Name:     Michael L. S.   [E-Mail]
      Location: 
      Website:  Middle East Resource Center


 

HOME PAGE

---

RECENT POSTS:

Heyeh shalom! The EU Council of Ministers held a session yesterday and discussed various things. Among others they touched on the co-operation (or lack of it) with the ICTY of former Yugoslav countries pursuant to an interim report on the matter presented to the Council by the Chief Prosecutor Ms. Del Ponte. Her report was scathing; essentially, not Bosnia, not Serbia and not Croatia are doing a satisfactory job in apprehending and surrendering the suspected war criminals Karadzic, Gotovina and Mladic to the ICTY for trial. Croatia took the news particularly badly because it could affect their hopes of joining the EU in a couple of years' time. Their successive governments have been pussyfooting around the issue of arresting "general" Gotovina for years now. The new administration which assumed power April seemed promising in this regard but they have failed to deliver. Yes, I AM getting to a point here. After the meeting Dennis McShane who is supposed to be something called the European affairs minister in the English government heaped a bevy of threats on the Croats along the lines of: "The European Union is not just about nice words but concrete actions, too" or "Gotovina has to surrender. I offer him my personal guarantee he'll have a TV, shower and lots of spare time at Den Haag." Let's leave aside the grossly condescending latter statement. Let's even leave aside the fact that Britain has murdered far more innocent Iraqi people in their aggression on Iraq than the Croats know how to count... - and no-one will ever answer for it. Let's just take the former comment. That was said by a sconehead; and the sconeheads have done more to destabilize the EU and bring discord into it than the other 24 members put together. HE presumes to sermonize about the spirit and ideals of the EU. I personally think Gotovina is a murderous and cowardly scumbag who should rot in jail for a significant length of time. I also reckon the Croats are (a) being disingenuous about not being able to find him, and (b) not anywhere near ready to join the European Union. But smug utterances like the above on McShane's part (and you should've seen his ugly, arrogant-cum-peremptory mug on TV) almost make me want to wish Gotovina cocks a snook at the Tribunal. Almost... - but not quite.

* * *

Frustrated by George Bush's conservative Christian agenda?

Join the
National Jewish Democratic Council

* * *

OK, and now for the final installment of my most enthralling exchange with Cliff. This is my answer to his note which I quoted in my previous post here. The few parts where he had quoted me are encoded in dark green.

[MS:] Hello Cliff:

[CJ:] I am not very impressed with the Gaza disengagement plan, since it merely means that the Gazans will continue to live in the largest prison (dare I say concentration camp?) in the world.

[MS:] So, what is Israel supposed to do?! It's not good if it occupies Gaza. It's not good if it doesn't occupy Gaza. What a surprise...not. The fence has to stay for now. Like it or not (in my case not), it was built as a RESPONSE, NOT CAUSE (and, I think you'll find it was, objectively, a proportionate response to a stream of homicide bombers emanating from those areas with the mission to seek out the most densely populated areas of Israel and blow them up); the Gazan part has been built along the international border; and it has been 100% effective in stoppoing terrorist attacks. I disagree with the buffer zones between Gaza and Egypt and Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea but surely you realize that they will not be tenable for long and will go very soon after the disengagement. I just bet that if Arik Sharon doesn't hold a referendum on the disengagement plan before putting it in motion, you or someone similar will come up with the idea to cite that as "evidence" of how Israel is undemocratic!


[CJ:] The organisations you name are all Zionist, as you yourself are, presumably. We could have a long discussion over whether Zionism is the same as racism,

[MS:] Not really. All we have to do is compare the definitions of Zionism and racism and see if they match. Or we could compare the manifestations of Zionism and racism in the actuality and again see how they match. Want to do that? And yes, I am a Zionist. But no, I'm not a racist in the slightest. I only recognize the existence of one race and that is the human race.

So, if an organization is--according to your perception--Zionist--again, according to your understanding of Zionism which I am sure is based on months of in-depth study--, then it is suspect and to be dismissed whatever it may stand for, whatever it may advocate and campaign for, whatever ideals it propagates... OK, I'll just refrain from commenting on the absurdity of that.


[CJ:] but I personally can't see the difference. I think we would all be horrified if Germany declared itself officially an "Aryan" state and expelled the majority of ethnic minorities. In fact that is what has already happened. I would like to understand the difference between this and the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state and the expulsion of the majority of ethnic minorities, but the difference escapes me.

[MS:] I think we'll do that comparison after all. Let's start:
(1)
IL: The Jews were given a nation state by the international community--yes, a misnomer at the time as much as it is today--based on the rationale that a nation that's been persecuted without cessation for several millennia should be protected in a way a nation state affords.
DE: The Germans declared an Aryan Germany spontaneously, out of ideological reasons and with the express stated purpose of ridding it of all non-Aryans.

(2)
IL: The moniker "Jewish state" is actually incorrect. Israel's description is "homeland OF JEWS". Even if it were called "the Jewish state", that in absolutely no way, explicitly or implicitly, designates Israel as belonging to, consisting of or catering for only Jews. It's just a really sad way of making a little straw man and clutching onto meaningless semantics--all to smear Israel.
DE: The Nazis said Germany was for Germans and Aryans only, and they put in place a string of measures to ensure that was ultimately and absolutely the case.

(3)
IL: Israel did not expel the "majority of ethnic minorities". Yes, a higher proportion than not of the original Arab population left in the Arab-initiated war of 1948 but active expulsion was only one in a plethora of reasons for their leaving.
DE: Nazi Germany not only expelled the majority (as in ALL) of its ethnic minorities but it systematically exterminated them, too.

(4)
IL: Israel did and does not exclude its ethnic minorities from all but private primary sector of production.
DE: Nazi Germany in its early days prohibited Jews from employment in the private secondary and tertiary, and all public sectors of production... - that's before it shipped all of them off anyway to extermination camps.

(5)
IL: Israel did and does not force its ethnic minorities to wash sidewalks.
DE: Nazi Germany did.

(6)
IL: Israel did not launch an expansionist war but was attacked several times.
DE: Nazi Germany launched such a war without any provocation.

(7)
IL: Israel does not propagate the superiority of Jews or inferiority of non-Jews.
DE: Nazi Germany very actively did (substitute "Germans" for "Jews," of course!).

