perhaps one should not be surprised that CIA analyses so frequently prove to be wrong!

    Furthermore, the post in question is, in fact, a cut-and-paste copy of an article published on September 12, 2006, on the neo-Nazi website “Counterpunch” and on various other neo-Nazi websites, to which Mrs Christison and her husband William Christison are regular contributors, such as that of the Institute for Historical Review, a notorious Holocaust-denial website.
    That being so, I would be highly inclined to take anything she writes with a large pinch of the proverbial salt.

  266. David Kessler: “With the greatest of respect, Mr Tarzai, the Danes, Dutch and Italians are not races either, but merely members of races. They are however distinct cultures.”

    Michael Tarzai said: >>I never said they were, but I am pleased to see you pointing out the obvious to your hysterical co-religionist.

    But you said this in answer to Kate’s question: >>Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own?

    The clear implication of your answer is that only races are entitled to a state of their own. If so, then very few states are legitimate. The Palestinians are not a race. The Jordanians are not either. They are either part of a race (the Arabs) or two races (the Bedouin Arabs and the Levantine Arabs).

    >>I think Kate was denying that the Ashkenazi are descendants, at least to a great degree of the Khazar converts to Judaism. This conversion clearly confirms the myth of the Jewish race and renders ridiculous the prior claim to the land of Palestine over its rightful inhabitants.

    My understanding is that the Khazars were reconquered afterwards and converted to Christianity. Of course in any large block of people there are going to be differences and divergences. (I pointed out as much in response to the hysterical rantings of Moses Hess.) But the presence of Russo-Turkic DNA in Ashenazi Jews, merely testifies to the obvious fact that Jews did indeed intermarry – and not only with Khazar – some leaving the religion, others adhering to it.

    Obviously the existence of such variety as Swedish Jews, Eastern European Jews, Sephardi Jews and Ethiopian Jews means that there has been intermarriage (and conversion). One doesn’t need DNA to prove that. A cursory glance will do. (DNA can flesh out the details of course.)

    But the Jews have acquired the characteristics of a culture and even a nation. Certainly there is a Jewish Nation State on the map today. In contrast there has never been a Palestinian State. Even the Palestinian national ASPIRATION is a recent innovation.

    Indeed when the British Mandatory authorities issued passports to the locals bearing the word “Palestinian” the Jews were very proud of them and showed them off to their friends. The Arabs objected on the grounds that they were “Arabs” not “Palestinians.” Indeed they have long been ambivalent about how they view themselves. There was a desire (half-hearted perhaps) for a Pan-Arab state. (Nowadays it would probably be a Pan Islamic state.)

    >>Becoming a Buddhist and adopting their religion and practices as my own, doesn’t make me Tibetan or give me any historical claim and right to live in Tibet…

    >>If my descendents continue to follow Buddhist practices etc for the next 1000 years, (forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile) would they, theoretically, at the dawn of the new millennia, have any rights to displace the descendents of the current population of Tibet, who at that time may well be atheists or Hindus or even be a new nation inter-mixed with ethnic Chinese? The answer is obvious.

    The analogy is imprecise:

    Firstly the most that has been proven is a Khazar contribution to the Jewish gene pool – not a complete supplanting of it.

    Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that when the Zionists arrived in that sparesely populated corner of the decaying Ottoman empire, they tended to congregate in the more sparsely populated areas. (Tel Aviv, for example, was in 1903 a vacant hill outside the town of Jaffa.) They bought land at grossly inflated prices. Thus it was not a case of expropriation but one of purchasing and contributing to the land.

    Thirdly, Arabs tended to flock to the area where Jews were gathering (and investing) because of the increased work opportunities in those areas.

    Fourth, the movement of populations is natural and a long-established facet of human history. Most of the present local demographies of Europe, Australia and the Americas, as well as parts of Asia are the results of past migrations, including mass migrations. Israel is unexeptional in this regard.

    Fifth, the area in which the Zionists sought to establish a homeland was NOT an established country but an area in a state of flux – i.e. a corner of a decaying empire. Up to and including the first decade of the 20th century, the Jews and the local Arabs both aspired to drive the Turks out and fulfil there respective national ambitions. There was even correspondence between Haim Weizmann and Faissal of Iraq attesting to this commonality of purpose.

    (NB I am aware that David Ben-Gurion served in the Turkish army, but this was an abberation and an exception.)

    Sixth, it was inevitable that the Ottoman empire would collapse and it had to be replaced with something. A Jewish state in some areas – those where the Jews had settled and built communities – was not unreasonable in principle.

    The displacement of Palestinians – although certainly real – was not the inevitable consequence of Zionism. It was the consequence of Arab intransigence in the face of a Jewish minority in the Middle East who were not prepared to accept the status of “protected minority” in a Pan-Arab state.

    Of course one can argue that the Zionists availed themselves of this intransigance to further their own agenda and we can argue about the relative culpability of the parties for the refugee problem. (I am not an unmitigated apologist for Israel.) But the all-or-nothing approach adopted by the Arabs was not unly a contributory factor to the refugee problem but also totally unjustified.

    Seventh, within five years of statehood, Israel began absorbing large number of Sephardi Jews. By the late sixties they were a majority of the Jewish inhabitants. Whatever Israel started as, it soon became the Homeland both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. The two may be different ethnically, and even in some of their religious practices, but taken together they are a Nation.

  267. Kate said:
    October 27, 2006 4:15 PM | permalink
    Thirdly, I notice you totally ignored the rest of my post, in which I pointed out that the Palestinians are also not “a race”. If only “a race” is entitled to a land of its own, why are the Palestinians any more entitled than the Jews.
    I am not sure that the above makes any sense, but I’ll try and answer what sense I can make of your comment / question. Of course the Jews have a right to a homeland as do all peoples. Let us turn the clock back to 1900. Palestine has around 900 000 to 1 000 000 Palestinians Arabs, some Muslim, some Christian, some Secular and some 60 000 that call themselves Palestinian Jews. Had they all come from one solid stock, with one birth mother or did they share common DNA from male line, I don’t know. Are they all Semites? Yes culturally, linguistically and from general appearance, I think it would be very difficult to tell them apart. (to use your term Kate, they would look like they were of the same race).
    What I do know for certain is that up until this point these people lived pretty much in peace as did the 100 000 Iraqi Jews that lived in and around Baghdad at the same point in time. Do I believe that all these people classed Palestine or Iraq as their homeland? Yes and quite right they were to do so.
    We’ll start with the Ashkenazi Jews in Poland, Russia and Germany. Do I believe that they have a right to a homeland? Absolutely; in Poland, Russia and Germany. Does their ancestors’ adoption of Judaism and rejection of Paganism some 12 hundred years earlier give them a right to move to Palestine, destroy communities that do not share their religion, alienate the minority Jewish believers in other communities, steal, murder and dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright? Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right. It is illegal by any test you care to use.
    Mr. Kessler, who appears to be far more sensible than you Kate, at least acknowledges the conversion of the Khazars, although he does seem to want us to believe that a subsequent conquest by marauding Christians (Roman Catholics, as once you were Kate) turned them all into Christians, which is clearly not that case, otherwise we wouldn’t have Ashkenazi Jews at all. But this is the type of nonsense that Apologists for Zionist history like to engage in, to muddy the waters a little.
    Now let’s assume that amongst this Ashkenazi there is in fact some remnants of Semitic blood (DNA), how much more superior does, says a 5% blood-bond to Palestine make their claim over the inhabitants of 1900 with their 100% blood-bond and their descendants to come? What about the other 95% (you can play with the percentage as you wish) of their blood-line, what other rights are they likely to spring in the future? At all time bearing in mind that the so-called Diaspora Jews had left Palestine 2000 years earlier.
    Are the descendants of the founding fathers of the USA British or American? How many generations needed to pass before they became American and not British. Most of them clearly did not class themselves as British by 1784 and I doubt that aside from some romantic attachment by a few and the (alleged) language bond, any of them would bother to call themselves British today. They are two totally separate nations.
    But let’s assume for a moment that the founding fathers had been driven from England against their will but nurtured a hope of one day being able to return (a bit like Kunta Kinte in Roots!) to London and continued that hope in their offspring.
    With the ensuing mixing with Swedes, Germans, Italians, Africans and even the Irish would their descendants really have a better claim than the present inhabitants of Britain to live there on the basis of attachment by a severely diluted blood line and speaking a variant of the English Language (or Yiddish in the case of the Khazars)?
    The answer is obvious and the question childish really. What about Australians, who probably are still linked strongly to the British in terms of “blood” do they class themselves as British and do you think the British class them as such? And this Kate is after just 200 or so years. After 2000 the whole exercise becomes inane. Palestine belongs to the people that lived their in 1900 and no-one else. Today it belongs to its inhabitants, Israelis including a million recent Russian émigrés, who the Jewish Agency was forced to admit the majority of whom of which do not even profess the Jewish faith (aside from the fact they have absolutely no Semitic ancestry whatsoever, not even the 5% or whatever I,s that has been used as the excuse for the sorry colonization in the first place. It also has Arabs both within its borders and in refugee camps in neighbouring countries whose rights need to be recognized.
    It’s now 2006 and Mr. Kessler is British and naturally has the right to live in Britain. He doesn’t state whether he views himself as a Briton or a Jew first. He does thought completely understate his “Britishness” The fact that he has allegiance to another country is strange as normally that is true of 1st generation immigrants and 2nd generation immigrants at a push (which may well be true in his case, perhaps he’s from Israel). Perhaps not. Maybe that’s where anti-semitism begins, with distrust of people of any group who have allegiance to a place or group other than a dedication to the nation as a whole, in the country of their birth.
    Had America been founded on that basis, it would now be a series of colonies of Sweden, Britain, Spain and a multitude of other countries as well, and whilst there are still ethnic divisions the progress of total integration has occurred in large areas of the country in just 200 years and following the civil rights movement of the 60’s integration with a totally different race is progressing (yes Kate Black people are a different race) Imagine the complete integration in 2000.
    I’ll attend to the rest of your post later. I’m busy right now.

  268. Hi Michael, hope you don’t mind me intervening, but you mentioned me so I assume that gives me standing to comment.

    >>We’ll start with the Ashkenazi Jews in Poland, Russia and Germany. Do I believe that they have a right to a homeland? Absolutely; in Poland, Russia and Germany. Does their ancestors’ adoption of Judaism and rejection of Paganism some 12 hundred years earlier give them a right to move to Palestine, destroy communities that do not share their religion, alienate the minority Jewish believers in other communities, steal, murder and dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright?

    Whoa there! You’ve strung together rather a lot. Why shouldn’t they emigrate to a another country (or in this case a small provence of another empire?)

    “Destroy communities”? In what way did the Zionist emigration destroy communities? They built communities. And Arabs flocked to those communities to find work.

    “Steal”? The early Zionists bought land – and were charged grossly inflated prices for it. The Jews had to pay $1100 per acre for swampland in Palestine when fertile Arable land in Iowa was going for $110 per acre.

    Murder? When the Ottomans were kicked out, the local Arabs (who were later to call themselves “Palestinian”) decided they no longer needed the Jews and then their friendship turned to hostility and the killing began on both sides. We can argue till the cows come home about who started it, but the Arabs gave as good as they got. Look at the murders of Jews in 1921-22, look at the massacre of Jews in Hebron, Safad and Jerusalem in 1929. All this way before the Arab uprising of 1936.

    “dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright”?

    If you mean the dispossession of Arab owned land in Palestine, the Zionists must certainly plead guilty to that (as must the Arabs who confistacted Jewish property when Jews fled from persecution in Arab countries). But your phrase here is too vague and nebulous. Do you mean their “birthright” to a country? After they rejected the partition plan?

    >> Mr. Kessler, who appears to be far more sensible than you Kate, at least acknowledges the conversion of the Khazars, although he does seem to want us to believe that a subsequent conquest by marauding Christians (Roman Catholics, as once you were Kate) turned them all into Christians, which is clearly not that case, otherwise we wouldn’t have Ashkenazi Jews at all.

    Let’s recall that you yourself acknowledged that many Khazars converted to Christianity and Islam. Only some (including the royal family) converted to Judaism. To argue that those who converted to Judaism specifically the Levite class) created the entire Ashkenazi community doesn’t make sense.

    First of all, if it were true, then one would expect all or most Ashkenazim to be Levites – which is clearly not the case.

    Secondly, if the Askenazi branch of Judaism was created to Khazar conversion, after they heard the arguments of the three monotheistic religions, then why would they introduce the specific doctrinal differences that characterize the Ashekenazi-Sephardi differences?

    Thirdly, more significantly, how do you account for the differences in Sephardi and Ashkenazi pronunciation of the language? Such as the Taf and the Saf? You can’t say that this is because the Khazars couldn’t pronounce these things, because the Ashkenazi pronunciations are in ADDITION TO rather than instead of the Sephardi ones. Thus an Ashkenazi will distinguish between a Taf and Saf, whilst a Sephardi will not, pronouncing them all as a Taf.

    If the Ashekenazim were simply a later addition to Judaism they would either pronounce words the same way as the Sephardim or – if they couldn’t pronounce certain phonemes would simply change the pronunciation on ALL occasions and not just some. It would make no sense to change the pronunciation of a letter on some occasions but not others.

    From this it is clear that we are talking about two streams of Judaism that diverged from each other and not one group of converts who embraced the religion of another.

    >>Now let’s assume that amongst this Ashkenazi there is in fact some remnants of Semitic blood (DNA), how much more superior does, says a 5% blood-bond to Palestine make their claim over the inhabitants of 1900 with their 100% blood-bond and their descendants to come?

    You don’t offer any specific justification of your 5% claim. It is a purely arbitrary figure pulled out of a hat. And why is the year 1900 privileged in history? Do you choose it in order to include the Egyptians who came over between 1831 and 1840, when Mohamed Ali carved a chunk out of the Ottoman empire and Egyptians settled in the Gaza region? But to choose 1900 as your yardstick year for territorial claims, you would have to exclude the Arabs who crossed over from Transjordan between the two world wars.

    >>But let’s assume for a moment that the founding fathers had been driven from England against their will but nurtured a hope of one day being able to return (a bit like Kunta Kinte in Roots!) to London and continued that hope in their offspring.
    With the ensuing mixing with Swedes, Germans, Italians, Africans and even the Irish would their descendants really have a better claim than the present inhabitants of Britain to live there on the basis of attachment by a severely diluted blood line and speaking a variant of the English Language

    You seem to be forgetting that if these Anglo-Americans came back to Britain today, they would be coming to an established COUNTRY with a large population. The Zionist Ashekanazi Jews emigrated not to an established country but to a colony of an empire that was in a state of decay. If Palestine had been an established country your analogy would have held, but such was NOT the case.

    Moreover the Turkish colony to which the Jews came was also sparsely populated and had room for many more immigrants. As it was sparsely populated they had the right to emigrate there. As its status was in a state of flux, they had the right to seek to fulfil their national aspirations there.

    Also, it is important to remember that the Arabs living there were also immigrants – they had just happened to have immigrated at an earlier time.

    >>What about Australians, who probably are still linked strongly to the British in terms of “blood” do they class themselves as British and do you think the British class them as such?

    No but the Australians are a national group. The Jews in Europe were not a national group there but a portion of the population. Again, your analogy is inaccurate.

    >> And this Kate is after just 200 or so years.