(8)
IL: Israel did at no time line up hundreds of people along a river, tied them in twos, had a private smite one of the two to the head with a mallet so they'd both fall in the river and the one still alive would then drown.
DE: Nazi Germany specialized in such tactics.

(9)
IL: Israel did not and does not cart off any of its citizens (20% of whom are ethnic minorities) to mass extermination camps--and no, you can NOT draw a parallel between that and ANYTHING else, no matter how much you'd like to. Fact is, Israel never made an effort to systematically exterminate a group of people or cleans any territory from it.
DE: Nazi Germany did.

(10)
IL: Zionism says nothing more and nothing less than: pursuant to centuries of abuse, persecution, pogroms and mass murder of Jews all over Europe and wider, a nation-state should be re-established which will ensure protection of Jews per international legal provisions. Post-Zionism says: that state has been established as the internationally-recognized Medinat Yisra'el (State of Israel), it has been several times defended from aggression and it has to be kept defended. Nothing more, nothing less, Cliff, no matter how much you'd like it to be otherwise.
DE: I think we both know what Nazi ideology stated.


[CJ:] I have had contacts with Israelis in my travels recently, mostly young people travelling in groups and looking for cheap drugs and with no interest in the local culture or in making contact with other travellers. Not that young British people are much different (except that their preferred drug is alcohol!).

[MS:] Right, obviously a very thorough and objective picture of the protagonists in the Middle East saga, then.


[CJ:] I also regularly read Ha'aretz, which is much more open than American and most European newspapers. (Although the number of Arab Israeli employees is zero.)

[MS:] In that case, I presume you have reservations about every organization in the world which does not accurately reflect the ethnic composition of the populace among which it operates, right? Right. (I have contacted HaAretz aksing them to confirm the number of Israeli Arabs employed there.)


[CJ:] Whether Tantura happened or not is really academic, as you say. The general pattern is important. And the motivation. I'm still not sure about Jenin. If the Israelis had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the UN to inspect the camp?

[MS:] You're getting desperate, aren't you? The "eyewitnesses" miraculously melted away. Numerous investigations by international organizations as well as by every anti-Israel piece of scum on this planet only confirmed what Israel had been saying all along. But hey, if you think you know better, you just keep at it. I remember how that dickhead Robert Fisk squirmed when his fortnight-long scare stories and screams of outrage were exposed as a complete sham; he tried to weasel out of his predicament by saying: yeah ok, there was maybe no massacre...but let's wait for UN investigation... let's wait for the HRW investigation...{after that} let's......uh...ah...er...uhm...{wipe sweat off forehead}...erm...oh, but the Israelis destroyed a lot of Palestinian houses! He didn't have the decency and professionalism to apologize or at least admit he was wrong. What a lowlife. And you give him the most prominent place on your website. What do you think that says about your motives?

(While on the subject, you say: "[T]here are [...] a few independent Western (and Israeli) journalists who do not act as public relations officers for the US or Israeli governments [...]". You don't see the irony of that, do you? Did it ever occur to you that these "few" may actually be acting as "public relations officers" for the PA and radical Arab elements instead? You see, you don't try to even give semblance of being objective. Cliff, I'm probably a third of your age and even I have learned by now that objectivity means looking at each item of evidence independently, with an open mind and investigating it thoroughly with reference to as independent elements as possible. Just because a source dissents from a source which lends its support to a cause you dislike, it does not make the former any more independent or trustworthy than the latter--whether it be on the same or different matter/cause.)

Oh, and I forgot last time: remember all the baloney that was doing the rounds just before the Iraq war: that Israel was militating (quite the opposite actually but OK) for the war to go ahead so that while the world's attention was turned to Iraq, it could expel ALL the Palestinians once and for all?


[CJ:] I'm not saying that the Palestininas are angels, or that they never lie, but I think you can agree that the Israeli PR machine works vastly better than the Palestinians'.

[MS:] When the majority of the world media give equal coverage to twelve people murdered in a homicide bombing as to the killing of three Chamas terrorists, then I thoroughly disagree with that statement. That, as well as incidences of international newsagencies pulling incriminating pictures and reports of Palestinian misdeeds, also put to rest claims of our controlling the world media (in addition, of course, to banks, governments, armed forces, the Earth orbit around the Sun, etc.) or unduly influencing them.


[CJ:] I think that there is more criticism of Israel than other countries because it is Israel that claims to be "the only democracy in the Middle East" and to have "the most humane army in the world". It also consistently blames the victims for everything.

[MS:] You DO realize that you just described almost every country in the world, right? Do you know of any country, army or movement that ever responds to any criticism by saying: yes, we are brutal, we are a tyranny, we do breach human rights!?! Let's take a case study: Chechnya. On average 15-20 Chechens are killed by the Russian forces daily (MANY more than the Palestinians). Chechen wormen also get raped on a regular basis which never happens in the territories. Further, Chechens have been under occupation/oppression for almost one and a half centuries (read that again: ALMOST 150 YEARS). And yet, a 14 year old Palestinian getting killed will elicit probably fifty times more reports than 14 Chechens getting killed. Let me ask you something now and please try to answer honestly: do you think the situation in Chechnya would be ignored the way it is by the world ("western", Arab, Muslim, and every other) if by some chance the Russians were Jewish? I think you know the answer to that as well as I. I won't even attempt to compare the attitude to Palestinians with the attitude to people who've had it even worse than the Chechens. EVEN the US (the arch-bogeyman of today) and its pathetic sidekick Britain which launched a thoroughly illegal and unprovoked war, killed far more Iraqis in a year than Israel did Palestinians in four years, still kill far more Iraqis daily than Israel does Palestinians weekly are not assailed on with NEARLY as much ferocity as Israel. And you see, that shows beyond all doubt that 99 out of 100 external pro-Palestinian commentators on the Middle East are not pro-Palestinian at all but rather anti-Israeli. (Equally, more pro-Israel commentators than not are also a bunch of assholes--if you'll pardon my language--and I denounce them also.) As for the "humane army" aspect, well, you tell me: in any recent war you can think of, how many casualties were there per one operation? Just the day before yesterday USAF fired a rocket into a packed Baghdad street to destroy a Bradley so as, ostensibly, to prevent looting; several dozen people died or injured (including an al-Arabiya reporter). A wedding posse - bombed to smithereens in Afghanistan. Are there any "boycott America" campaigns going on, any "apartheid USA" "workshops" organized on college campuses, any "doublestandards.org" websites sprouting?