    So do you concede that if the Israelis hang on for 200 years they will have a right to the State of Israel, not because of any contentious ancestral linkage but simply because they will by then have had a state for 200 years? (With the Arabs as the equivalent of the Aboriginees?)

    Palestine belongs to the people that lived their in 1900 and no-one else.

    You have not offered any justification for treating 1900 as a privileged year in history. Why does immigration to what was then part of the Turkish provence of Syria become illegitimate after that year?

    >>It also has Arabs both within its borders and in refugee camps in neighbouring countries whose rights need to be recognized.

    Indeed so, but a country whose very right to exist is being questioned is not going to be inclined towards moderation.

    >>It’s now 2006 and Mr. Kessler is British and naturally has the right to live in Britain. He doesn’t state whether he views himself as a Briton or a Jew first.<< The question is meaningless. British is my nationality. Jewish is the religion of my birth and the culture to which I belong. There is also a British culture, so culturally I am the product of a cross-fertilization of British and Jewish culture. > He does thought completely understate his “Britishness”

    I do not know on what basis you say this. I am British. What would you have me do? Jump up and down waving the Union Flag? (I support the UK Independence Party so I’m not exactly soft on my Britishness!)

    >>The fact that he has allegiance to another country is strange

    I don’t recall saying that I did. I said that I have the right to live in Israel (pursuant to its laws). I have also defended Israel’s right to exist, though I have also been critical of some of its policies. I don’t see that this constitutes allegiance to another country. Many people in Britain dream of emigrating to other countries with warmer climates. Is this also classified as “allegiance to another country”?

    >>perhaps he’s from Israel

    I already stated that I was born in this country.

    >>Maybe that’s where anti-semitism begins, with distrust of people of any group who have allegiance to a place or group other than a dedication to the nation as a whole, in the country of their birth.

    When people start trying to “explain” antisemitism, their mask begins to slip. Also Mr Tarzai please don’t forget that modern Zionism only goes back to the late 19th century. Antiseminitsm has been around a lot longer. So to “explain” antisemitism in terms of a response to “allegiance” to Israel is somewhat disengenuous.

    >>Had America been founded on that basis, it would now be a series of colonies of Sweden, Britain, Spain and a multitude of other countries as well, and whilst there are still ethnic divisions the progress of total integration has occurred in large areas of the country in just 200 years and following the civil rights movement of the 60’s integration with a totally different race is progressing (yes Kate Black people are a different race) Imagine the complete integration in 2000.

    Israel too has achieved great strides forward in integration. Israeli Arabs have had the vote since the state was established in 1948 – 17 years before the Voting Rights Act gave teeth to the 15th Amendment and extended the right to millions of disenfranchised American blacks!

  269. Michael Tarzai said:
    October 28, 2006 8:48 AM | permalink

    Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right.

    Are you now trying to imply that Catholics are immoral? Or only lapsed Catholics?

    Mr. Kessler, who appears to be far more sensible than you Kate, at least acknowledges the conversion of the Khazars, although he does seem to want us to believe that a subsequent conquest by marauding Christians (Roman Catholics, as once you were Kate) turned them all into Christians, which is clearly not that case, otherwise we wouldn’t have Ashkenazi Jews at all.

    I wonder why you keep harping on about Kate’s Catholicism (even though she apparently no longer adheres to that belief). Could it be that having implied that her support for Israel stems from her Jewishness, only to discover that she is not, in fact, Jewish, you now feel the need to cover up your mistake with irrelevancies?
    BTW – I don’t seem to recall that she actually denied the conversion of the Khazars. Neither do I. Where you and I differ is on their ultimate fate.
    To say, as you did, that they were clearly not all turned into Christians by marauding Christians, otherwise we would have no Ashkenazi Jews at all, is fallacious logic. It depends on the truth of the claim that all the Ashkenazi Jews are in fact, descendants of the Khazars and not of Jewish descent at all – and that claim has NOT been proved.
    Oh, and without wishing to appear pedantic, I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that the “marauding Christians” to whom you are apparently referring were not Roman Catholic. Sorry to deprive you of yet another whip with which to beat Kate, (who has admitted, from the very start, that she is not an expert on the subject of the Middle East or on Jewish history), but the Kievan Rus who overcame the Khazars adhered to the Orthodox brand of Christianity.

    It’s now 2006 and Mr. Kessler is British and naturally has the right to live in Britain. He doesn’t state whether he views himself as a Briton or a Jew first. He does thought completely understate his “Britishness” The fact that he has allegiance to another country is strange

    You know, Michael, whenever someone starts bringing up that old accusation, that Jews have “another allegiance” – it becomes clear where the drift of the conversation is leading. It certainly brings your own motivation into question.

  270. David Kessler said: But you said this in answer to Kate’s question: >>Why shouldn’t the Jews have a homeland of their own?

    MT Says: I have answered this question both in the context of present day Israel and the rights of its current inhabitants today as well as the situation as it stood in Palestine pre-Zionism, and in relation to what constitutes a homeland generally. If you need it spelt out in simplified form then; the inhabitants of a land have a right to call that land a homeland. Adherence to a particular religion can not confer on a group greater right to a foreign land than land’s present inhabitants. Such a concept is iniquitous.

    MT Says: Now your turn, tell me what rights you feel the Palestinians had in 1900, what should be the rights of the displaced Palestinian refugees in their historical land (indeed to houses, settlements, villages and towns that still exist, but which have had Israeli squatters in them since 1948. A previous poster mentioned the illegality of building settlements in occupied territory and whilst you tap dance around the matter of who the West Bank belongs to, it is clear that it does not belong to Israel.

    David Kessler said: The clear implication of your answer is that only races are entitled to a state of their own. If so, then very few states are legitimate. The Palestinians are not a race. The Jordanians are not either. They are either part of a race (the Arabs) or two races (the Bedouin Arabs and the Levantine Arabs).
    MT Says: I have made my position quite clear on race so I do not take kindly to your obfuscation and the temerity with which you make such ridiculous statements.

    David Kessler said: My understanding is that the Khazars were reconquered afterwards and converted to Christianity. Of course in any large block of people there are going to be differences and divergences. (I pointed out as much in response to the hysterical rantings of Moses Hess.) But the presence of Russo-Turkic DNA in Ashenazi Jews, merely testifies to the obvious fact that Jews did indeed intermarry – and not only with Khazar – some leaving the religion, others adhering to it.

    MT Says: I could challenge you on the percentage of Semitic blood, but that would be pandering to the specious nature of the whole premise you propose about land rights conferred through some ancient ancestor (singular ancestor at best in the case of the Khazars it would appear).

    David Kessler said: Obviously the existence of such variety as Swedish Jews, Eastern European Jews, Sephardi Jews and Ethiopian Jews means that there has been intermarriage (and conversion). One doesn’t need DNA to prove that. A cursory glance will do. (DNA can flesh out the details of course.).

    MT Says: Very brave of you to go this route as it really weakens your whole argument. Notwithstanding, I read something interesting the other day regarding Ethiopian Jews and I quote,

    “Some 60 percent are considered to be living in poverty compared to 20 percent of the general population, according to figures from Meyers-JDC-Brookdale, a prominent Israeli social research institute. “We are making an effort to stop this through new programs,” said David Yasu of Israel’s Immigration Ministry, adding that Ethiopians get more state aid than other immigrants to Israel. Encouraging immigration is a cornerstone of policy in a country where officials worry about the faster birth rates of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians than Jews and falling immigration from other parts of the world.”

    MT Says: I assume that the last comment about faster birth rates of Israeli Arabs (Palestinians) and falling immigration being a concern, doesn’t do a lot to counter the progressively compelling argument I have seen on this board in support of the claim that Israel is a racist state or an Apartheid(like) state. If, as you have stated David, one doesn’t need to be a religious Jew to have an affinity with Israel, indeed as with the case of the Ethiopians, one needn’t be the same race as the majority Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews and we’ve established that there is little from a tribal perspective that links the 2 groups of European Jews, then what exactly is Zionism now? As the Jewish Agency have confirmed the majority of recent Russian émigré Jews are not Jews, then it appears that anyone can come as long as they are not Arabs! I quote …” The interior minister and leader of the Shas party, Eli Yishai, says such figures (non Jewish Russian immigration) threaten the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. “By the end of the year 2010 the state of Israel will lose its Jewish identity,” he said. “A secular state will bring … hundreds of thousands of goyim [gentiles] who will build hundreds of churches and will open more stores that sell pork. In every city we will see Christmas trees.”

    MT Says: Mr. Yishai is an obvious voice of dissent, but please tell me how an Ethiopian tribesman (let’s use the eyeball test and not go the DNA route) a white Russian, a Khazari descendent (with possibly a little semitic ancestry) or a Sephardim (with a lot more semitic blood) can all have a better claim to live in Palestine than a Palestinian born there, who is probably 100% semitic?

    David Kessler said: But the Jews have acquired the characteristics of a culture and even a nation. Certainly there is a Jewish Nation State on the map today. In contrast there has never been a Palestinian State. Even the Palestinian national ASPIRATION is a recent innovation.

    MT Says: Now you’re being disingenuous again. You are using the argument that the Palestinians didn’t have a government at the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to suggest that there was no Palestine, or are you doing a “Golda Meir” and saying there is no such thing as the Palestinian people; that was rich coming from a US citizen born in Russia, when writing off the inhabitants of a land not her own as being non-existent.

    MT Says: The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination was first recognized by the League of Nations in 1919. Palestine had been part of the Ottoman empire until its collapse at the end of the World War I, and was among a number of non-self-governing Arab territories in the Middle East that were placed under temporary ‘tutelage’ or administration of foreign powers under the League of Nations Mandate System until such a time as the peoples of these territories were deemed ‘ready’ for independence. In 1922, the League of Nations entrusted the Mandate for Palestine (CONSIDERED TO BE “CLASS A” OR CLOSEST TO INDEPENDENCE) to Britain.

    MT Says: If the Palestinian nation wish to call themselves Arabs, Palestinians or whatever isn’t relevant; what is relevant is that they were already on the land. I would stick to Zionist sources in support of this..-

    “”We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” –Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, “Israel” quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. (385 villages have been destroyed within pre-1967 Israel…)”

    David Kessler said: Indeed when the British Mandatory authorities issued passports to the locals bearing the word “Palestinian” the Jews were very proud of them and showed them off to their friends. The Arabs objected on the grounds that they were “Arabs” not “Palestinians.” Indeed they have long been ambivalent about how they view themselves. There was a desire (half-hearted perhaps) for a Pan-Arab state. (Nowadays it would probably be a Pan Islamic state.)

    MT Says: I’m not sure what point you think you’ve scored with this, but I fail to see what it matters if the Palestinians called themselves Arabs. What a great pity it is that Zionists didn’t take such great delight in “showing off” Palestinian passports to their friends, as the Palestinian Jews did, they off course adopted a different and far more murderous and destructive course.

    David Kessler said: MT said:>>Becoming a Buddhist and adopting their religion and practices as my own, doesn’t make me Tibetan or give me any historical claim and right to live in Tibet…If my descendents continue to follow Buddhist practices etc for the next 1000 years, (forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile) would they, theoretically, at the dawn of the new millennia, have any rights to displace the descendents of the current population of Tibet, who at that time may well be atheists or Hindus or even be a new nation inter-mixed with ethnic Chinese? The answer is obvious.

    David Kessler said: The analogy is imprecise:

    MT Says: David Kessler then goes on to make SEVEN points that propose to show the analogy is not precise, without EVER showing their relevance to the analogy, but I’ll deal with them all the same.

    David Kessler said: Firstly the most that has been proven is a Khazar contribution to the Jewish gene pool – not a complete supplanting of it.

    MT Says “my analogy CLEARLY says “(forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile). This was to dissuade you from introducing this fallacious argument. Sadly it failed.

    David Kessler said: Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that when the Zionists arrived in that sparesely populated corner of the decaying Ottoman empire, they tended to congregate in the more sparsely populated areas. (Tel Aviv, for example, was in 1903 a vacant hill outside the town of Jaffa.) They bought land at grossly inflated prices. Thus it was not a case of expropriation but one of purchasing and contributing to the land.

    MT Says: Can I refer you back to the above quote from Moshe Dayan, who although I have absolutely no respect for, I will at least concede that on this point he is being honest. Or better still, try this one,

    “”I don’t understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country.”–David Ben Gurion, 1956, quoted by Nahum Goldmann in The Jewish Paradox, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p.99.

    David Kessler said: Thirdly, Arabs tended to flock to the area where Jews were gathering (and investing) because of the increased work opportunities in those areas.

    MT Says: I find this piece of deception beneath contempt and not worthy of a response, however this will leave an opening for more deception so I quote

    “With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west part of Eretz-Israel, without Arabs… And there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…” –Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (Quoted in his article: “A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority”, published in Davar, 29 September, 1967.

    MT Says: Yes, I can see why the Arabs simply flocked to the Zionist settlements!!

    David Kessler said: Fourth, the movement of populations is natural and a long-established facet of human history. Most of the present local demographies of Europe, Australia and the Americas, as well as parts of Asia are the results of past migrations, including mass migrations. Israel is unexeptional in this regard.

    MT Says: You are right; there is such a thing as natural movement of populations. Zionism however is not an example of it. What happened in Palestine was colonization and then conquest. What makes it extreme and gives rise to the ongoing trouble is that no accommodation was envisaged for the conquered and colonized people, as is seen from the quote above.

    David Kessler said: Fifth, the area in which the Zionists sought to establish a homeland was NOT an established country but an area in a state of flux – i.e. a corner of a decaying empire. Up to and including the first decade of the 20th century, the Jews and the local Arabs both aspired to drive the Turks out and fulfil there respective national ambitions. There was even correspondence between Haim Weizmann and Faissal of Iraq attesting to this commonality of purpose.

    MT Says: The first part of David’s Fifth Point seems reasonable until one considers that there were about 1 000 000 Palestinian Arabs and about 50 000 Palestinian Jews, who he claims wished to fulfill their “respective” (my emphasis) national ambitions”. How misleading, there is no record of a Nationalist Jewish Palestinian movement at all. David himself mentioned how proud the Jews of Palestine were to show off their Palestinian passports.

    MT Says: regarding the balance of the Fifth Point: In 1919, King Faisal, then the only recognized Arab leader in the world, executed a treaty with Chaim Weizmann adopting the understanding of the Balfour Declaration. It outlined relations between Palestine and the Arab state, recognizing the former as a National Home for the Jews, in which they should quickly settle. He wrote, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.” –

    MT Says: The key elements here are “A National Home for the Jews” quite different to an exclusively Jewish State from which Arabs would be expelled. The other key point is the term “moderate and proper”, clearly the proposals submitted as mentioned, bore no resemblance to the acts carried out in the name of Revisionist Zionism of the kind Jabotinsky was about to unleash and to which I am sure Weizmann concurred.

    David Kessler said: (NB I am aware that David Ben-Gurion served in the Turkish army, but this was an abberation and an exception.)

    MT Says: I see when looking through your posts that there are a number of these Zionist aberrations and exceptions coming to the surface.

    David Kessler said: Sixth, it was inevitable that the Ottoman empire would collapse and it had to be replaced with something. A Jewish state in some areas – those where the Jews had settled and built communities – was not unreasonable in principle.