I'm not saying this because I want to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. But legitimate criticism is criticism of actions or practice which (a) looks at their overall context, (b) is based on verifiable facts, and (c) is even-handed. Sorry, nothing personal, but to flagellate Israel for alleged (and glaringly unproven) discrimination against Israeli Arabs is as petty, prejudiced and frankly pathetic as it would be if I/we crucified Germany for having today the same national anthem melody as it did during WW2. I bet the next step is to moan about administrative detention in Israel while saying absolutely nothing about eg. Britain which also has it and has had it for a long time while being under much less threat than Israel, AND which is actually tremendously arrogant in its boasting of being a democratic state.

Let me give you an example of constructive criticism: say the IDF goes into a refugee camp, apprehends four terrorists, kills three others and in the process of arresting or killing the fourth it manages to demolish two houses and kill ten Palestinian civilians. Yes, criticize the IDF, Israeli government, even the Israeli electorate as vehemently as you like. It was disproportionate, reckless, possibly even sadistic. But then with equal vehemence say: Palestinian terrorists (yes, terrorists; not militants, not fighters, no bullshit but terrorists) live, sleep and work in refugee camps among civilian population which they use as not even a human shield but a human blanket. The local authorities, for what authority they actually have, have despite repeated requests failed to apprehend these terrorists. Several homicide bombers--who are responsible for dozens of Israeli civilian deaths--came from that refugee camp. The supposedly civilian Palestinians' homes are regularly used to hide the terrorists; the streets serve as assault courses; the rooftops as sniping nests; the schools to store weapons caches. Etc. THAT, Cliff, is objective (though maybe not constructive) criticism and one which people like I will take seriously. Your site is saturated with tales and faux-analyses of Israel's brutality. Have you, however, put a SINGLE item on there concerning wanton terrorist attacks by Qasam rockets on Sderot and other Negev towns? What about quizzes comparing Arabs' statements to Nazis'? Corruption, nepotism and thuggery in the PA? Indoctrination and abuse of children? Blatant breaches of human rights at the hands of the PA? State-sponsored vigilantism in PA territories? No, didn't think so.

Unlike anti-Israelis, I'm not anti-Palestinian as I believe you've caught on by now. I really do sympathize with them and want them (as well as all people in the world) to experience some of what I and people like I have experienced; the joys, opportunities, freedom...of movement, of thought, of education...). I merely refuse to blame for their plight someone who objectively did and largely does not cause it.


[CJ:] I agree with you that the North Africans in France are discriminated against, but there is a BIG difference. The Israeli Arabs can hardly be considered immigrants, since their ancestors have lived in the land for centuries

[MS:] That's immaterial. I was not talking about "immigrants" but about ethnic minorities and their treatment at the hands of the majority. And most Arab-Europeans in France are not immigrants anyway since they were born there. (As for living there for centuries, I'm sure you--who are so well read and informed about all matters ME conflict-wise--are aware that a high number of Palestinians arrived in the Mandate at around the same time as Jews--from Egypt, Syria and Tunisia principally, and also other places.)


[CJ:] (unless you believe the Zionist myth of "a land without people for a people without land")

[MS:] I don't. But it might serve you well to actually research what was meant by that saying and what land it referred to. I know you'd like it to say that Zionist fathers were liars and/or didn't see Arabs as people but it actually says something different and talks about something different. You might also want to see what Mark Twain who--unlike you or me--was actually there a few years before the First Zionist Congress had to say. (Yes, yes, I know about counterclaims to the effect that his reports were skewed by this or that factor but I think you'll find such claims to be rather stretched.)


[CJ:] Comparable situations would be the Australian treatment of the aborigines, or the American treatment of the native Indians, both of which I find appalling.

[MS:] Not quite comparable because Jews had SOME connexion with the land whereas the Europeans had perfectly none. And do you find the treatment so appalling that you have a doublestandards.org site dedicated to them? You have "US foreign policy" and "US economy" sections but nothing about Native Americans; and the "Australia" or "colonialism" sections are missing altogether!


[MS:] Israeli Arabs are far better off than the vast majority of Arabs anywhere in the Arab world.

[CJ:] I love this sentence. It reminds me of the rationalization used by white racists in the southern American states talking about black people.

[MS:] And how many of the "black" people were "CSA" state court judges, army officers, members of congress, cabinet ministers, residents of "white" cities or, for that matter, voters? Equally, how many Israeli Arabs have to use separate entrances, separate washbasins, sit at the back of buses, live in bantustans or are unable to obtain identification/travel documents? 'Nuff said.


[MS:] The JNF owns very little land (about 5%) and yes, prefers Jews. However, 3% of the land is owned by the Arab Wakhf which gives preference to Israeli Arabs. The point is?

[CJ:] The point is that 93% of the land is in the hands of the state or the JNF, and is in practice never leased to Arab Israelis.

[MS:] And what is the source of that information?! Not only can any citizen of Israel lease state-owned land but Israeli Arabs (particularly the Bedouin) are actually entitled to subsidization and other affirmative action-oriented initiatives. Half of land tilled by Israeli Arabs has been leased from the state. Besides, what are you saying: that Israeli Arabs have nowhere to live or nothing to work on?!? Look, Cliff, I know you'd really like things to be a particular way but they're just stubbornly not. It may impugn your "right-wing neocons+MNCs+Israel vs. everyone else" worldview and for that I'm sorry; but perhaps it's time to reexamine what you think are "facts" and "points". May I suggest you read up on the subject of land ownership and distribution in the State of Israel, the laws, court cases, etc. and then we can--if you should so desire--continue talking about this.


[CJ:] It would be nice to think that the quotes in the quiz were from extremists. However they are from such people as Rafel Eitan, IDF Chief of Staff 1978-83, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel 1977-82 and Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv.

[MS:] And? A lot of translations on MEMRI and PMW come directly from Arafat, al-Asad, Mubarak, high Arab government officials, state media, etc. TODAY... - yet you denounced that as selective, unrepresentative and hence irrelevant. DOUBLE STANDARDS? ;-)


[MS:] Who walked out of negotiations and started the Intifada in stead?