    MT Says: I’m sure many Arabs would have agreed, and had it not been for Revisionist Zionist exclusionist greed, we probably wouldn’t have the mess we have right now.
    David Kessler said: The displacement of Palestinians – although certainly real – was not the inevitable consequence of Zionism. It was the consequence of Arab intransigence in the face of a Jewish minority in the Middle East who were not prepared to accept the status of “protected minority” in a Pan-Arab state.

    MT Says : Really? I don’t agree, I quote

    “”Do we sin only against the refugees? Do we not treat the Arabs who remain as second-class citizens? — Did a single Jewish farmer raise his hand in the Parliament in opposition to a law that deprived Arab peasants of their land?…How lonely, in the city of Jerusalem, sits the Jewish conscience.”
    –Moshe Smilansky, 1958, in an essay entitled “Zion and the Jewish National Idea” in the Menorah Journal, Volume XVI, 1958, reprinted in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, N.Y., 1970.

    MT Says: How about Vladimir Jabotinsky the Revisionist Zionist let’s see if he agrees with David Kessler and the benign effects of Zionism – “Zionist colonisation must be either terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population. This colonisation can, therefore, be continued and make progress only under the protection of a power independent of the native population – an iron wall, which will be in a position to resist the pressure to the native population. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs.

    MT Says: Mr. Jabotinsky then drops all pretenses of being accomodating –

    “A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the near future. He announced he would speak frankly, so that Revisionism would be made clear … “Revisionism”, he began, “is naive, brutal and primitive. It is savage. You go out into the street and pick any man – a Chinaman – and ask him what he wants and he will say one hundred per cent of everything. That’s us. We want a Jewish Empire. Just like there is the Italian or French on the Mediterranean, we want a Jewish Empire.”

    David Kessler said: Of course one can argue that the Zionists availed themselves of this intransigance to further their own agenda and we can argue about the relative culpability of the parties for the refugee problem.

    MT Says : • (1)”I gathered all of the Jewish mukhtars, who have contact with Arabs in different villages and asked them to whisper in the ears of some Arabs that a great Jewish reinforcement has arrived in Galilée and that it is going to burn all of the villages of the Huleh. They should suggest to these Arabs, as their friends, to escape while there is still time… The tactic reached its goal completely. The building of the police station at Halsa fell into our hands without a shot. The wide areas were cleaned.(cleaned? Is this ethnically cleansed? MT ed)..” –Yigal Allon, Ha Sepher Ha Palmach, Vol. 2, p. 268, 1948

    (2)• “Nearby, a loudspeaker burst out in Arabic. Haganah broadcasting to civilian Arabs, urging them to leave the district before 5:15 a.m.: “Take pity on your wives and children and get out of this blood bath,” it said. “Surrender to us your arms. No harm will come to you. Or get out by the Jericho road, that is still open to you. If you stay, you invite disaster.” –H. Levin, Jerusalem Embattled, p. 160, 1948.

    (3)• “…as uncontrolled panic spread through all Arab quarters, the Israelis brought up jeeps with loudspeakers which broadcast recorded ‘horror sounds’. These included shrieks, wails and anguished moans of Arab women, the wail of sirens and the clang of fire-alarm bells, interrupted by a sepulchral voice calling out in Arabic: “Save your souls, all ye faithful: The Jews are using poison gas and atomic weapons. Run for your lives in the name of Allah’.” –Leo Heiman, Israeli Army Reserve Officer who fought in 1948. Marine Corps Gazette, June 1964.

    David Kessler said: (I am not an unmitigated apologist for Israel.) But the all-or-nothing approach adopted by the Arabs was not only a contributory factor to the refugee problem but also totally unjustified.

    MT Says: I can’t comment on whether you view yourself as an apologist for Israel? I can comment on the mendacious and wicked manner in which you present the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Do you have any human compassion outside of other people that call themselves Jews?

    David Kessler said: Seventh, within five years of statehood, Israel began absorbing large number of Sephardi Jews. By the late sixties they were a majority of the Jewish inhabitants. Whatever Israel started as, it soon became the Homeland both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. The two may be different ethnically, and even in some of their religious practices, but taken together they are a Nation.

    MT Says: Yes they are, they are now Israelis, but what of the Palestinians and their nation, who have had their birthright taken from them, communities smashed, populations chased from their homes, towns and villages, who today are suffering the iniquities of the 1940’s again in the West Bank, as once again Zionism seeks to relieve them (of the remainder) of their land, towns and possessions? Do you think it’s fair David?

    “If it is proper to ‘reconstitute’ a Jewish State which has not existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there.” –H.G. Wells, quoted by Frank C. Sakran in Palestine Dilemma, p. 204.

    MT Says: When dealing with Zionist/Israeli racist propaganda it is well to bear in mind the following quote as nothing has changed

    “In later years it became a Zionist habit to speak not only in two but in several voices, to run several lines of persuasion at the same time. A result was to debauch to movement with propaganda to an extraordinary extent so that Zionists, preoccupied with higher truth at the expense of the yet more essential lower truth, got a not undeserved reputation in the world for chronic mendacity.” –Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel, pp. 24 and 26.

  271. Simone said:Quoting MT “Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right.”

    Simone said:Are you now trying to imply that Catholics are immoral? Or only lapsed Catholics?

    MT Says: This is typical of the obfuscation that Zionist apologists indulge in. The point I made was “We’ll start with the Ashkenazi Jews in Poland, Russia and Germany. Do I believe that they have a right to a homeland? Absolutely; in Poland, Russia and Germany. Does their ancestors’ adoption of Judaism and rejection of Paganism some 12 hundred years earlier give them a right to move to Palestine, destroy communities that do not share their religion, alienate the minority Jewish believers in other communities, steal, murder and dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright? Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right.

    Did Simone counter the argument. Not a chance. I assume you have no opinion then Simone?

    To answer your question: – I consider all immoral Catholics to be immoral, be they lapsed or not, there is no degree of lapsation in my book, so no matter how little or how far the lapsee, or not, as may be the case, has lapsed, or not, does not in my view, excuse immoral behaviour from either. I hope this clears the matter up for you.

  272. David Kessler said: And why is the year 1900 privileged in history?

    Apologies, I thought that was obvious, i was choosing a point in time that just pre-dated the beginning of Zionist colonization of Palestine, or there abouts. Sorry i thought it was obvious my mistake.

  273. Simone said: Oh, and without wishing to appear pedantic, I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that the “marauding Christians” to whom you are apparently referring were not Roman Catholic. Sorry to deprive you of yet another whip with which to beat Kate, (who has admitted, from the very start, that she is not an expert on the subject of the Middle East or on Jewish history), but the Kievan Rus who overcame the Khazars adhered to the Orthodox brand of Christianity.

    Please provide me with an approximate date for this event! – Michael

  274. MT Says: Now your turn, tell me what rights you feel the Palestinians had in 1900, what should be the rights of the displaced Palestinian refugees in their historical land (indeed to houses, settlements, villages and towns that still exist, but which have had Israeli squatters in them since 1948. A previous poster mentioned the illegality of building settlements in occupied territory and whilst you tap dance around the matter of who the West Bank belongs to, it is clear that it does not belong to Israel.

    Personally I agree. I never supported settlement in the West Bank, which started in earnest in 1974 when the Jordanians accepted the Rabat Summit Conference decision that the PLO are the “sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian People.”

    OTOH I believe that the Jews have a right to the whole of Jerusalem, as they have been an absolute majority there since 1872.

    David Kessler said: Obviously the existence of such variety as Swedish Jews, Eastern European Jews, Sephardi Jews and Ethiopian Jews means that there has been intermarriage (and conversion). One doesn’t need DNA to prove that. A cursory glance will do. (DNA can flesh out the details of course.).

    MT Says: Very brave of you to go this route as it really weakens your whole argument

    As my argument is not based on an ethnic claim to Israel, it doesn’t weaken my argument in the least.

    MT Says: Notwithstanding, I read something interesting the other day regarding Ethiopian Jews and I quote,

    “Some 60 percent are considered to be living in poverty compared to 20 percent of the general population, according to figures from Meyers-JDC-Brookdale, a prominent Israeli social research institute. “We are making an effort to stop this through new programs,” said David Yasu of Israel’s Immigration Ministry, adding that Ethiopians get more state aid than other immigrants to Israel. Encouraging immigration is a cornerstone of policy in a country where officials worry about the faster birth rates of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians than Jews and falling immigration from other parts of the world.”

    I read through this passage several times and am still stuggling to see the relevance.

    MT Says: I assume that the last comment about faster birth rates of Israeli Arabs (Palestinians) and falling immigration being a concern, doesn’t do a lot to counter the progressively compelling argument I have seen on this board in support of the claim that Israel is a racist state or an Apartheid(like) state.

    First of all Israeli Arabs are not to be confused with Palestinians. You don’t have to take my word for it, just ask them! Secondly, concern about the changing

    MT Said: >>If, as you have stated David, one doesn’t need to be a religious Jew to have an affinity with Israel, indeed as with the case of the Ethiopians, one needn’t be the same race as the majority Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews and we’ve established that there is little from a tribal perspective that links the 2 groups of European Jews, then what exactly is Zionism now?

    Zionism holds that there should be a national homeland for those who identify themselves as Jews whether religiously or culturally. The legal test for qualifying under the law of return is having one Jewish grandparent or being a convert to Judaism. (There is some internal dispute as to what constitutes conversion. I believe that they currently recognize Orthodox and Conservative Synagogue conversions but not reform. I may be wrong on this point. I haven’t kept up to date with it.)

    But now that Israel is an established state, it is entitled like any other sovereign state to set its own immigration policy, just as Britain sets its immigration policy (subject to the busybody intereference of the EU).

    MT Writes:>>As the Jewish Agency have confirmed the majority of recent Russian émigré Jews are not Jews,

    Ethnically? Religiously? Culturally?

    >> then it appears that anyone can come as long as they are not Arabs!

    A bit of an exaggeration. Did these immigrants present themselves as non-Jews when they applied to immigrate to Israel? At any rate, Israel is a sovereign state and may allow in who it pleases. It is not for you or I to tell them who they may and may not allow in to their own country.

    MT Says: >>please tell me how an Ethiopian tribesman (let’s use the eyeball test and not go the DNA route) a white Russian, a Khazari descendent (with possibly a little semitic ancestry) or a Sephardim (with a lot more semitic blood) can all have a better claim to live in Palestine than a Palestinian born there, who is probably 100% semitic?

    You seem to have conveniently forgotten that most of those who now call themselves Palestinian were NOT born there. They were born in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan!

    MT Says: Now you’re being disingenuous again. You are using the argument that the Palestinians didn’t have a government at the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to suggest that there was no Palestine,

    To suggest that there was no COUNTRY of Palestine. Palestine was part of the Turkish provence of Syria it was then governed by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate. At no stage was it a country. That may be an unpalatable fact to you, but it IS a fact.

    MT writes:>> or are you doing a “Golda Meir” and saying there is no such thing as the Palestinian people; that was rich coming from a US citizen born in Russia, when writing off the inhabitants of a land not her own as being non-existent.

    Drawing analogues between me and Golda Meir and then atacking her, is an excusion into irrelevancy.

    MT Says: If the Palestinian nation wish to call themselves Arabs, Palestinians or whatever isn’t relevant; what is relevant is that they were already on the land.

    And before they were, others were. And now others are. You can’t turn back the clock 60 years any more than you can turn it back 2000. More has changed in the world in the preceding 60 years than in the previous 2000. As Alvin Toffler has pointed out, even the rate of change is increasing. Israel is a sovereign state now. Palestine isn’t and never was. It wasn’t even an aspiration until AFTER Israel was established.

    MT says:>>I would stick to Zionist sources in support of this..-

    “”We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” –Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, “Israel” quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. (385 villages have been destroyed within pre-1967 Israel…)”

    Tel Aviv? Haifa? Eilat? Jerusalem?

    MT Says: I’m not sure what point you think you’ve scored with this, but I fail to see what it matters if the Palestinians called themselves Arabs. What a great pity it is that Zionists didn’t take such great delight in “showing off” Palestinian passports to their friends, as the Palestinian Jews did,

    The Palestinian Jews WERE Zionists.

    MT Says: David Kessler then goes on to make SEVEN points that propose to show the analogy is not precise, without EVER showing their relevance to the analogy, but I’ll deal with them all the same.

    The relevance is that the Jews did not return to a country, they came to a piece of land whose political status was in a state of flux and where there was room for many more people.

    >>David Kessler said: Firstly the most that has been proven is a Khazar contribution to the Jewish gene pool – not a complete supplanting of it.

    >>MT Says “my analogy CLEARLY says “(forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile). This was to dissuade you from introducing this fallacious argument. Sadly it failed.

    Your argument failed because it was false. There has been a great deal of intermarriage in the history of the Jews and the presence of Khazar or any other genes in their gene pool doesn’t mean that the Jews and the Khazars are one and the same. Nothing you have said has proven that the Ashkenazi Jews are the Khazars. Bearing in mind that those Khazars who converted to Judaism did so upon being persuaded to do so, it is quite likely that they WOULD have intermarried with those Jews who persuaded them!

    David Kessler said: Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that when the Zionists arrived in that sparesely populated corner of the decaying Ottoman empire, they tended to congregate in the more sparsely populated areas. (Tel Aviv, for example, was in 1903 a vacant hill outside the town of Jaffa.) They bought land at grossly inflated prices. Thus it was not a case of expropriation but one of purchasing and contributing to the land.

    MT Says: Can I refer you back to the above quote from Moshe Dayan, who although I have absolutely no respect for, I will at least concede that on this point he is being honest.

    The fact that Jews bought land is a matter of record. The Turks introduced a land reguistry law in 1858 and these purchases were recorded. Your selective quote of Moshe Dayan hardly refutes the records of the land registry!

    David Kessler said: Thirdly, Arabs tended to flock to the area where Jews were gathering (and investing) because of the increased work opportunities in those areas.

    MT Says: I find this piece of deception beneath contempt and not worthy of a response, however this will leave an opening for more deception so I quote

    “With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west part of Eretz-Israel, without Arabs… And there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…” –Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (Quoted in his article: “A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority”, published in Davar, 29 September, 1967.

    So? One man expresses an obnoxious opinion (in 1940 long after the Arabs have flocked to those areas) and on the strength of this you pretend that Arabs did not flock to Jewish areas in search of work? That’s quite a leap of imagination on your part.

    MT Says: You are right; there is such a thing as natural movement of populations. Zionism however is not an example of it. What happened in Palestine was colonization and then conquest.

    Arriving, buying land, draining swamps, building universities, building cities – all this is colonization and conquest?

    May I remind you that colonization means ruling one land from a power base located in another. For example, India was a British colony run from a colonial country called Britain, located in Europe. Algeria was a French colony ruled from a colonial country called France, located in Europe. Now according to you Palestine was or became a Zionist colony, so presumably it was run by a colonial country called… called… called (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai) and that colonial country was located in… (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai). If you cannot fill in the blanks then please drop this spurious allegation of Zionist colonialism!

    What makes it extreme and gives rise to the ongoing trouble is that no accommodation was envisaged for the conquered and colonized people, as is seen from the quote above.

    MT Says: The first part of David’s Fifth Point seems reasonable until one considers that there were about 1 000 000 Palestinian Arabs and about 50 000 Palestinian Jews, who he claims wished to fulfill their “respective” (my emphasis) national ambitions”.

    But the number of Jews soon grew through a perfectly legitimate process known as immigration.

    >> How misleading, there is no record of a Nationalist Jewish Palestinian movement at all. David himself mentioned how proud the Jews of Palestine were to show off their Palestinian passports.<< Because in those days the word Palestinian did not mean Palestinian Arab or even native born to Palestine. Jewish immigrants to mandatory Palestine were also classed as Palestinians. MT Says: regarding the balance of the Fifth Point: In 1919, King Faisal, then the only recognized Arab leader in the world, executed a treaty with Chaim Weizmann adopting the understanding of the Balfour Declaration. It outlined relations between Palestine and the Arab state, recognizing the former as a National Home for the Jews, in which they should quickly settle. He wrote, "We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper." - MT Says: The key elements here are "A National Home for the Jews" quite different to an exclusively Jewish State from which Arabs would be expelled. If the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan and not invaded the newly born state of Israel (before the British had even withdrawn) then they could have had an Arab state alongside a predominantly Jewish state. >> The other key point is the term “moderate and proper”, clearly the proposals submitted as mentioned, bore no resemblance to the acts carried out in the name of Revisionist Zionism of the kind Jabotinsky was about to unleash and to which I am sure Weizmann concurred.<< Jabotinsky's movement was in a minority, as well you know. In subsequent Israel elections, the Jabotinsky influenced parties and coalitions (Herut, Gahal and Likud) were in a minority until 1977. In fact only by merging with other parties that were not Jabotinsky influenced, did Beigin eventually come to power. But this was long after the events that we are talking about. David Kessler said: (NB I am aware that David Ben-Gurion served in the Turkish army, but this was an abberation and an exception.) MT Says: I see when looking through your posts that there are a number of these Zionist aberrations and exceptions coming to the surface. IT is only because we are talking about Israel and not the behaviour of the Arabs that you are spared the need to confront their wrongs and evils. As long as Israel is the accused and the haters of Israel, the accuser that you have this advantage. The reality is that there is right and wrong on both sides. But by focussing on Israel and ignoring the wrongs on the Arab side, you project the false impression that Israel is the villain. Let's talk about the actions of the Arabs (something you have clevery glossed over) and a different picture emerges. We see the persecution of the 130,000 Jews of Iraq and a similar number in the Yemen. We see the pesecution of 150,000 Algerian Jews, 48,000 Syrian Jews. All of these fled from aoppression and found refuge in Israel. Let us talk about the oppression that drove them to flight. And let's not pretend that its the fault of Zionism. Oppression is oppression. MT Says: I'm sure many Arabs would have agreed, and had it not been for Revisionist Zionist exclusionist greed, we probably wouldn't have the mess we have right now. Then all the more reason why the Arabs should have accepted the UN Partition Plan. David Kessler said: The displacement of Palestinians - although certainly real - was not the inevitable consequence of Zionism. It was the consequence of Arab intransigence in the face of a Jewish minority in the Middle East who were not prepared to accept the status of "protected minority" in a Pan-Arab state. MT Says : Really? I don't agree, I quote ""Do we sin only against the refugees? Do we not treat the Arabs who remain as second-class citizens? -- Did a single Jewish farmer raise his hand in the Parliament in opposition to a law that deprived Arab peasants of their land?...How lonely, in the city of Jerusalem, sits the Jewish conscience." --Moshe Smilansky, 1958, in an essay entitled "Zion and the Jewish National Idea" in the Menorah Journal, Volume XVI, 1958, reprinted in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, N.Y., 1970. Again, you're quoting one man's opinion about events that happened after the attempted Arab invasion of Israel. Your quotes of Jabotinsky are meaningless, because his view was the minority view. That's why the political parties based on his views were always minority parties and in opposition until 1977 (even then they had to form a coalition to hold power). David Kessler said: Seventh, within five years of statehood, Israel began absorbing large number of Sephardi Jews. By the late sixties they were a majority of the Jewish inhabitants. Whatever Israel started as, it soon became the Homeland both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. The two may be different ethnically, and even in some of their religious practices, but taken together they are a Nation. MT Says: Yes they are, they are now Israelis, but what of the Palestinians and their nation, who have had their birthright taken from them, communities smashed, populations chased from their homes, towns and villages, who today are suffering the iniquities of the 1940's again in the West Bank, as once again Zionism seeks to relieve them (of the remainder) of their land, towns and possessions? Do you think it's fair David? I think much of it is unfair, but I think it is a consequence of three things: the misconduct of some Israeli governments, the misconduct of Palestinian leaders and the misconduct of Arab leaders. I do not share your lopsided view of history in which you ignore the wrongs of the Arabs and focus only only on the wrongs of the Jews. "If it is proper to 'reconstitute' a Jewish State which has not existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there." --H.G. Wells, quoted by Frank C. Sakran in Palestine Dilemma, p. 204. The reality is we can't go back at all. We have to go forward. And destroying an established state is not an option.

  275. Michael Tarzai said:

    “Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right.”

    I replied:Are you now trying to imply that Catholics are immoral? Or only lapsed Catholics?

    Michale replies: This is typical of the obfuscation that Zionist apologists indulge in.

    He further says:
    To answer your question: -I consider all immoral Catholics to be immoral, be they lapsed or not, there is no degree of lapsation in my book, so no matter how little or how far the lapsee, or not, as may be the case, has lapsed, or not, does not in my view, excuse immoral behaviour from either. I hope this clears the matter up for you.

    And Michael accuses me of obfuscation?!
    The point I was making was that Michael, having struck out in his implication that Kate’s support of the Jews stems from her actually being Jewish herself, (since she is not), now has to cover up his mistake by attacking her for being Catholic.

    Michael also said:
    The point I made was “We’ll start with the Ashkenazi Jews in Poland, Russia and Germany. Do I believe that they have a right to a homeland? Absolutely; in Poland, Russia and Germany. Does their ancestors’ adoption of Judaism and rejection of Paganism some 12 hundred years earlier give them a right to move to Palestine, destroy communities that do not share their religion, alienate the minority Jewish believers in other communities, steal, murder and dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright?
    Did Simone counter the argument. Not a chance. I assume you have no opinion then Simone?

    This is the same kind of question as “when did you stop beating your wife?”
    Michael claims that the Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazars, who adopted Judaism some 1200 years earlier and then invites me to state my opinion as to whether this gives them the right “to move to Palestine, destroy communities that do not share their religion, alienate the minority Jewish believers in other communities, steal, murder and dispossess the indigenous population of their birthright.”
    Since I do not accept the claim that the Ashkenazi Jews are really the descendants of Khazars, (nor, incidentally, do I accept that they destroyed communities etc. etc.), the whole question becomes pointless.
    I do believe that as descendants of the ancient Hebrews, the Ashkenazi Jews had and have every right to return to the Land of Israel.

    In his next post, Michael said, (in reply to David Kessler’s question as to the significance of the year 1900):

    Apologies, I thought that was obvious, i was choosing a point in time that just pre-dated the beginning of Zionist colonization of Palestine, or there abouts. Sorry i thought it was obvious my mistake.

    I presume you are talking about modern Zionist colonization, or rather, “The Return to Zion.”
    Well, Moroccan Jews starting resettling in Jaffa as early as 1838, although a census carried out by Montefiore in 1939 showed that there were also Jews there from Turkey, Egypt, Smyrna, Bulgaria, and the Yemen.
    But of course, you mean the Ashkenazim, don’t you? Well, by 1843, there were 50 Ashkenazi families in Tiberias, so we could say that what you would no doubt term “the colonization” was well underway quite a while before the year 1900.
    Incidentally, a leading figure in the renewal of Jewish life in the Land of Israel was Joel Moses Salomon, born in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1838.

    In yet another post, Michael quoted me :
    Simone said: Oh, and without wishing to appear pedantic, I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that the “marauding Christians” to whom you are apparently referring were not Roman Catholic. Sorry to deprive you of yet another whip with which to beat Kate, (who has admitted, from the very start, that she is not an expert on the subject of the Middle East or on Jewish history), but the Kievan Rus who overcame the Khazars adhered to the Orthodox brand of Christianity.

    and replied:

    Please provide me with an approximate date for this event!

    Towards the end of the 10th century CE, Michael, from 962 CE onwards.
    As I think I have mentioned in an earlier post, this was a gradual process, but you did ask for an approximate date only.

    Now, I could continue debating this with you ad nauseam, but as I am going on holiday, I must pack.
    Goodbye – or should I say au revoir?

  276. David Kessler said: And why is the year 1900 privileged in history?

    MT replied:>>Apologies, I thought that was obvious, i was choosing a point in time that just pre-dated the beginning of Zionist colonization of Palestine, or there abouts. Sorry i thought it was obvious my mistake.

    Of course it was obvious: In order to make out your case against Zionism, you were saying that before the mass immigration of the Jews there were very few Jews living there. This would me like me saying that before the Arabs conquered the Land there were no Arabs living there.

    What does this prove? That people arrived at a certain time? But why is that time privileged?

    Who are the majority now?

    By selecting a particular arbitrary point in time you make out a bogus case. Obviously before a certain group of people arrived there they weren’t there. That is an obvious truism. But why should the clock be turned back to when the Zionists hadn’t yet arrived? To help you arrive at the conclusion you want to reach?

    What right did the Arabs have to conquer the land? Who asked the Muslims to spread by conquest?

  277. Simone said:>>I presume you are talking about modern Zionist colonization, or rather, “The Return to Zion.”
    Well, Moroccan Jews starting resettling in Jaffa as early as 1838, although a census carried out by Montefiore in 1939 showed that there were also Jews there from Turkey, Egypt, Smyrna, Bulgaria, and the Yemen.

    A point well made Simone, but I think you’re giving Michael Tarzai more credit than he deserves. By his own admission he admits that he picked the year 1900 in order to reach the conclusion that he wants to reach. In effect he’s saying that only those who were living there before the mass migrations of Jews have the right to live there.

    The irony is that he also said “As the Jewish Agency have confirmed the majority of recent Russian émigré Jews are not Jews, then it appears that anyone can come as long as they are not Arabs!”

    But it turns out that his own position is: Anyone except the Jews.

    I notice that like Hess and Toxy, Michael Tarzai likes to sidestep any questions about Arab/Moslem behaviour, their invasion of Eretz Yisrael, their acts of desecration (building the Dome of the Rock and Aksa Mosque on a Jewish Holy site), their massacre of the Jews of Yathrib (which then became Medina), the Damascas Blood Libel of 1840, their violence against the Jews in Palestine in 1920-21, in 1929 and then in 1936, the fact that they didn’t allow a single Jew to remain alive in the areas that they conquered in the 1948-49 war when the armies of the neighbouring Arab states invaded to destroy Israel at birth.

    This last fact is most telling because they claim that Jews would be left alone as a minority in an Arab country and yet they were not even ready to tolerate a tiny Jewish minority in the territories that Jordan and Egypt conquered when they invaded Israel and Palestine in 1948.

    Their savage kinship towards their own brethren is malso something that these haters of the Jewish State prefer to gloss over. The treatment of women? The they don’t even want to talk about it! The treatment of the Blacks of Sudan? They prefer to remain Shtum!

    And the Palestinians themselves? Murdering any Palestinian who sold land to a Jew? They pass over this in silence. Instead they accuse the Jews of stealing land. Tarzai even had the audacity to deny that Jews had bought land!

    They like to attack, but they are not so good at defending because they haven’t got a leg to stand on.

    If one wants to know what Palestine would be like without the Jews, one has only to look at Syria – a backward primitive military dictatorship. That is the legacy that Michael Tarzai wishes on the Palestinians for whom he professes to feel sympathy!

    What a humanitarian he is!

  278. ‘their acts of desecration (building the Dome of the Rock and Aksa Mosque on a Jewish Holy site), their massacre of the Jews of Yathrib (which then became Medina)'(David Kessler)

    I thought this thread come would come down to this sooner or later, the old ‘Mohammed started it’ argument.

    Well I guess the Jews had control of Israel/Palestine before the Muslims came along, then the Muslims had it, now the Jews have it again. The Muslims don’t look like they’re going to stop fighting over it and the Jews don’t look like they’re going to give it up without a fight either.

    That, I think, pretty much sums it up.

  279. I wrote:>>’their acts of desecration (building the Dome of the Rock and Aksa Mosque on a Jewish Holy site), their massacre of the Jews of Yathrib (which then became Medina)'(David Kessler)

    Steven_L wrote>>”I thought this thread come would come down to this sooner or later, the old ‘Mohammed started it’ argument.””

    I wasn’t using the ‘Mohamed started it argument.’ I was simply concerned that the form of the entire debate was Israel’s opponents attacking Israel and Israel’s supporters defending Israel, but with no direct discussion of the wrongs on the other side.

    Given that there are rights and wrongs on both sides, I felt that the discussion was taking a one-sided turn – something which the enemies of the Jewish State (and Jewish state) were quite happy with.

    My comment was designed to ensure that we look at both sides of the coin – and that includes the wrongs committed by the Moslems (both ancient and modern) on others in the Middle East.

  280. Once U.S. troops invaded Haiti in the name of human right violations, the death toll increased within a month from 1,500 to 4,000. We can simply usurp the sovereignty of another nation and expect for the citizens within the country to in face increasing turmoil. This can be demonstrated through Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia and the Balkans for only a few examples.

  281. David Kessler said: OTOH I believe that the Jews have a right to the whole of Jerusalem, as they have been an absolute majority there since 1872.

    MT Says: Liar! Census 1844 results below (close but no cigar.

    Jews 7 120
    goyim 9 150……so the Goys have it by a whisker!

    MT Says: I believe the term “hoist by your own (Jewish, racially dismissive) petard” is in order.

    MT Says: But David, isn’t your claiming Jerusalem for Jews on the basis of “an ethnic minority” being a majority in a smaller environment of the larger condition, the same logic that Hitler used for annexing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia?

  282. David Kessler said: OTOH I believe that the Jews have a right to the whole of Jerusalem, as they have been an absolute majority there since 1872.

    MT Says: Liar! Census 1844 results below (close but no cigar.

    Jews 7 120
    goyim 9 150……so the Goys have it by a whisker!

    I wrote “1872” you replied with the figures of 1844 and YOU call ME a liar? Evidently you are incapable of telling the difference between 1844 and 1872? I suggest you check out the 11th edition of Encyclopoedia Brittanica.

    But then again this is ane example of the level of honesty of your arguments throughout our entire exchange! So much for your credibility!

    MT Says: I believe the term “hoist by your own (Jewish, racially dismissive) petard” is in order.

    In view of your confusion over numbers (such as your inability to distinguish between 1844 and 1872) methinks the boot is on the other foot.

    And once again you resort to making snide remarks about Jews – which shows your motives!

    MT Says: But David, isn’t your claiming Jerusalem for Jews on the basis of “an ethnic minority” being a majority in a smaller environment of the larger condition, the same logic that Hitler used for annexing the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia?

    I never advocated ethnic cleansing. I simply pointed out that because of the long-standing Jewish majority in Jerusalem, the case for Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is similarly strong. Of course the non-Jewish minority are welcome to stay there. Once again you are dishonestly putting words into my mouth.

    It was the Muslim Arabs who practiced ethnic cleansing when they expelled all the Jews from eastern Jerusalem in 1948/1949.

    Bearing in mind your remarks about Jews above, I don’t see that you’re in any position to compare ME to the Nazis. Again, the boot is on the other foot!

  283. MT Says: Liar! Census 1844 results below (close but no cigar.

    You antisemites are very quick to use the word liar about people who present truths that you wish to deny.