[CJ:] Oh please, not this piece of Zionist propaganda yet again. Please see http://www.doublestandards.org/gorman1.html.

[MS:] Nothing new there plus it misses the point totally. Two people say it wasn't generous; I'll give you two from the negotiating team who say it was. Personally, I don't think it was a great offer but it sure as hell was better than nothing and infinitely better than what's going on now. That's not the point though. The point is that Arafat didn't say something along the lines of: "No, sorry, I don't like that but here, I've a counterproposal" or "Hm, if you give me a couple of days, I'll mull it over and get back to you, one way or another". No, he just rejected it out of hand and went back to his retreat in Ramallah never to be heard from again in this matter. In the intervening months he prepared the "intifada" (according to a PA official and Arafat himself) the trigger for which was Arik Sharon's oh-so provocative visit to the Temple Mount (Judaism's holiest site). That "intifada" has to date claimed about five thousand lives. "Oh please", you say? Yes, indeed.


[MS:] Oh, and while I had the option of DIPLOMACY staring me in the face.

[CJ:] Diplomacy? If your land has been occupied for 37 years and more and more of your land is being stolen then diplomacy is the answer? So the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto should have been diplomatic with the Nazis who were attacking them?

[MS:] Heh, nice try but completely disparate. (1) The Warsaw Jews had never attacked Germans nor had they gotten their compadres in Berlin or Amsterdam to attack Germans. (2) The Warsaw Jews had not stubbornly rejected a fair UN resolution, launched a war against Germans instead, and then moaned ever since they lost that, and four subsequent, wars. (3) After 50 years of continuous war and suffering, the Jews did not walk out of negotiations which were about to give them almost all they ever STATED they wanted, and then start a bloody "intifada" after a German pensioner stepped on a "holy" rock.

[Just as an afterthought vis-a-vis the last sentence up there, I came across an interesting thought in HaAretz the other day. It read: "There is no tomb, synagogue, mosque or church that is more sacred than a kindergarten resounding with the joyful shouts of children. The tombs of prophets and Jewish saints in Iraq lost none of their holiness when the Jews relinquished stones in favor of life." Now apply in to the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.]

And these are just perfunctory comparisons, ie. this is not comparing the situation feature-by-feature which would be even more damning vis-a-vis the Palestinian leadership... - or lack of it. Furthermore, I would VERY well be pursuing diplomacy after seeing that Israel was once prepared to give up territory thrice its size, replete with oil reserves and settlements in exchange for final peace. You see, put it any way you like, but Israel neither caused nor perpetuates this conflict. I agree it should make the first move but what happens when "the other side" doesn't respond? You don't like unilateral disengagement, so what then?


[CJ:] Last but not least, I'm not condoning killing civilians, all I'm saying is that the line between civilians and military is not always clear. Take the settlers for example, many of whom are extremists from Brooklyn living out a fantasy of being in the Wild West surrounded by "wild Indians", and are heavily armed.

[MS:] Yes, and my solution for them would be to withdraw the IDF and let them fend for themselves. Most of them are thoroughly repugnant individuals whom you'd be far pressed to distinguish from the KKK. I think they are legitimate targets although even more legitimate ones abound. Schoolgirls on buses in Jerusalem, teenagers in pizzerias in Tel Aviv, pensioners in hotels in Netanya, mothers in kitchens cooking lunch, babies in buggies in parks, etc. are not legitimate targets in any circumstances. No ifs, no buts.

Best wishes,

Michael

Well, that's it, folks! I'll offer some more insight into things next time as I've a splitting headache.

Kol tuv!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Well, well, a moment's silence was held in Liverpool this morning in honor of Kenneth Bigley. Bigley was an Englisher (although he may have been Irish) who went to Iraq to operate as an "engineer"; he was captured by Iraqi resistance and beheaded a day or two ago. Now, yes, his death is regrettable and of course it repulses every right-thinking human being, particularly the manner of his execution. But what an act of SUPREME hypocrisy: sconeheads standing silently in Liverpool in a poignant act of respect for this one man; while their country is responsible for the deaths of TENS OF THOUSANDS of people, in Iraq and elsewhere. No-one, least of all the somber Liverpudlians, stood in silence in their memory. That, in itself, is repugnant.

* * *

The second debate between Dubiya Bush and John Kerry took place last night. Bush was fidgety and cantankerous while Kerry punished him severely. Of course, both of them had received extensive coaching but here they're having to debate on an equal footing, and Bush's policy holes become glaringly apparent. Naturally, the war in Iraq (or, as Bush likes to put it: the war on terror) was at the very forefront. And here's how Kerry encapsulated the Iraq fiasco: "If we'd use[d] smart diplomacy, we could have saved $200 billion and an invasion of Iraq and right now Osama bin Laden might be in jail or dead. That's the war on terror." He neglected to mention saving tens of thousands of Iraqi and over a thousand American lives in addition but OK. That really IS the crux of it, is it not: Bush disannulled the progress in international law made in the last six or seven decades. He destabilized a country which did NOT have links to al-Qu'ida and which--tyrannical though as it was--was NOT a threat to anyone... - AND he lied about the reasons for ripping up all international conventions and laws and invading Iraq. Now al-Qu'ida and every other terrorist outfit under the sun are flourishing in Iraq, there's not much chance of the country getting a stable government any time in the near future, the US is plunging into ever greater debt and turning into a police state, and the world is not one iota safer. Oh and, Osama bin Laden is still alive and very much kicking--his last kick purportedly being the Sinai bombings.

In other words, the perpetrators of 9/11 which were the reason for the instigation of the "war on terror" have still not been apprehended. North Korea and, more ominously, Iran are in the latter stages of development of REAL weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to Saddam's imaginary ones. That debt I mentioned: Bush accrued more US debt in the four years of his administration than were accumulated in two hundred straight years (from George Washington until Reagan)!! On the plus side, Libya's come on board at last; or better put: Saddam has been replaced by the legitimization of another tyrant: Moamar al-Qadafi. Syria is having to re-examine its position and the Middle East has been "shaken up" in a way. But overall, neither the US nor the rest of the world are any safer than right after 9/11.

One thing that tarnished Kerry in my eyes was his pledge not to raise taxes on high-income earners (those above US$ 200,000) but that is to be expected in US politics. There is no social-democratic current present there as understood in Europe.

* * *

OK, OK, I won't hold you in suspense any longer. The sixth and penultimate part of my series on How To Talk To an Israel-Hater follows. Let us recapitulate: the discourse between Cliff and me developed out of my simple request for the source of a photograph I wished to post on here. It soon got bloated because Cliff raised specific points which I couldn't let go by unchallenged. He then abandoned that discussion and restated his views de novo... - my impression was that he simply didn't have the knowledge or leg to stand on to continue discussing the details. It's very easy to shoot off an accusation; but when that postulate is flatly repudiated, you can continue the debate with new arguments to prove your point, admit you were wrong or act as if you never mentioned anything in the first place. Alas, Cliff elected to take the latter course of action. All the same, I took his fresh mail and dissected that, too--that was Part V below. I thought he would perhaps desist from making further arguments since he was given a castrating response to every previous one of his... - but not a chance. He replied. But how? Again: he didn't tackle my rebuttals but let them go and instead regurgitated a few paragraphs of how he saw things to be. His post follows; things written by him are red and where he quoted me is dark green.

[CJ:] Hi Michael,

Well it is nice to have a civilized discussion, and you make some good points. Thanks for looking at the sources I mention.

I am not very impressed with the Gaza disengagement plan, since it merely means that the Gazans will continue to live in the largest prison (dare I say concentration camp?) in the world.

The organisations you name are all Zionist, as you yourself are, presumably. We could have a long discussion over whether Zionism is the same as racism, but I personally can't see the difference. I think we would all be horrified if Germany declared itself officially an "Aryan" state and expelled the majority of ethnic minorities. In fact that is what has already happened. I would like to understand the difference between this and the declaration of Israel as a Jewish state and the expulsion of the majority of ethnic minorities, but the difference escapes me.

I have had contacts with Israelis in my travels recently, mostly young people travelling in groups and looking for cheap drugs and with no interest in the local culture or in making contact with other travellers. Not that young British people are much different (except that their preferred drug is alcohol!).

I also regularly read Ha'aretz, which is much more open than American and most European newspapers. (Although the number of Arab Israeli employees is zero.)

Whether Tantura happened or not is really academic, as you say. The general pattern is important. And the motivation. I'm still not sure about Jenin. If the Israelis had nothing to hide, why did they refuse to allow the UN to inspect the camp? I'm not saying that the Palestininas are angels, or that they never lie, but I think you can agree that the Israeli PR machine works vastly better than the Palestinians'.

I think that there is more criticism of Israel than other countries because it is Israel that claims to be "the only democracy in the Middle East" and to have "the most humane army in the world". It also consistently blames the victims for everything. I agree with you that the North Africans in France are discriminated against, but there is a BIG difference. The Israeli Arabs can hardly be considered immigrants, since their ancestors have lived in the land for centuries (unless you believe the Zionist myth of "a land without people for a people without land"). Comparable situations would be the Australian treatment of the aborigines, or the American treatment of the native Indians, both of which I find appalling.


[MS:] Israeli Arabs are far better off than the vast majority of Arabs anywhere in the Arab world.

[CJ:] I love this sentence. It reminds me of the rationalization used by white racists in the southern American states talking about black people.


[MS:] The JNF owns very little land (about 5%) and yes, prefers Jews. However, 3% of the land is owned by the Arab Wakhf which gives preference to Israeli Arabs. The point is?

[CJ:] The point is that 93% of the land is in the hands of the state or the JNF, and is in practice never leased to Arab Israelis.

It would be nice to think that the quotes in the quiz were from extremists. However they are from such people as Rafel Eitan, IDF Chief of Staff 1978-83, Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel 1977-82 and Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv.


[MS:] Who walked out of negotiations and started the Intifada in stead?

[CJ:] Oh please, not this piece of Zionist propaganda yet again. Please see http://www.doublestandards.org/gorman1.html.


[MS:] Oh, and while I had the option of DIPLOMACY staring me in the face.

[CJ:] Diplomacy? If your land has been occupied for 37 years and more and more of your land is being stolen then diplomacy is the answer? So the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto should have been diplomatic with the Nazis who were attacking them?

Last but not least, I'm not condoning killing civilians, all I'm saying is that the line between civilians and military is not always clear. Take the settlers for example, many of whom are extremists from Brooklyn living out a fantasy of being in the Wild West surrounded by "wild Indians", and are heavily armed.

Kind regards,

Cliff

Well, there you are. Of course, I responded to this, too, and I'll post what I wrote here next time. In the meantime, let's repeat that little exercize from before: see how YOU would reply to Cliff's letter. And hey, keep it civil, yaar.

Have a shavua tov!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Shalom aleichem! Yesterday was the 19th anniversary of Palestinian terrorists' hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. Four terrorists hijacked the cruiseliner (filled, true to form, with civilians and tourists at that) and demanded their terrorist comrades held in prison in Eretz Yisrael and elsewhere be released. They shot a wheelchair-bound passenger and drove him overboard into the sea. His name was Leon Klinghoffer (HY"D). The terrorists released other hostages in return for safe passage offered by Egypt. However, their airplane was forced by the USAF to land in Sicily and they were arrested. Three of the terrorists and seven accomplices were convicted and sentenced to jail. However, the perpetrators have been out since either being paroled or jumping parole in 1991. They are not believed to be posing any threat. Their leader Mohamad Abas absconded (with the help from the Italian authorities) and was finally apprehended in Iraq last year (at least one good thing came out of the US invasion). He died in custody this spring (Y"ShU) of, it is said, natural causes. However, as in the case of Mohamad Farah Aidid, take that with a pinch of salt.

* * *

And a few days ago Xians calling themselves Zionists held a march in Yerushalayim in support of Israel, and not just any Israel but even Eretz Yisra'el, to be sure. Read more in HaAretz. What's my problem here? Several. Firstly, I abhor these people or, more accurately, what they stand for, propagate and HOW they propagate it. Having had the displeasure of being intimately acquainted with them, I do not err in saying they are some of the most intolerant, bigoted, opinionated, self-righteous and aggressive people that exist. All that holds them back from emulating the 9/11 terrorists is a verse in their Bible. They are already happily bombing abortion clinics all over the US.