  284. MT Says: Liar!

    I have had enough of this rudeness. Only an antisemitic scumbag of the type who would have collaborated with the Nazis would accuse me being a liar.

  285. David Kessler said: MT Says: Now your turn, tell me what rights you feel the Palestinians had in 1900, what should be the rights of the dislaced Palestinian refugees in their historical land (indeed to houses, settlements, villages and towns that still exist, but which have had Israeli squatters in them since 1948. A previous poster mentioned the illegality of building settlements in occupied territory and whilst you tap dance around the matter of who the West Bank belongs to, it is clear that it does not belong to Israel.

    David Kessler said: Personally I agree. I never supported settlement in the West Bank, which started in earnest in 1974 when the Jordanians accepted the Rabat Summit Conference decision that the PLO are the “sole legitimate representatives of the Palestinian People.”

    MT Says: You forgot to address my question relating to Palestinian rights at the dawn of the Zionist programme and to their property that has been stolen and for which they have received no compensation. And I am not referring to any property purchased legally. I acknowledge your stance on the illegal settlements in the West Bank, and would ask if you are prepared to add your voice to the growing number of people calling for sanctions on the State of Israel, unless a positive programme of complete withdrawal has been undertaken in the West Bank?

    David Kessler said: OTOH I believe that the Jews have a right to the whole of Jerusalem, as they have been an absolute majority there since 1872.

    MT Says: Isn’t this the same logic that Hitler used with annexing the Sudetenland, in Czechoslovakia, I believe the logic was something along the lines of an ethnic minority of German speakers were the majority in certain parts of the country.

    Next point deleted as neither party appears to be getting anywhere.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: I assume that the last comment about faster birth rates of Israeli Arabs (Palestinians) and falling immigration being a concern, doesn’t do a lot to counter the progressively compelling argument I have seen on this board in support of the claim that Israel is a racist state or an Apartheid(like) state.

    David Kessler said: First of all Israeli Arabs are not to be confused with Palestinians. You don’t have to take my word for it, just ask them! Secondly, concern about the changing (argument incomplete I presume)

    MT Said: >>If, as you have stated David, one doesn’t need to be a religious Jew to have an affinity with Israel, indeed as with the case of the Ethiopians, one needn’t be the same race as the majority Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jews and we’ve established that there is little from a tribal perspective that links the 2 groups of European Jews, then what exactly is Zionism now?

    David Kessler said: Zionism holds that there should be a national homeland for those who identify themselves as Jews whether religiously or culturally. The legal test for qualifying under the law of return is having one Jewish grandparent or being a convert to Judaism. (There is some internal dispute as to what constitutes conversion. I believe that they currently recognize Orthodox and Conservative Synagogue conversions but not reform. I may be wrong on this point. I haven’t kept up to date with it.)
    But now that Israel is an established state, it is entitled like any other sovereign state to set its own immigration policy, just as Britain sets its immigration policy (subject to the busybody intereference of the EU).

    MT Says: What is clear from the ever-changing way in one qualifies as a Jew, first it’s only through your mother, now it’s your Grandad, and more recently if you just manage to say shalom, if you happen to be a Russian thug whose talents for violence will be invaluable in propping up the occupation of the Palestinian Territories. – I am paraphrasing Richard Ben Cramer in his book “How Israel Lost”. Incidentally you forgot to mention that Zionist also sets out to be an exclusively Jewish State, whose problem is the Arabs who didn’t run away and what to do about the millions of Arabs in the West Bank that they so desperately want to annex. They should go ahead and do it, it should be fun seeing the Jews in Etertz Yisrael being the minority. What will they do then, drop the façade and become a fully-fledged Apartheid State?

    David Kessler said: MT Writes:>>As the Jewish Agency have confirmed the majority of recent Russian émigré Jews are not Jews,

    David Kessler said: Ethnically? Religiously? Culturally?

    MT Says: All of the above it would appear David. So how do you account for this and do you believe they should be deported or forced to convert? I could direct you to a website recently set up that looks at the growing scourge of anti-semitism in Israel. One of these Russian boys serving in the army got lifted by the Police who discovered a Swastika on his arm. Apparently him and his buddies (all of whom got the Kosher stamp) had started a Hilter Youth movement of their own, in Israel.

    David Kessler said: >> then it appears that anyone can come as long as they are not Arabs!
    A bit of an exaggeration. Did these immigrants present themselves as non-Jews when they applied to immigrate to Israel? At any rate, Israel is a sovereign state and may allow in who it pleases. It is not for you or I to tell them who they may and may not allow in to their own country.

    MT Says: It would appear non-Jews and even Russian-Nazis are ok, just not the Arabs that were chased off their own land. May I ask why it is you think the government of the State of Israel is so bent on denying the Palestinians anything, they’ll even go so far as to prostitute the very Jewishness of the State as long as they don’t have to give anything viable to the Palestinians.

    MT Says: I concede that the Jewishness of the State has been a subterfuge all along, because as you and I both know, Zionism and Judasim are really mutually exclusive, the Torah refutes the right of Israel to exist as a man-made political entity, so “Jew” was a badge of convenience for those Ashkenazi revolutionaries. I acknowledge attitudes amongst Jewry softened towards Zionism after the holocaust. But now, when the whole world is in need of peace in the Middle East, why don’t you stop the deception?

    Mt Says: I do not accept your spurious argument about Arabs being blood-thirsty savages which you bring up repeatedly later in this post. Let me remind you that you raised the matter of the communication between Zionists and King Faisal in which the King said, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”

    MT Says: I concede that you “Jews” (let’s call them what they are and drop the Jewish pretence right now, they’re Israelis) need to do a lot of apologising now, but your assessment of Arabs and Arabs countries is unfair.

    MT Says: Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire the Arab peoples and their lands have been carved up by Colonialists and neo-colonialists; maps and territories decided by others rather than Arabs, communities have been thrown together or split against their logical ethnic, social or religious lines, i.e. Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon. These colonialists have looked upon the Arabs as backward and treated them with contempt. US, British and Zionist interests (amongst others) have overthrown governments, crushed popular movements, assassinated those they didn’t feel were sufficiently “sympathetic to their respective causes”, propped up oppressive and brutal dictatorships as their needs dictated. And now these colonizers have created the monster of militant and fanatical Islam. I’m afraid David that labelling Arab morality in this environment is like judging Irish morality in the context of “The Troubles”.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: >>please tell me how an Ethiopian tribesman (let’s use the eyeball test and not go the DNA route) a white Russian, a Khazari descendent (with possibly a little semitic ancestry) or a Sephardim (with a lot more semitic blood) can all have a better claim to live in Palestine than a Palestinian born there, who is probably 100% semitic?

    David Kessler said: You seem to have conveniently forgotten that most of those who now call themselves Palestinian were NOT born there. They were born in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan!

    MT Says: Really? What about those born in Gaza and the West Bank? Is that the plan then Dave, when the last Palestinian chased off their land dies, then that will be Zionism perfected, their children don’t count? Anyway aren’t there UN resolutions regarding the rights of the refugees and their offspring? – David, I’m afraid you’ve been reduced to mere Zionist apologist rubbish, at least in the beginning some of it required a bit of thought to see through, not any more.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: Now you’re being disingenuous again. You are using the argument that the Palestinians didn’t have a government at the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to suggest that there was no Palestine,

    David Kessler said: To suggest that there was no COUNTRY of Palestine. Palestine was part of the Turkish provence of Syria it was then governed by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate. At no stage was it a country. That may be an unpalatable fact to you, but it IS a fact.

    MT Says: Poland has been wiped off the map, conquered, forgotten and absorbed, by Russia, Germany, Austria and Genghis Khan more times than the average Polish high school child cares to remember for history tests. That does not change the fact that there always was a Polish “nation” and those that identified with their Polishness. Same with Palestine, the temporary oddity of the Zionist experiment has undoubtedly changed that face and population of the future Palestine, but it will still come to exist. In your deluded Zionist mind the Palestinian people should under no circumstances be granted the right of self-government then, because they’ve never had it, is that what you’re saying? I you question my humanitarian credentials. You are arrogant and transparent in the extreme. Do you believe that the Kurds deserve autonomy David, or just the Jewish ones?

    David Kessler said: MT writes:>> or are you doing a “Golda Meir” and saying there is no such thing as the Palestinian people; that was rich coming from a US citizen born in Russia, when writing off the inhabitants of a land not her own as being non-existent.

    David Kessler said: Drawing analogues between me and Golda Meir and then atacking her, is an excusion into irrelevancy.

    MT Says: Why Dave, we haven’t got to the bottom of your attitude toward the Palestinian nation yet and what you feel should be done with, or to them. What is you final solution? Golda alluded to hers quite clearly, you just hint at yours. Do you admire her for such a ridiculous claim David?

    David Kessler said: MT Says: If the Palestinian nation wish to call themselves Arabs, Palestinians or whatever isn’t relevant; what is relevant is that they were already on the land.

    David Kessler said: And before they were, others were. And now others are. You can’t turn back the clock 60 years any more than you can turn it back 2000. More has changed in the world in the preceding 60 years than in the previous 2000. As Alvin Toffler has pointed out, even the rate of change is increasing. Israel is a sovereign state now. Palestine isn’t and never was. It wasn’t even an aspiration until AFTER Israel was established.

    MT Says: So it was ok to try and turn the clock back 200-years only 60-years ago, but it’s not ok to turn back the clock 60-years today? More Zionist rubbish. In 1922, the League of Nations entrusted the Mandate for Palestine (CONSIDERED TO BE “CLASS A” OR CLOSEST TO INDEPENDENCE) to Britain. See, you’re being mendacious again. Zionism was a racist misconception. We today, live in the post-Zionist era now David, so apologising and making amends is ok. The problem is we are daily confronted by people like you; people who appear on the surface to make sense, but after careful scrutiny are found to be incapable of lying straight in bed.

    David Kessler said: MT says:>>I would stick to Zionist sources in support of this..-
    “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” –Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, “Israel” quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. (385 villages have been destroyed within pre-1967 Israel…)”

    David Kessler said: Tel Aviv? Haifa? Eilat? Jerusalem?

    MT Says: Oh I see, so now Moshe Dayan is one of your Zionist aberrations as well, the list gets longer. I’m not going to waste time on a Sunday looking into the history of the four you mention (but I’m sure that as with everything else you say there will at best only be the allusion of truth), but does their introduction reduce the enormity of the admission Dayan was making?

    David Kessler said: MT Says: I’m not sure what point you think you’ve scored with this, but I fail to see what it matters if the Palestinians called themselves Arabs. What a great pity it is that Zionists didn’t take such great delight in “showing off” Palestinian passports to their friends, as the Palestinian Jews did,

    David Kessler said: The Palestinian Jews WERE Zionists.

    MT Says: Prove it Dave, because the historical record says otherwise!

    David Kessler said: MT Says: David Kessler then goes on to make SEVEN points that propose to show the analogy is not precise, without EVER showing their relevance to the analogy, but I’ll deal with them all the same.

    David Kessler said: The relevance is that the Jews did not return to a country, they came to a piece of land whose political status was in a state of flux and where there was room for many more people.

    MT Says: The pretext was RETURNING. If you are correct, which you obviously are not, surely the State of Israel wouldn’t have on its statute books “A LAW OF RETURN” it would have a “Law permitting anyone we think is on our side to immigrate to a country founded in a state of flux” Maybe they called of the “Law of Return” because it was easier to remember! The interesting point is that the likes of Arik Sharon’s mum was astounded to find the land of Israel was inhabited when these early Zionists arrived in Palestine.

    >>David Kessler said: Firstly the most that has been proven is a Khazar contribution to the Jewish gene pool – not a complete supplanting of it.

    David Kessler said: >>MT Says “my analogy CLEARLY says “(forsaking the possibility of inter-marriage changing my descendents racial profile). This was to dissuade you from introducing this fallacious argument. Sadly it failed.

    David Kessler said: Your argument failed because it was false. There has been a great deal of intermarriage in the history of the Jews and the presence of Khazar or any other genes in their gene pool doesn’t mean that the Jews and the Khazars are one and the same. Nothing you have said has proven that the Ashkenazi Jews are the Khazars. Bearing in mind that those Khazars who converted to Judaism did so upon being persuaded to do so, it is quite likely that they WOULD have intermarried with those Jews who persuaded them!

    MT Says: If there is inter-marriage and an introduction of a large number of male and female converts, where does the “right to the land, by birth” come into it, or have you totally dropped the pretense that being Jewish gave Zionism its moral imperative?

    David Kessler said: Secondly, it is important to bear in mind that when the Zionists arrived in that sparesely populated corner of the decaying Ottoman empire, they tended to congregate in the more sparsely populated areas. (Tel Aviv, for example, was in 1903 a vacant hill outside the town of Jaffa.) They bought land at grossly inflated prices. Thus it was not a case of expropriation but one of purchasing and contributing to the land.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: Can I refer you back to the above quote from Moshe Dayan, who although I have absolutely no respect for, I will at least concede that on this point he is being honest.

    David Kessler said: The fact that Jews bought land is a matter of record. The Turks introduced a land reguistry law in 1858 and these purchases were recorded. Your selective quote of Moshe Dayan hardly refutes the records of the land registry!

    MT Says: How much land, David, please be precise as I really would like to expose you for the mendacious fool you are?

    David Kessler said: Thirdly, Arabs tended to flock to the area where Jews were gathering (and investing) because of the increased work opportunities in those areas.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: I find this piece of deception beneath contempt and not worthy of a response, however this will leave an opening for more deception so I quote “With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west part of Eretz-Israel, without Arabs… And there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…” –Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (Quoted in his article: “A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority”, published in Davar, 29 September, 1967.

    David Kessler said: So? One man expresses an obnoxious opinion (in 1940 long after the Arabs have flocked to those areas) and on the strength of this you pretend that Arabs did not flock to Jewish areas in search of work? That’s quite a leap of imagination on your part.

    MT Says: Oh dear, not another Zionist aberration. Will the list never end? Give me a clue David, how many Jewish sources must I introduce to refute every point you make, until you realise that maybe it is you, Mr Kessler who is the aberration, a man so bent on Zionist apology that you have forsaken all decency.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: You are right; there is such a thing as natural movement of populations. Zionism however is not an example of it. What happened in Palestine was colonization and then conquest.

    David Kessler said: Arriving, buying land, draining swamps, building universities, building cities – all this is colonization and conquest?

    MT Says: Personally I think there were a lot of well intentioned parts of early Zionism. But Jabotinsky, Begin and Stern, Ben Gurion quickly altered all of the to be followed by Dayan, Sharon and Netanyahu.

    David Kessler said: May I remind you that colonization means ruling one land from a power base located in another. For example, India was a British colony run from a colonial country called Britain, located in Europe. Algeria was a French colony ruled from a colonial country called France, located in Europe. Now according to you Palestine was or became a Zionist colony, so presumably it was run by a colonial country called… called… called (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai) and that colonial country was located in… (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai). If you cannot fill in the blanks then please drop this spurious allegation of Zionist colonialism!