Secondly, because they are such vocal supporters of Israel in the US, a lot of Jews in the US are feeling impelled to adopt some of these nutters' political ideas for fear of offending and alienating them. There has been a frightening surge in Jews spewing the worst kind of neo-conservative bullshit there's out there. A great many of them also actively work for the Bush administration... - and not doing a Jonathan Pollard either. A neo-conservative Jew is the most vomit-inducing sight there is. Well, maybe seeing Arafat talking about a genuine desire for peace comes before... - but this comes a close second. Besides, it's not as if these people are friends of the Jews. They are convinced we're all going to fry down there on their god's big barbecue. The only reason they support Israel is that they hate Muslims so much they are able to put their disgust with Jews aside for the moment. Sure, Pat Robertson doesn't want Yerushalayim in Arab instead of Israeli hands but he would be infinitely happier if it were in evangelicals', ie. Xian, hands. You can get a good taste of both my points if you look at this single statement he made: "[...] Robertson warned that some Muslims were trying to foil '[g]od's plan' to let Israel hold on to its lands."

And lastly, Israel is messed up enough politically with religious zealots as it is. We do not need goyim to give those nutcases more munition. Who the fuck is Pat Robertson to denigrate Dr. Sharon's disengagement plan?! Yes, OK, I'm being very intolerant here myself. It's just that these people really get up my nose, especially when they shtick THEIR noses into business which doesn't concern them and where they make more trouble than worth. Should we decry them publicly? I don't think so. We should be grateful we have allies, no matter who they are. But we must bear in mind they're no more than useless idiots.

* * *

And lastly, the UN... - or more precisely, the UNRWA: the agency supposedly responsible for relieving the Palestinians' humanitarian predicaments. It's part of the UN and is supposed to be entirely neutral. However, per its director's own admission, this agency employs (pays!) member of Chamas! And since it itself is financed by world governments, it means that world governments are essentially paying the salaries of Chamas terrorists. When this came to light the Canadians expressed "concern." Of course, the Canadians won't do shit about it. Remember, that is a country that constantly lambasts Israel and votes against us at the UN. Also, they do not want to give charitable status to Magen David Adom because it "operates in the territories." Of course, unlike the UNRWA ambulances, MDA is in the business of actually saving people, not transporting terrorists and bombs, but we won't let that obstruct the Canadians' perspective.

On top of the above, its chairman, Peter Hansen who, also, is meant to be neutral is a blatant Israel-hater. He is the individual who crucified Israel a couple of years ago during the Operation Defensive Shield, accusing us of committing a massacre. Some of his pearls are: "the Jenin camp residents lived through a human catastrophe that have few parallels in recent history" or "bodies piling up" in "mass graves" which he "saw with [his] own eyes." These are both pathetic lies disproved long ago. However, just as that prick Fisk, Hansen has not apologized either for promulgating anti-Semitic lies. He also admitted that Chamas terrorists were on his organization's payroll and added that he did not see anything wrong with that. The guy is a monumental asshole. Anyway, the point is that Israel has had enough of these clowns and has asked Kofi Anan to investigate UNRWA. Nothing will come of it but my point is, again, that those who think they have it all figured out about the Middle East--our doublestandards.com Cliffy included--should realize why Israel doesn't give a fuck about the UN. And this is just the latest in an avalanche of examples.

Speaking of Cliffy, the next installment of our exchange will follow in my next post.

Have a shabat shalom!

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<

Shabat shalom! Well, operation Day of Penitence is proceeding... - of course, 20 Palestinian terrorists are far more interesting to the world media than the 100+ people and terrorists the US offed in Samara yesterday but that's nothing to be in the slightest surprised about. Oh, and Tzahal foiled a terrorist attack when four terrorists sneaked into Israel from Aza. How did Tzahal know about them? The scum had set off the alarm on the anti-terrorist barrier. That's the same barrier the goyim at The Hague and elsewhere vituperate us for erecting. Fuck them.

OK, back to our dear Cliff. Did you knock up a few ideas on what to reply to his e-mail? See how they compare:
(Remember, for ease of keeping track, my comments are green while Cliff's are red.)

[MS:] Dear Cliff:

Well, I told you there were no simple answers! =D I don't want to
start to polemicize again but I'll review some of what you wrote; I
hope you don't mind.


[CJ:] There's some truth in a lot of what you say. My experience in Israel was around 1985 when I was 3 1/2 months in the country. [...] It's with Americans and Israelis that I have the most problems (with some exceptions, of course). Is it because both groups believe that they're God's chosen people?

[MS:] How sure are you that those you spoke with 20 years ago are representative of the majority of Israelis/Jews today? And if we are really so bigoted, then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of Israelis are in favor of the Gaza disengagement plan, and that a significant majority believe Israel should pull out of all occupied territories? How do you explain the strength of organizations such as B'Tzelem, Peace NOW or the Labor, Meretz and Shinui parties; and many others? I also think you would find you way overgeneralize things: active consciousness of the supposed "chosenness" is not ubiquitous among Jews nor does it actively manifest in the lives of the majority of us. (Besides, the notion of "chosenness" can hardly be tied with Judaism or American political/military licentiousness: you will find it very much present among extremist adherents to most world religions and ideologies.) Also, I don't know if your opinion stems from talking to people mainly on the Internet but if it does, bear in mind that on the Internet you get a disproportionate number of radical and frustrated people who cannot plug their nonsense elsewhere and are for the most ignored in other arenas. (Eg. the presence of radical Jewish groups on the Internet is frankly frightening and while they account for maybe a couple of percent of Jewry, judging by the Internet you'd think a straight half of us thought like Kahan, Goldstein or Amir.)


[CJ:] Might I suggest you read a few articles on my site?

[MS:] Gladly. But I have to tell you I've seen most sites out there from all sides several times over.


[CJ:] 1. About the deliberate use of terror tactics to expel the Palestinians:
www.doublestandards.org/pilger2.html

[MS:] The Tantura saga is really a shambles and it is nothing short of laughable how desperate some Israel's detractors get. The short fact is that we have no way of knowing if a massacre there happened or not. But there are two considerations to be taken into account: (1) it is a little odd, to say the least, that the Palestinian side had been completely silent about what would be the biggest alleged massacre of Palestinians ever until this thesis was published. For someone able to reel off the minutest of details of other alleged massacres, they seem never to have heard of this, the biggest one--how come, if it really happened?, and (2) I take Palestinian accusations with a pinch of salt, especially those relating to the past. No, not because I blindly defend Israel or because I'm a Zionist or I don't know what but because of experience. Remember the "mass graves" in Jenin in 2002? Remember the "refrigerated trucks" that were "hauling corpses" away for secret burial "somewhere in haNegev"? Remember the "hundreds", even "over a thousand", killed Palestinians? Remember THAT "massacre" that never was? More recently, did you catch that snippet about a Palestinian boy murdered by Chamas terrorists when his family told them to take a hike and not use their house to launch rockets from? Did you notice how at first the PA tried to claim the IDF had killed him?

But be it as it may; I don't understand the purpose of digging thru this. Did the Jewish forces in some instances behave immorally (bestially, even)? Yes. Truth be told, the Holocaust had just happened and they were fighting for their very survival against combined forces of seven Arab countries so they were hardly in the right mindset to conduct a crime-free war. It doesn't exculpate the perpetrators; it just invites viewing things from a different perspective. Also, I could equally furnish websites and sources detailing Arab atrocities (think: Hadasah; think: Gush Etzion; think: Galilee), confirming that a great number of Arabs left for reasons I had talked about previously, etc. What are we going to do: have a contest--your atrocity is bigger than my atrocity? Fact is: the war happened, Israel was established, Israel was recognized, some Palestinians were refuged and so forth. I'm interested in where we go from HERE and from NOW.

And incidentally, I'm sure you are rational enough to realize that just because a member of a group A describes that group as eg. an apartheid, the allegation carries no more weight than if someone else described it as such. Israel proper is objectively not an apartheid state.


[CJ:] and Palestine Remembered at
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story674.html
which quotes the Israeli historian Benny Morris.

[MS:] V. supra.


[CJ:] 2. About the "equality" of the Arab Israelis: Human Rights Watch at
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel2/ISRAEL0901-01.htm,

[MS:] The same could be said of many inner city schools in pretty much every bigger "western" city which puts minorities living in the "ghetto" at a distinct disadvantage. While I would like all Israeli citizens to have equal opportunities and would like to see equal allocation of resources to all citizens, it is disingenuous to suggest Israeli Arabs are discriminated against. I can point you to many Israeli Arabs who hold very high positions in the Israeli society: Kneset, Supreme Court, IDF, Civil Service... Yes, there is room for improvement but the situation is hardly as dire as that in many parts of the world (why don't you look to your own Europe and eg. Croatia where Croatian Serbs are REALLY discriminated against?). Why is it that so many punters like to put Israel under such a microscope as they don't put even their own countries under? And Israel has for a while been mandating affirmative action which even most EU states do not. How many of those whose hearts supposedly bleed for the Palestinians (mind you, only those Palestinians who are in Israel and the territories; those in Lebanon and elsewhere don't count as we've seen) will be demanding that Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or Syria institute affirmative action vis-a-vis THEIR minorities?


[CJ:] www.doublestandards.org/levy2.html

[MS:] "[N]o democracy is reserved exclusively for a particular religion or nationality. In a truly democratic regime, everyone enjoys his freedoms and rights in equal measure[.]"
And which, exactly, Israeli citizens are disenfranchized and from what? Allegations that non-Jewish Israelis do not enjoy democracy in Israel kind of have to be backed up in order to have credibility and Mr. Levy did not do so. They are "excluded from the democratic public discourse"?! How??? A newspaper of "theirs" was shut down? Yes, but the extreme right-wing aren't faring any better (thankfully): eg. Arutz Sheva still doesn't have its license not is it likely to get it (this, in great part, owing to the supposedly "racist" Supreme Court). I do agree that there are far too many imperfections within Israel itself but to present it as if it's the murkiest of tyrannies a la Syria is plain nonsense. Israeli Arabs are far better off than the vast majority of Arabs anywhere in the Arab world. There are inequalities but there are inequalities between minorities and majorities EVERYWHERE. Look at the position of Arab-Europeans in France. They're mostly confined to inner city ghettoes and are practically rotting away there. Does that make the French racist? When you're in London, go to the Whitechapel area and see how the Bangladeshi people live there. Does it make Britain a place of omnipresent institutional racism? Don't oversimplify and label just because you'd like to see a particular picture.


[CJ:] www.doublestandards.org/palchron1.html

[MS:] Oh yeah, pillory Israel for the Law of Return. (!!!) They may as well attack Israel for existing in the first place!! The whole point of establishing Israel was to protect Jews when they are attacked elsewhere by offering easy immigration and then the protection afforded by a nation state. Besides, a lot of countries have laws based on ius sanguinis: the descendant of a particular ethnic group can jump thru most of the immigration hoops. What else? Ah, the status of QUANGOs. Er yeah, and? Just because those organizations have the word Jewish in their name doesn't mean they only help or act at the behest of Jews!! Jesus, this is getting farcical. The Jewish Agency facilitates Jewish immigration. The WZO runs integration and "taster" courses for potential olim. The JNF owns very little land (about 5%) and yes, prefers Jews. However, 3% of the land is owned by the Arab Wakhf which gives preference to Israeli Arabs. The point is?

Oh, and they conveniently forgot to mention that while Israeli Arabs are not obliged to serve in the IDF, they are more than welcome to which would ensure they got all the benefits. But of course, their not serving in the IDF attracts certain privileges in a different way: they get to go to college earlier and are ahead of their Jewish peers with education by the time the latter are finished with their conscription. They then start working earlier which is why a greater proportion of Israeli Arabs are employed in High Level jobs than Jews (especially Russian Jews). A bit of a problem that, for the Arab Association for Human Rights, isn't it. I agree concerning budgetary allocations.


[CJ:] 3. You may find the section on Some Jewish Voices at
http://www.doublestandards.org/pales.html#voices also interesting.

[MS:] Not really. I'm not interested who criticism comes from; just whether it's objective and constructive. Take Neturei Karta for instance. They are ultra-Orthodox Jews and the reason they oppose Zionism is that they think only the Mashiach (Messiah) has the right to re-establish Israel and rebuild the Temple, and hence the Zionist idea is, per them, against G-d. Oh, and, if you want racism, look no farther than these guys. One more thing, being anti-Zionist did not spare them: Palestinian terrorists staged no fewer than two homicide bombings in the Meah She'arim and Shmu'el HaNavi (ultra-Orthodox) neighborhoods of Jerusalem--one more proof, if any was needed--that the aim of terrorists is not "freedom" but decimating the Jewish population, whoever those Jews may be, even if they're their "allies".