    MT Says: Oh that’s right Dave, it was just a natural result of movement of people. Jonathan Friedland from the Guardian was being interviewed on the BBC a few months ago and said that the colonization of Israel should be seen in the same context as the colonization of Australia or Argentina. Perhaps you can add him to your list of Zionist aberrations. As mentioned above when you give me the number of Jewish sources needed to expose the mendacity of each of your points I will happily oblige.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: The first part of David’s Fifth Point seems reasonable until one considers that there were about 1 000 000 Palestinian Arabs and about 50 000 Palestinian Jews, who he claims wished to fulfill their “respective” (my emphasis) national ambitions”.
    David Kessler said: But the number of Jews soon grew through a perfectly legitimate process known as immigration.

    MT Says: Normally, when immigration happens in a country that is being established people are invited by the government, as in the case of the USA. What we have here as disgruntled Europeans who see an opportunity to flee the lands of their birth and move to another country, but not with the intention of mingling with the local population, but with the specific intention of dispossessing that people of their land using some absurd religious pretext. Jabotininsky’s book “Iron Wall” puts it clearly in perspective, brutal colonization. You can call it what you want Dave!

    David Kessler said: >> How misleading, there is no record of a Nationalist Jewish Palestinian movement at all. David himself mentioned how proud the Jews of Palestine were to show off their Palestinian passports.

    David Kessler said: Because in those days the word Palestinian did not mean Palestinian Arab or even native born to Palestine. Jewish immigrants to mandatory Palestine were also classed as Palestinians.

    MT Says: Really, a native born in Palestine wasn’t a Palestinian? What was he then?

    David Kessler said: MT Says: regarding the balance of the Fifth Point: In 1919, King Faisal, then the only recognized Arab leader in the world, executed a treaty with Chaim Weizmann adopting the understanding of the Balfour Declaration. It outlined relations between Palestine and the Arab state, recognizing the former as a National Home for the Jews, in which they should quickly settle. He wrote, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.” –
    MT Says: The key elements here are “A National Home for the Jews” quite different to an exclusively Jewish State from which Arabs would be expelled.

    David Kessler said: If the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan and not invaded the newly born state of Israel (before the British had even withdrawn) then they could have had an Arab state alongside a predominantly Jewish state.

    MT Says: The UN Security Council didn’t even accept it, why should the Palestinians? Do we need to expose the unfair nature of the partition plan? Let’s assume the Arabs had accepted it, what would have become of the Arabs within Israel, (assuming the terrorist attacks hadn’t caused 750 000 to leave), you know those happy group of serfs that swarmed around the benign settlements and the ones that stayed in their hundreds of towns and villages in the borders of Israel? Would they have been “transferred” (Zionist code for ethnic cleansing) anyway, forced to convert, or killed? Clearly for a Jewish State to remain Jewish in nature you couldn’t allow such a large percentage of the population to be non-Jews that would defeat the point. Much the same conundrum as in the West Bank eh, David?

    David Kessler said: >> The other key point is the term “moderate and proper”, clearly the proposals submitted as mentioned, bore no resemblance to the acts carried out in the name of Revisionist Zionism of the kind Jabotinsky was about to unleash and to which I am sure Weizmann concurred.

    David Kessler said: Jabotinsky’s movement was in a minority, as well you know. In subsequent Israel elections, the Jabotinsky influenced parties and coalitions (Herut, Gahal and Likud) were in a minority until 1977. In fact only by merging with other parties that were not Jabotinsky influenced, did Beigin eventually come to power. But this was long after the events that we are talking about.

    MT Says: Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism is Zionism today which in turn is Israeli State policy. Give the Arabs nothing, and kill them when necessary if they don’t leave voluntarily. You trying to tell me that Zionist thinking toady and right the way through your short history from Moshe Sharrett to Olmert hasn’t been shaped by “Iron Wall” mentality? Please, you’ve even got a concrete one as well now. That ghetto mentality is so hard to shift isn’t it?

    David Kessler said: (NB I am aware that David Ben-Gurion served in the Turkish army, but this was an abberation and an exception.)

    MT Says: I see when looking through your posts that there are a number of these Zionist aberrations and exceptions coming to the surface.

    David Kessler said: IT is only because we are talking about Israel and not the behaviour of the Arabs that you are spared the need to confront their wrongs and evils. As long as Israel is the accused and the haters of Israel, the accuser that you have this advantage. The reality is that there is right and wrong on both sides. But by focussing on Israel and ignoring the wrongs on the Arab side, you project the false impression that Israel is the villain. Let’s talk about the actions of the Arabs (something you have clevery glossed over) and a different picture emerges.
    David Kessler said: We see the persecution of the 130,000 Jews of Iraq and a similar number in the Yemen. We see the pesecution of 150,000 Algerian Jews, 48,000 Syrian Jews. All of these fled from aoppression and found refuge in Israel. Let us talk about the oppression that drove them to flight. And let’s not pretend that its the fault of Zionism. Oppression is oppression.

    MT Says: The plight of the Iraqi Jews certainly was the fault of Zionism. I’ll check up on the rest.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: I’m sure many Arabs would have agreed, and had it not been for Revisionist Zionist exclusionist greed, we probably wouldn’t have the mess we have right now.

    David Kessler said: Then all the more reason why the Arabs should have accepted the UN Partition Plan.

    MT Says: UN Security Council states Partition Plan is unenforceable aside from it being immoral. God you’re arrogant, why can’t you just envisage living peacefully amongst the other inhabitants of the land. We’ve already established that the early Zionist Ashkenazi’s aren’t really Jews anyway, so dropping the pretence of the religion would have been logical. You mention that Zionist settlement was just natural immigration, where else did a situation arise where an immigrant population usurped the land, resources and infrastructure of the indigenous people? Think carefully about your answer, because otherwise you could be staring at colonialism in the face.

    David Kessler said: The displacement of Palestinians – although certainly real – was not the inevitable consequence of Zionism. It was the consequence of Arab intransigence in the face of a Jewish minority in the Middle East who were not prepared to accept the status of “protected minority” in a Pan-Arab state.

    David Kessler said: MT Says : Really? I don’t agree, I quote
    “”Do we sin only against the refugees? Do we not treat the Arabs who remain as second-class citizens? — Did a single Jewish farmer raise his hand in the Parliament in opposition to a law that deprived Arab peasants of their land?…How lonely, in the city of Jerusalem, sits the Jewish conscience.”
    –Moshe Smilansky, 1958, in an essay entitled “Zion and the Jewish National Idea” in the Menorah Journal, Volume XVI, 1958, reprinted in Zionism Reconsidered, Macmillan, N.Y., 1970.
    Again, you’re quoting one man’s opinion about events that happened after the attempted Arab invasion of Israel.

    David Kessler said: Your quotes of Jabotinsky are meaningless, because his view was the minority view. That’s why the political parties based on his views were always minority parties and in opposition until 1977 (even then they had to form a coalition to hold power).

    MT Says: Yes Dave I know, “the lone nut theory”. Interestingly, your friend Simone calls Vlad Jabotinsky “a man of vision”. You apologists should get your story straight. What a shame for the Arabs that his “vision” was so menacing.

    David Kessler said: Seventh, within five years of statehood, Israel began absorbing large number of Sephardi Jews. By the late sixties they were a majority of the Jewish inhabitants. Whatever Israel started as, it soon became the Homeland both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews. The two may be different ethnically, and even in some of their religious practices, but taken together they are a Nation.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: Yes they are, they are now Israelis, but what of the Palestinians and their nation, who have had their birthright taken from them, communities smashed, populations chased from their homes, towns and villages, who today are suffering the iniquities of the 1940’s again in the West Bank, as once again Zionism seeks to relieve them (of the remainder) of their land, towns and possessions? Do you think it’s fair David?

    David Kessler said: I think much of it is unfair, but I think it is a consequence of three things: the misconduct of some Israeli governments, the misconduct of Palestinian leaders and the misconduct of Arab leaders. I do not share your lopsided view of history in which you ignore the wrongs of the Arabs and focus only only on the wrongs of the Jews.
    “If it is proper to ‘reconstitute’ a Jewish State which has not existed for two thousand years, why not go back another thousand years and reconstitute the Canaanite state? The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there.” –H.G. Wells, quoted by Frank C. Sakran in Palestine Dilemma, p. 204.

    David Kessler said: The reality is we can’t go back at all. We have to go forward. And destroying an established state is not an option.

    MT Says: I agree, so stop killing Arabs, stealing more land, water and resources and settle with the Palestinians. Don’t forget the refugees!

  286. David Kessler: I never advocated ethnic cleansing. I simply pointed out that because of the long-standing Jewish majority in Jerusalem, the case for Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem is similarly strong. Of course the non-Jewish minority are welcome to stay there. Once again you are dishonestly putting words into my mouth.

    MT Says: Your indignation is laughable.You state “long-standing Jewish majority in Jerusalem” – Long standing indeed! The census proves otherwise, but what you meant was that non-Jews could be split into smaller groupings thereby making Jews the largest group.

    Bye Bye Dave!

  287. I’ve read this debate with interest and, from what I can gather, anyone who disagrees with Israeli government policy is either:

    If Jewish, ‘a self hating Jew’ or an isolated aberration;
    If not Jewish, an anti-Semite.

    Thank gentlemen for your generous insight into the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I shall be reading about these matters with interest in the future.

  288. Simone said:
    October 28, 2006 4:13 PM | permalink
    Michael Tarzai said:
    “Only a fool (an immoral political Zionist as maybe a lapsed Catholic) would believe that to be fair, just or right.”

    I replied:Are you now trying to imply that Catholics are immoral? Or only lapsed Catholics?

    Michale replies: This is typical of the obfuscation that Zionist apologists indulge in.

    He further says:

    To answer your question: -I consider all immoral Catholics to be immoral, be they lapsed or not, there is no degree of lapsation in my book, so no matter how little or how far the lapsee, or not, as may be the case, has lapsed, or not, does not in my view, excuse immoral behaviour from either. I hope this clears the matter up for you.

    Michael Tarzai Says: You don’t do irony very well do you Simone? I see you claim to be a barrister; I am relieved that my liberty will never be determined by your expertise, skill and sharp-mindedness.

    Simone said: In his next post, Michael said, (in reply to David Kessler’s question as to the significance of the year 1900):

    MT Said: Apologies, I thought that was obvious, i was choosing a point in time that just pre-dated the beginning of Zionist colonization of Palestine, or there abouts. Sorry i thought it was obvious my mistake.

    Sime-baby said: I presume you are talking about modern Zionist colonization, or rather, “The Return to Zion.” Well, Moroccan Jews starting resettling in Jaffa as early as 1838, although a census carried out by Montefiore in 1939 showed that there were also Jews there from Turkey, Egypt, Smyrna, Bulgaria, and the Yemen. But of course, you mean the Ashkenazim, don’t you? Well, by 1843, there were 50 Ashkenazi families in Tiberias, so we could say that what you would no doubt term “the colonization” was well underway quite a while before the year 1900. Incidentally, a leading figure in the renewal of Jewish life in the Land of Israel was Joel Moses Salomon, born in the Old City of Jerusalem in 1838.

    Michael Tarzai says: I acknowledge fully that throughout the last few hundred years, prior to the Zionist colonization and destruction of the Palestine people’s birthright, religious Jews had been coming to the land of Palestine, which they saw as a spiritual home, and I acknowledge that they came in peace.

    Michael Tarzai says: However, this is a far cry from the virulent, racist policy of Zionism that had absolutely nothing to do with spiritual Judaism whatsoever but merely sought to colonize Palestine whilst hiding behind the moral cloak of Judaism, with disenfranchised Eastern European agitators and revolutionaries who have failed to usurp power in their own homelands and now found themselves targets for recrimination in those homelands. It is acknowledged that Zionism was the brainchild of Theodor Hertzl and whatever Zionism was supposed to be, it took no account of the indigenous population and their rights. The hideous form of Zionism we have seen visited on the Land of Palestine needs to be brought to a swift end.

    Michael Tarzai Says: Why do you people try to make it appear that Zionism is some glorious enterprise that could bring a new dawn of civilization if it wasn’t for the intransigence of Arabs. Zionism is an exclusive, evil and mean-spirited doctrine that brings shame on Israel and all Jews that blindly support it “right or wrong”. Fortunately not all Jews are Zionists. Real Jews reject it out of hand.

    Simone Said: Towards the end of the 10th century CE, Michael, from 962 CE onwards.

    As I think I have mentioned in an earlier post, this was a gradual process, but you did ask for an approximate date only.

    Michael Tarzai Says: I’m getting a different picture – “”One of the Jews undertook the conversion of the Khazars, who are composed of many peoples, and they were converted by him and joined his religion. This happened recently in the days of the Abbasids…. For this was a man who came single-handedly to a king of great rank and to a very spirited people, and they were converted by him without any recourse to violence and the sword. And they took upon themselves the difficult obligations enjoined by the law of the Torah, such as circumcision, the ritual ablutions, washing after a discharge of the semen, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath and during the feasts, the prohibition of eating the flesh of forbidden animals according to this religion, and so on.” – Abd al-Jabbar ibn Muhammad al-Hamdani, in his early 11th century work The Establishment of Proofs for the Prophethood of Our Master Muhammad”

    “The king and his vizier travelled to the deserted mountains on the seashore, and arrived one night at the cave in which some Jews used to celebrate the Sabbath. They disclosed their identity to them, embraced their religion, were circumcized in the cave, and then returned to their country, eager to learn the Jewish law. They kept their conversion secret, however, until they found an opportunity of disclosing the fact gradually to a few of their special friends. When the number had increased, they made the affair public, and induced the rest of the Khazars to embrace the Jewish faith. They sent to various countries for scholars and books, and studied the Torah. Their chronicles also tell of their prosperity, how they beat their foes, conquered their lands, secured great treasures, how their army swelled to hundreds of thousands, how they loved their faith, and fostered such love for the Holy House that they erected a tabernacle in the shape of that built by Moses. They also honored and cherished the Israelites who lived among them.” – The Kuzari: The Book of Proof and Argument in Defense of the Despised Faith, a philosophical work composed in the 12th century by the Sephardic writer Yehuda HaLevi

    Sime-baby said: Now, I could continue debating this with you ad nauseam, but as I am going on holiday, I must pack.
    Goodbye – or should I say au revoir?

    Michael Tarzai Says: Shalom sweetheart

  289. Ehud Olmert’s political party, Kadima, currently leading the murderous charge in Lebanon, was forged out of Likud, and Likud out of Herut, the political party of Zeev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, a movement at odds with socialist Zionism and taking its cues from Benito Mussolini and fascism.

    In 1940, Avraham Stern, inspired by Jabotinsky, formed Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael, or simply Lehi, a terrorist group dedicated to killing not only officials and soldiers of British colonialism in Palestine, but anybody, regardless of race or religion (including Jews), who stood in the way of realizing a “homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible,” as Stern declared in his 18 Principles of Rebirth (see David Ohana’s Zarathustra in Jerusalem: Nietzsche and the “New Hebrews”). Stern and Lehi, also called the Stern Gang, attempted to team up with the Nazis during the Second World War, declaring a “common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO (Lehi).”

    …..continued at //vancouverdotindymediaDOTorg/?q=node/2029)

  290. MT Says: You forgot to address my question relating to Palestinian rights at the dawn of the Zionist programme and to their property that has been stolen and for which they have received no compensation. And I am not referring to any property purchased legally.
    You have systematically ignored my questions regarding wrongs committed by the Arabs (including those now calling themselves Palestinian). The Arabs who fled in 1948 were offered compensation provided the applied for it. What of the Jews who were expelled from the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem in 1948? Do you acknowledge that they are entitled to compensation? What about the Jews who were driven out of Hebron in 1929? Were they entitled to compensation?
    MT Says: I acknowledge your stance on the illegal settlements in the West Bank, and would ask if you are prepared to add your voice to the growing number of people calling for sanctions on the State of Israel, unless a positive programme of complete withdrawal has been undertaken in the West Bank?
    I doubt if sanctions would work. They would be more likely to increase the siege mentality of the Israeli Right. Aside from that are sanctions reserved for occupation of land – or do they apply to human rights violations in general? If the latter then I can think of a whole load of countries who should be boycotted before we get to Israel. If you link sanctions to land occupation rather than human rights violations, then you effectively saying that you are more concerned with property rights than human rights.
    Sorry about the incomplete sentence. I think I typed it and then inadvertently deleted it.
    MT Says: What is clear from the ever-changing way in one qualifies as a Jew, first it’s only through your mother, now it’s your Grandad, and more recently if you just manage to say shalom, if you happen to be a Russian thug whose talents for violence will be invaluable in propping up the occupation of the Palestinian Territories.
    I don’t know what you mean by this “Russian thug” reference.
    MT Says: Incidentally you forgot to mention that Zionist also sets out to be an exclusively Jewish State,
    It didn’t. Zionism never ruled out the possibility of non-Jewish citizens.
    MT Says: whose problem is the Arabs who didn’t run away and what to do about the millions of Arabs in the West Bank that they so desperately want to annex.
    They don’t. Ben Gurion could have captured the West Bank in 1948 but chose not to do so – preferring instead to secure the Negev against the Arab aggression. In the first few years after the Israeli acquisition of the West Bank (in self defence against the Jordanian aggression of 1967), the Israelis tried desperately to persuade King Hussein to negotiate for its return. They were ready to return it to him in return for a peace agreement.
    MT Says: I could direct you to a website recently set up that looks at the growing scourge of anti-semitism in Israel. One of these Russian boys serving in the army got lifted by the Police who discovered a Swastika on his arm. Apparently him and his buddies (all of whom got the Kosher stamp) had started a Hilter Youth movement of their own, in Israel.
    Please do. I would like to check out this website and see whether your claim about “most of” these Russian immigrants is true.
    MT Says: I concede that the Jewishness of the State has been a subterfuge all along, because as you and I both know, Zionism and Judasim are really mutually exclusive, the Torah refutes the right of Israel to exist as a man-made political entity, so “Jew” was a badge of convenience for those Ashkenazi revolutionaries.
    That is a matter of divided opinion within Judaism. The Torah (which stops when Moses handed on the baton) certainly does not forbid Jews to live in a Jewish State. There are some who say that after the dispersion, any return to Zion must be divinely ordained. There are others who say that “God helps those who help themselves.” (Precedent: Ezra and Nehemia didn’t have a divine commandment to build the second temple.)
    Mt Says: I do not accept your spurious argument about Arabs being blood-thirsty savages which you bring up repeatedly later in this post.
    I pointed out that they too have committed wrongs, which you have chosen to gloss over because you prefer to keep Israel alone in the dock. I gave specific examples. You may be uncomfortable with these examples, but you can’t sweep them under the carpet.
    MT Says: Let me remind you that you raised the matter of the communication between Zionists and King Faisal in which the King said, “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday to the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.”
    And let me remind you that ten years later a representative of King Faisal (of Iraq) sent a letter saying (I am quoting from memory) “His majesty has no recollection of sending such a letter.”
    MT Says: I concede that you “Jews” (let’s call them what they are and drop the Jewish pretence right now, they’re Israelis) need to do a lot of apologising now, but your assessment of Arabs and Arabs countries is unfair.
    How do you respond to the specific examples I gave? Are you denying the crimes of the Arabs against their own brethren (and others)? Or do you blame it all on the Zionists?
    MT Says: Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire the Arab peoples and their lands have been carved up by Colonialists and neo-colonialists; maps and territories decided by others rather than Arabs, communities have been thrown together or split against their logical ethnic, social or religious lines, i.e. Iraq, Kuwait, Syria, Lebanon. These colonialists have looked upon the Arabs as backward and treated them with contempt. US, British and Zionist interests (amongst others) have overthrown governments, crushed popular movements, assassinated those they didn’t feel were sufficiently “sympathetic to their respective causes”, propped up oppressive and brutal dictatorships as their needs dictated. And now these colonizers have created the monster of militant and fanatical Islam. I’m afraid David that labelling Arab morality in this environment is like judging Irish morality in the context of “The Troubles”.
    A pathetic excuse! It’s the old “blame it all on the colonialists,” cop-out. Arabs are as much responsible for their actions as Jews (Zionist or otherwise), Americans, French, Italians and Fijians are for theirs. As far as assassinations go, the Arabs are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. And the extent that Israel has had to contend with that problem (Rabin) they have shown that a solid democracy can withstand such vicious acts by the wicked and the misguided.
    Furthermore, Arab and Muslim injustices against others (and their own) are not limited to the areas that were once part of the Ottoman empire. The treatment of Christian blacks in Sudan, women in Afghanistan and moderate Muslims in the Philippines has nothing to do with the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire.
    Also the Arabs were not excluded from participation in the decision-making processes. Faisal of Iraq and his brother Abdullah (sons of Hussein ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca) were respected Arab leaders whose voices were listened to and who became leaders of Iraq and Transjordan respectively.
    David Kessler said: You seem to have conveniently forgotten that most of those who now call themselves Palestinian were NOT born there. They were born in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan!
    MT Says: Really? What about those born in Gaza and the West Bank?
    I said “most”.
    MT Says: Is that the plan then Dave, when the last Palestinian chased off their land dies, then that will be Zionism perfected, their children don’t count? Anyway aren’t there UN resolutions regarding the rights of the refugees and their offspring? – David, I’m afraid you’ve been reduced to mere Zionist apologist rubbish, at least in the beginning some of it required a bit of thought to see through, not any more.
    Once you get into the rights of children – or in this case grandchildren and great-grandchildren – we come down to the question of how far down the line rights can be carried. If you rule out the right of return even of those whose Jewishness you don’t appear to dispute (the Sephardim) then your premise is presumably that there is a cut off point for the right of return. So what is your ancestral cut-off point for the right of return?

    David Kessler said: MT Says: Now you’re being disingenuous again. You are using the argument that the Palestinians didn’t have a government at the time of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to suggest that there was no Palestine,
    David Kessler said: To suggest that there was no COUNTRY of Palestine. Palestine was part of the Turkish provence of Syria it was then governed by Britain under a League of Nations Mandate. At no stage was it a country. That may be an unpalatable fact to you, but it IS a fact.
    MT Says: Poland has been wiped off the map, conquered, forgotten and absorbed, by Russia, Germany, Austria and Genghis Khan more times than the average Polish high school child cares to remember for history tests. That does not change the fact that there always was a Polish “nation” and those that identified with their Polishness. Same with Palestine,
    The difference is that notwithstanding occupations and colonizations, Poland DID exist. Palestine did NOT. And the Palestinian national identity is such a recent innovation that even in the period of the British mandate it was vying for the hearts and minds of the Arabs in mandatory Palestine with the alternative (however unrealistic) or Pan-Arab nationalism.
    Moreover if the test of a Nationality is psychological identification, then Zionism too can derive its legitimacy from the state of mind of the Zionists, regardless of their ethnicity or religious practice. Personally I believe that this is indeed the case and that both Palestinian Nationalism and Jewish Nationalism (Zionism) are legitimate for this reason. That is why I favour a two-state solution (the Jordanian option may have looked tempting between 1949 and 1973, but after that it ceased to be credible).
    MT says: the temporary oddity of the Zionist experiment has undoubtedly changed that face and population of the future Palestine, but it will still come to exist. In your deluded Zionist mind the Palestinian people should under no circumstances be granted the right of self-government then, because they’ve never had it, is that what you’re saying? I you question my humanitarian credentials.
    Although there is no historical basis for a State of Palestine, given that the people are there and cry out for some kind of a just solution, I concede that there should be a State of Palestine as well as – not instead of – the State of Israel.
    MT Says: You are arrogant and transparent in the extreme.
    Not really, although when pushed I do push back. But I am not indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs.
    MT Says: Do you believe that the Kurds deserve autonomy David, or just the Jewish ones?
    I don’t honestly know how to solve the Kurdish problem. There are large Kurdish populations in five countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Armenia. Should they have autonomy or independence? Autonomy in all those countries? Or only in some. I honestly don’t know. It’s a case of “damned if I do and damned if I don’t.” The Kurdish problem is potentially more explosive than Israel-Palestine. I certainly feel that in the context of Iraq, an autonomous Kurdish region is the best way to get the balance between their legitimate desire for self-determination and concerns that others have about the break-up of the country. But I don’t pretend to have all the answers: it is a complex problem.
    David Kessler said: MT writes:>> or are you doing a “Golda Meir” and saying there is no such thing as the Palestinian people; that was rich coming from a US citizen born in Russia, when writing off the inhabitants of a land not her own as being non-existent.
    David Kessler said: Drawing analogues between me and Golda Meir and then atacking her, is an excusion into irrelevancy.
    MT Says: Why Dave, we haven’t got to the bottom of your attitude toward the Palestinian nation yet and what you feel should be done with, or to them. What is you final solution? Golda alluded to hers quite clearly, you just hint at yours. Do you admire her for such a ridiculous claim David?
    My words were different from hers. I spoke of the fact that there had never been a Palestinian country. Palestinian nationalism is legitimate in the same way that other MODERN national movements are legitimate. But it IS a modern nationalist movement and you cannot trump Zionism by claiming that Palestinianism is an ancient venerable movement. That is why my position is that Zionism and Palestinianism have to find a way to co-exist.
    MT Says: So it was ok to try and turn the clock back 200-years only 60-years ago, but it’s not ok to turn back the clock 60-years today?
    I assume you mean 2000 years. But MY position is that if Zionism depended on the 2000 year argument then it wouldn’t be a strong enough case. I have already explained my position on this point about normal human migrations to an area whose sovereignty was in a state of flux. I will not repeat the argument.
    David Kessler said: MT says:>>I would stick to Zionist sources in support of this..-
    “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs and we are building here a Hebrew, a Jewish state; instead of the Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You even do not know the names of those villages, and I do not blame you because these villages no longer exist. There is not a single Jewish settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab Village.” –Moshe Dyan, March 19, 1969, speech at the Technion in Haifa, “Israel” quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969. (385 villages have been destroyed within pre-1967 Israel…)”
    David Kessler said: Tel Aviv? Haifa? Eilat? Jerusalem?
    MT Says: Oh I see, so now Moshe Dayan is one of your Zionist aberrations as well, the list gets longer.
    I didn’t say it was an aberration on this occasion. But you seem to assuming that any declaration contra to interest made by a Zionist is automatically true and proof of your point. That is an absurd assumption. Where is your PROOF that all Jewish settlements were built on Arab land? Where is your research and scholarship on the subject? Quoting an over-the-top statement by Moshe Dayan is cunning but it isn’t proof? I would like to see some scholarship on your part on the subject, not picking out quotes.
    David Kessler said: MT Says: I’m not sure what point you think you’ve scored with this, but I fail to see what it matters if the Palestinians called themselves Arabs. What a great pity it is that Zionists didn’t take such great delight in “showing off” Palestinian passports to their friends, as the Palestinian Jews did,
    David Kessler said: The Palestinian Jews WERE Zionists.
    MT Says: Prove it Dave, because the historical record says otherwise!
    The ones who showed their Palestinian passports proudly were not only natives but also immigrants who arrived in the Mandate. Your very distinction between Palestinian Jews and Zionists is arbitrary.
    MT Says: The pretext was RETURNING. If you are correct, which you obviously are not, surely the State of Israel wouldn’t have on its statute books “A LAW OF RETURN” it would have a “Law permitting anyone we think is on our side to immigrate to a country founded in a state of flux”
    The Law has a clear definition of who may return, it is based on Jewish ancestry and the non-practice of other religions. It is a complex solution to a complex issue. A Jew could be persecuted even if he wasn’t a practicing Jew. It would have been wrong to exclude such Jews from the protection that the Law of Return offered. As for the presence of non-Jewish Russians, I do not know if they masqueraded as Jews or took advantage of bureaucratic chaos to get into a prosperous country, but such a recent event hardly invalidates the legitimacy of the approach that the Zionists took to a complex issue.
    MT Says: If there is inter-marriage and an introduction of a large number of male and female converts, where does the “right to the land, by birth” come into it, or have you totally dropped the pretense that being Jewish gave Zionism its moral imperative?
    Judaism does allow conversion. And if intermarriage vitiates a claim, then does that mean that Palestinians who marry non-Palestinians weaken their claim – or that of their children or grandchildren?
    MT Says: How much land, David, please be precise as I really would like to expose you for the mendacious fool you are?
    I will check it out. But how about YOU tell us how much Arab-OWNED land the Zionists “stole”! When I say owned, I mean land that was registered with the Land registry office, not government land that they were using without permission. And please be precise!
    David Kessler said: Thirdly, Arabs tended to flock to the area where Jews were gathering (and investing) because of the increased work opportunities in those areas.
    David Kessler said: MT Says: I find this piece of deception beneath contempt and not worthy of a response, however this will leave an opening for more deception so I quote “With the Arabs we shall not achieve our aim of being an independent people in this country. The only solution is Eretz-Israel, at least the west part of Eretz-Israel, without Arabs… And there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries. Transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…” –Joseph Weitz, entry in his diary for 1940 (Quoted in his article: “A solution to the Refugee Problem: An Israeli State with a small Arab Minority”, published in Davar, 29 September, 1967.
    David Kessler said: So? One man expresses an obnoxious opinion (in 1940 long after the Arabs have flocked to those areas) and on the strength of this you pretend that Arabs did not flock to Jewish areas in search of work? That’s quite a leap of imagination on your part.
    MT Says: Oh dear, not another Zionist aberration. Will the list never end? Give me a clue David, how many Jewish sources must I introduce to refute every point you make, until you realise that maybe it is you, Mr Kessler who is the aberration, a man so bent on Zionist apology that you have forsaken all decency.
    You seem to be under the misapprehension that you have refuted the point. In fact, your response is a complete non sequitur to my point. Please tell me how Weitz’s opinion refutes the fact that Arabs took up residence in Jewish areas and sought (and obtained) employment there. There is nothing in the Weitz quote (from 1940) that in any way contradicts my point. All the quote shows is that that particular man didn’t like the situation. Moreover, the Arabs had been flocking to Jewish areas long before 1940 when the Weitz quote appeared in his diary. By all means quote Jewish sources – but try to make the quotes relevant to the point that you are trying to refute.