As for Oona King's resolution, it would be interesting to find out if she's also boycotting Syrian, Russian, Moroccan, Chinese, Pakistani (including all the curry houses in her constituency), Indonesian, etc. etc. products. Want to hazard a guess as to whether she does?

En passant, there actually exist groups like "Arabs For Israel"--what does it prove?!


[CJ:] 4. You may like to take the quiz at
www.doublestandards.org/quiz2.html.

[MS:] Heh, ironic really that you should suggest I had a look at this (presumably to prove something) and then in the very next breath decry MEMRI and PMW for supposedly latching onto bombastic and most extreme statements taken out of context.


[CJ:] The memri and pmw sites are notorious for translating mainly extreme articles. It's like translating articles from British neo-Nazi newspapers into Arabic to give the impression that this is the way the British think.

[MS:] Hardly. They translate articles from mainstream Arab press. And TV broadcasts are from state (PA) television (one of only TWO available in the territories) or, again, mainstream Arab television stations. And they're not some blue movies but prime-time viewing. And what SHOULD they translate in order to meet your standards of objectivity: the weather forecast?!

I find it amusing that just above you give me works by equally notorious, what some would call, Israel-haters (eg. Pilger) but dismiss these organizations out of hand because they say things (actually, merely TRANSLATE things) that don't fit in with the kind of picture you'd like to see of one or the other side.


[CJ:] I understand what you are saying about the difference in motivation being important. But I do think it's splitting hairs. If country A invades country B and in the process kills lots of civilians, a consequence that was obviously known before, how is this morally better than a suicide bomber deliberately targetting civilians?

[MS:] The motive and intention is VERY important. In most judicial systems the difference between first and second degree murders (or murder vs. manslaughter) is the difference between a couple of years in a medium-security jail and a lifetime in a top-security slammer (in some parts of the US it's the difference between life and death). It IS important whether you send a squadron of airplanes to drop all the explosive they can carry on the most densely populated area they can find (a strategem perfected by the late Hafiz al-Asad at Chamah--but we're not interested in that since Israel was not the bad guy or even A guy, right?), as opposed to killing a dozen civilians in the course of trying to get to a criminal hiding among civilians, particularly if the civilians are killed as the result of faulty intelligence. If you cannot see the difference and importance of that difference, then I regret I cannot do anything for you there. Look, if ever it comes out (doesn't matter if it will or not; I'm saying for myself) that an Israeli pushed a button knowing his action is going to result in a number of innocent deaths, then I say throw his ass in jail for a long time. If one does it negligently, imprison him and then kick him out of the Army.


[CJ:] (BTW, nearly all Israelis are technically in the military until their 55th birthday, so there is not always a clear line between "civilian" and "military" targets).

[MS:] Ah, see: little by little you're revealing your true colors. That's the exact same (non-)argument used by terrorist outfits. It basically says: hey, why should we look for a barracks to blow up; since almost every Israeli (except Israeli Arabs and, yes, the ultra-Orthodox) serve in the IDF, all Israelis are fair game so let's strike them anywhere--and the more the better! Well, if I was a lowlife piece of feces who accepted such an argument, I could retort: since terrorist acts are committed with the support of a large corpus of the Palestinian populace, since many provide direct support to conduce the commission of such acts, and since a lot of them have the propensity to turn into terrorists, bomb them all to kingdom come!!

Of course, I don't accept that "doctrine" and I could never fathom condoning such an act.


[CJ:] I certainly do not defend the killing of Israeli civilians by suicide bombers, but unless you believe that the Arabs are subhuman, ask yourself what depths of despair and hopelessness would drive a human being to such extremes.

[MS:] You know, I did. And the answer still eludes me: EITHER the Palestinians are THE single most oppressed, brutalized, raped, robbed, enslaved, murdered, etc. people ever to have existed on the face of this planet (I mean, forget Colombia, Mauritania, Sudan, Chechnya, Lebanon, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Kashmir, Tamil Eelam, Tibet, North Korea, Indonesia... ... ... hey, forget the Warsaw ghetto or the nations of Occupied Europe... - no, no: it's the Palestinians who lead with their plight both now and within the entire history of the human kind).

OR there is much more to this than meets the eye. You make your choice; I think you know mine.


[CJ:] There are two sides to most problems, but the fact does remain that the Israelis are free to travel abroad and live at a level not far from that in Europe, while the Palestinians are kept in the world's largest open Prison (Gaza), soon to be the second largest when the West Bank wall is completed, in squalor and abject poverty, and liable to get killed in the "cross-fire" or by bombs dropped from F16-s or Apache attack helicopters.

[MS:] Yes, there ARE two sides to most problems. Here there are many more than just two. I would ask you who started it but it doesn't matter. What matters is who perpetuates it. Who reneged on their (his!) promises? Who lined up his pockets with international aid and let the refugees and other Palestinians continue living like dogs? Who walked out of negotiations and started the Intifada in stead? Who has been nurturing a culture of war and hatred thru the media and manipulation of other factions who were more than happy to play along?


[CJ:] What would you do if you had been born there?

[MS:] I don't know. And neither do you. However, precedents and parallel case studies very strongly suggest I would not be blowing up civilian centers while I had purely military targets staring me in the face. Oh, and while I had the option of DIPLOMACY staring me in the face.


[CJ:] It's been 37 years now. Isn't it up to Israel as the occupying power to make the first move?

[MS:] I think it is and that is why I hope Arik Sharon perseveres with the disengagement plan from Gaza and northern Samaria. I hope he will be succeeded by someone with even more courage who will withdraw from the territories completely--not because we're cowed or afraid but because it's the right thing to do. But bear in mind, it's not as simple as telling the Army to pick up their stuff and move behind the Green Line.

Take care,

Michael

And something nice for the end: a poignant story about two German students who bicycled from a former Nazi concentration camp near Berlin all the way to Yad VaShem in a reconciliation effort between Israel and Germany. Read about it here.

Have a shavua tov...

>> send me your opinions by e-mail <<