    David Kessler said: MT Says: You are right; there is such a thing as natural movement of populations. Zionism however is not an example of it. What happened in Palestine was colonization and then conquest.
    David Kessler said: Arriving, buying land, draining swamps, building universities, building cities – all this is colonization and conquest?
    MT Says: Personally I think there were a lot of well intentioned parts of early Zionism. But Jabotinsky, Begin and Stern, Ben Gurion quickly altered all of the to be followed by Dayan, Sharon and Netanyahu.
    Throwing in Ben Gurion with Jabotinsky, Begin and Stern is like throwing in Bill Clinton with George Bush (snr) George W Bush and Ronald Reagan. Even comparing Dayan with Sharon and Netanyahu is misleading.
    David Kessler said: May I remind you that colonization means ruling one land from a power base located in another. For example, India was a British colony run from a colonial country called Britain, located in Europe. Algeria was a French colony ruled from a colonial country called France, located in Europe. Now according to you Palestine was or became a Zionist colony, so presumably it was run by a colonial country called… called… called (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai) and that colonial country was located in… (please fill in the blank Mr Tarzai). If you cannot fill in the blanks then please drop this spurious allegation of Zionist colonialism!
    MT Says: Oh that’s right Dave, it was just a natural result of movement of people. Jonathan Friedland from the Guardian was being interviewed on the BBC a few months ago and said that the colonization of Israel should be seen in the same context as the colonization of Australia or Argentina. Perhaps you can add him to your list of Zionist aberrations. As mentioned above when you give me the number of Jewish sources needed to expose the mendacity of each of your points I will happily oblige.
    Again I don’t see that quoting a Jew to bolster your opinion automatically makes you right. You seem to assume that all you have to do to “prove” your point is quote a Jew when he says something you happen to agree with and then crow that you have “refuted” my point when in fact you have done no such thing. But in this case, there is no argument from me. I agree with you and Friedland: I think it is a fair and reasonable analogy. If you use the word colonial not in the British/India or French/Algeria sense but rather to mean people cutting their ties with the country of their birth and creating a new country somewhere else, then I accept the analogy. So tell me Michael, do you now wish to abolish Australia?
    MT Says: Normally, when immigration happens in a country that is being established people are invited by the government, as in the case of the USA. What we have here as disgruntled Europeans who see an opportunity to flee the lands of their birth and move to another country, but not with the intention of mingling with the local population, but with the specific intention of dispossessing that people of their land using some absurd religious pretext. Jabotininsky’s book “Iron Wall” puts it clearly in perspective, brutal colonization. You can call it what you want Dave
    The “disgruntled Europeans” didn’t flee to a “country”, they fled to a Turkish colony. If the Palestinians had a government then your analogy might have applied. But they didn’t. When Zionism started it was a Turkish colony. Then it was under British administration. When a government WAS formed it was the Israeli government (with the other areas being conquered by Jordan and Egypt).
    Also in the American example, who invited the people to FORM the government? The original immigrants weren’t invited!
    Jabotinsky may have had brutal aspirations – he wanted the West Bank and Transjordan – but the mainstream Zionist movement had much more modest aims. The Jewish Agency agreed to the UN partition plan of the part of Mandatory Palestine that remained after the cession of Transjordan.
    MT Says: Really, a native born in Palestine wasn’t a Palestinian? What was he then?
    A Palestinian was a person permanently resident in Palestine, native or otherwise. Like being British doesn’t necessarily mean native.
    David Kessler said: If the Arabs had accepted the UN partition plan and not invaded the newly born state of Israel (before the British had even withdrawn) then they could have had an Arab state alongside a predominantly Jewish state.
    MT Says: The UN Security Council didn’t even accept it, why should the Palestinians?
    Why should the Security Council have a veto over the decision of the full membership in the General Assembly? That’s like saying that the cabinet should have a veto over parliament?
    MT Says:Do we need to expose the unfair nature of the partition plan? Let’s assume the Arabs had accepted it, what would have become of the Arabs within Israel, (assuming the terrorist attacks hadn’t caused 750 000 to leave),
    The Arab refugees (those who fled both from the designated areas of Israel and the areas that Israel captured by way of defensive response to the Arab aggression) were some 550,000 in number. Had it not been for the Arab aggression, the Palestinian Arabs might have become a gradual majority in Israel or they might have been outnumbered by Sephardi Jewish immigrants from Arab countries.
    But what about the tiny Jewish minority in the areas that were designated to be part of the Arab state, and especially those in the areas that fell to Jordan and Egypt. Not one of these was permitted to remain alive in those areas. If the Arabs were not ready to tolerate even a tiny minority that was no threat to them, then how would they have behaved towards a Jewish minority? I notice your reluctance to confront questions such as this and I can well understand why.
    In contrast some 200,000 Arabs remained in Israel where they were given voting rights (including the women!) and citizenship. They were able to form political parties and sit in the Israeli parliament. Did they have similar rights in the Arab world? Oh yes, I know, they were denied these rights for decades by their own brethren because of the legacy of colonialism!
    MT Says: Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism is Zionism today which in turn is Israeli State policy.
    Since 1977 yes, but that was because Arab intransigence and aggression let the genie out of the bottle. To use your interesting phrase it is the Arabs who have “created the monster” and now they are complaining about the consequences.
    MT says: You trying to tell me that Zionist thinking toady and right the way through your short history from Moshe Sharrett to Olmert hasn’t been shaped by “Iron Wall” mentality? Please, you’ve even got a concrete one as well now. That ghetto mentality is so hard to shift isn’t it?
    The concrete wall is to keep out terrorists. I make no apology for it. I know the terrorists don’t like it, but making them happy was never its purpose, or mine.
    David Kessler said: We see the persecution of the 130,000 Jews of Iraq and a similar number in the Yemen. We see the pesecution of 150,000 Algerian Jews, 48,000 Syrian Jews. All of these fled from aoppression and found refuge in Israel. Let us talk about the oppression that drove them to flight. And let’s not pretend that its the fault of Zionism. Oppression is oppression.
    MT Says: The plight of the Iraqi Jews certainly was the fault of Zionism. I’ll check up on the rest.
    Once again you use the old excuse. The oppression of the Jews of Iraq was the fault of the people who oppressed them. You hold Israel responsible for its actions, please be consistent. Otherwise I might get the impression that you hold one set of standards for Jews and another for their oppressors.
    MT Says: UN Security Council states Partition Plan is unenforceable aside from it being immoral.
    The UN General thought otherwise. And when did the Security Council say it was unenforceable and immoral? Did the USA and USSR agree? They both recognized Israel as soon as the state was established.
    MT Says: God you’re arrogant, why can’t you just envisage living peacefully amongst the other inhabitants of the land.
    Like the Jews of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Libya? Like the Black Christians of Sudan? Like the Kurds of Iraq and Iran?
    MT Says: We’ve already established that the early Zionist Ashkenazi’s aren’t really Jews anyway,
    I think we’ve agreed to differ on this point.
    MT says: so dropping the pretence of the religion would have been logical.
    Does that mean that religious Ashkenazim should practice the religion?
    MT Says: You mention that Zionist settlement was just natural immigration, where else did a situation arise where an immigrant population usurped the land, resources and infrastructure of the indigenous people? Think carefully about your answer, because otherwise you could be staring at colonialism in the face.
    As I’ve conceded, if you use “colonialism” in the Australian sense, then I accept it as an approximate analogy. Of course, it is not exact because initially Australia was a British colony. But it is a reasonably close analogy and we may use it as a convenient shorthand for defining one of the few areas where our views seem to be converging. But the Zionists came as builders. They built much of the infrastructure that you claim they usurped. Only when it came to a struggle for survival against Arab invaders, did the Zionists go on the offensive – to meet an enemy that was coming towards them with murderous intentions.
    David Kessler said: Your quotes of Jabotinsky are meaningless, because his view was the minority view. That’s why the political parties based on his views were always minority parties and in opposition until 1977 (even then they had to form a coalition to hold power).
    MT Says: Yes Dave I know, “the lone nut theory”. Interestingly, your friend Simone calls Vlad Jabotinsky “a man of vision”. You apologists should get your story straight. What a shame for the Arabs that his “vision” was so menacing.
    The fact is you are trying to elevate Jabotinsky to something he wasn’t. He was the voice of the opposition not the establishment. His view was not that of Haim Weizman or Ben Gurion. The political parties that were influenced by his legacy remained in opposition until 1977. You can quote him till the cows come home. It would be like me quoting Haj Amin al Husseini to prove that all Palestinians were Nazis.
    David Kessler said: The reality is we can’t go back at all. We have to go forward. And destroying an established state is not an option.
    MT Says: I agree, so stop killing Arabs, stealing more land, water and resources and settle with the Palestinians. Don’t forget the refugees!
    Fair enough, I’m in favour of giving back all the 67 acquisitions (except Jerusalem) and even some of the pre-67 territory. Barak actually offered to give Arafat a couple of Arab villages in the pre-67 boundaries but the Arabs themselves objected (quite rightly!) because they preferred to be part of the horrible oppressive Zionist state than the nice compassionate Palestinian one. In other words they preferred living under the Zionists to living under the tender mercies of their own brethren. But then again perhaps I’m not allowed to mention that because it might imply that politically the Arabs are savages.

  291. MT Says: Your indignation is laughable.You state “long-standing Jewish majority in Jerusalem” – Long standing indeed! The census proves otherwise, but what you meant was that non-Jews could be split into smaller groupings thereby making Jews the largest group.

    Once again you’re confusing the census of 1844 with the figures for 1872, the year that I stated.

    The 1844 showed that Jews were already a simple majority and very close to an absolute majority. The figures for 1872 (THE YEAR THAT I STATED) were:

    10,600 Jews
    5,300 Christians
    5,000 Muslims

    That’s 10,600 Jews to 10,300 non-Jews – in other words an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY!

    And that was in 1872 – that’s 132 YEARS AGO. That’s what I call that “long-standing” buddy!

    Adios Amigo!

  292. Beware the Zionists said:>>In 1940, Avraham Stern, inspired by Jabotinsky, formed Irgun Zvai Leumi be-Yisrael, or simply Lehi, a terrorist group dedicated to killing not only officials and soldiers of British colonialism in Palestine, but anybody, regardless of race or religion (including Jews), who stood in the way of realizing a “homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible,” as Stern declared in his 18 Principles of Rebirth (see David Ohana’s Zarathustra in Jerusalem: Nietzsche and the “New Hebrews”).

    You’re confusing Lehi (Lohamei Herut Yisrael – Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) with Etzel (Irgun Zvai Le’umi or National Military Organization).

    Stern started out as a member of Etzel. But when Etzel suspended hostilities with the British in order to unite in the fight against the Nazis (in 1939), Stern disagreed. So he broke away from Etzel and formed Lehi.

    Stern and Lehi, also called the Stern Gang, attempted to team up with the Nazis during the Second World War, declaring a “common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO (Lehi).”

    This is true. And Stern had the audacity to claim that he was the true leader of Etzel. But the fact is Etzel rejected his position and supported the position of David Raziel and Menahem Begin, that Etzel should work with the British against the Nazis. When it became clear that he was in a tiny minority, Stern gave his rump organization a new name.

  294. >>Bye Dave, I didn’t think you’d have any response to refutation of all of the points you have made in the lengthy post above.

    You misinterpreted the “Adios”. I think you also missed the long response I wrote. I’m sorry that I forgot to leave spaces and bunched it all together.

    You haven’t actually refuted anything UI’ve said except in your own mind. For example in response to my statement of fact about the Arabs flocking to Jewish areas, your purported “refutation” was a quotation from a Zionist (in 1940) that he didn’t like having Arabs in the midst of Jews. You didn’t even have the wit to realize that if this individual said this then it means that Arabs were indeed living in the midst of Jews. And the reason Arabs were living in the midst of Jews was because they did indeed flock to the Jewish areas in the from the decline and end of the Ottoman empire through the British Mandate.

    Thus to the extent that your quotation was relevant, it SUPPORTED my claim. But in your demented mind the quotation was a refutation. The lie wasn’t in the quotation but in the pereverse construction you placed upon it.

    This was typical of your warped logic throughout the exchange.

    You have also evaded all those points that you are uncomfortable with: like Arab treachery in their dealings with the Zionists, like Arab violence towards the Jews as far back as 1921, like the human rights record of Arab (and Muslim) States and its implications for your alternative to Zionism.

    You also fail to acknowledge the great Zionist contribution to the economy of the land, to healthcare, education, science and technology and the excellent example the Zionists set in the treatment of women (which culminated in Jordanian women being given the vote.)

    >>The purpose of my debate with you and the witless Simone has not been to change your opinion as you are both lost causes. Rather it has been to effect a change in perception of Israel in those that view these posts, and to encourage them to take a closer look past the Zionist propaganda and see the cruelty that it masks.<< Your purpose was to stir up hatred of the Jewish State and draw people's attentions away from the appaling human rights record of Israel's neighbours. >>It has been important to further highlight that Judaism is not Zionism and that in fact the two are mutually exclusive; << Another lie - you offered no evidence to support this claim and I systematically refuted it. Needless to say you ignored my refutation of your spurious claim because you had no evidence. >>that Ashkenazis are not really Jews in any proper sense

    You never proved this. You simply cited the fact that some of Khazars (by your own admission it was only some) converted to Judaism and claimed falsely that this proved that the Ashekenazim and Khazars are synonymous. You evaded my arguments about the different streams of Judaism and spelling and pronunciation etc, because you lack the scholarship to argue these points.

    >>Any doubts at to the level to which this particular political elite will not stoop will be quickly dispelled by searching on sites set up by Torah Jews

    Explain.

    >>and looking into to the historical record of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in the extermination of expendable Jews.<< Apart from the single incident involving Avraham Stern (mentioned in DPAK's post above) there was no such collaboration. >>Zionism today is singularly responsible for the supposed rise in anti-semitism around the world, as people wrongly equate the rancid and unjustifiable behaviour of the government of Israel with Jews in general, on account of the fact that there appears to be an almost universal support of Israel by those that call themselves Jews.

    Antisemites are responsible for antisemitism. And don’t kid yourself that it’s rising, because it isn’t – notwithstanding the attempt of people to stir it up under the guise of “anti-Zionism”. Those who seek to shift the blame for antisemitism from the purpetrators to the victims are morally corrupt and depraved. It’s like shifting the blame from the rapist to the girl wearing a short skirt.

    >>Zionism needs anti-semitism and will stoke it up where it can.

    The evidence shows the opposite.

    >>more and more morally aware Jews, and some Ashkenazi, are seeing that Zionism has failed,

    Funny, earlier – when you were defending antisemitism – you claimed that Zionism had “universal support of Israel by those that call themselves Jews.” Make up your mind Tarzai!

    Aside from that, Zionism has built a country with six universities, a science institute, a music academy, advanced hospitals with large research departments, many advanced technology corporations, many agronomical research projects that have greatly benefited Africa and other parts of the third world. That’s some failure!

    >> that the terrorism daily visited on the Palestinians is wrong

    The terrorism commited BY the Palestnians is wrong.

    >> and has been wrong since Zionism became a policy of ethnic cleansing and murder.

    And of course, on the issue of the ethnic cleansing by Arabs against Jews you remain silent or blame Zionism without a shred of evidence or logic.

    >>Israel as it is constituted today can not survive another 10-years.

    I heard man say that at Speaker’s Corner in 1980.

    >>Boycotting Israel will hurry up the process

    There’s an awful lot to boycott: pharmaceuticals, medical implants, electronics, agricultural technnology…

    But boycotting Israel will only encourage Arab aggression and ultimately harm the Arabs themselves as it will prolong their delusion that they can destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state. Their efforts to destroy Israel have brought harm upon them. The one state that made peace with Israel has advanced since doing so. Egypt had 80% illiteracy in the days of Nasser.

    If the Arabs want to advance, let them follow Sadat’s example, renounce their efforts to destroy Israel and make peace. Let them also democratize (including the right to campaign freely) and then they will live long and prosper.

Comments are closed.