- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, March 19, 2007

It took a day for Israel to say no

What a surprise – the Israeli’s can’t work with the new Palestinian coalition because Hamas is involved. Yawn. Whatever. Israel doesn’t want peace as peace would force them to start pulling out of the West Bank (because they currently have illegal settlements all over the West Bank). Even though Hamas have agreed to abide by past agreements, even though Hamas is the democratically elected party (don’t you love how its only democracy when the party America and Israel wants wins) even though if Israel and America had been real about peace in the past they wouldn’t be confronted by a radicalized Palestinian population who elected Hamas out of desperation and anger.

The Israeli’s are using Hamas as an excuse to harden their position, not actively seek peace, and they are doing that because their position of 4 decades of brutal occupation is totally undefendable. By causing the Palestinian people even further suffering because of their vote, to ‘group punish’ the Palestinian people sends dark echo’s that Israel should be ashamed of.

Olmert says Israel to shun new Palestinian coalition
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last night ruled out resuming talks on Palestinian statehood with President Mahmoud Abbas and urged the international community to shun his new Government with Hamas. Palestinians hope the Government between Abbas' secular Fatah faction and Islamist Hamas will stop factional fighting and ease a crippling aid embargo that has increased poverty.


At 19/3/07 7:54 am, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

The preposterous and perfidious nature of Israel's demands is highlighted in this essay:


Nearly every serious student of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes to the conclusion that a single, multi-ethnic state is the only possible future. This is also favoured by the moderates on both sides.

Roger Tucker:

"Like many one-staters I am a Jew, bar-mitzvahed and the whole thing. And like most of us, it took me a long time before I saw through the Zionist "hasbara." [Heb., propaganda] I was never entirely impressed with the whole tribal mytho-history, and long ago noticed that the Old Testament seemed to be telling one long, epic story of proto-fascism. But it wasn't until three years ago that the light finally dawned, and I realized that Israel, like all fascist, racist entities was doomed. The only questions remaining in my mind were

1. How has it managed to last so long? About 60 years already.

2. How will it end? If things continue the way they've been going, it won't be pretty.

3. How can I help to resolve the problem in the best possible fashion?"

......has a website devoted to the One-state solution. Whatever one's current opinions, it is well worth reading the articles posted there.


At 19/3/07 8:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shock horror at this 'new development'. Israel just loves waving its certificate of no-one to talk to. How convenient. I better leave it at that before I get accused of being 'anti-semitic' again.

"Nearly every serious student of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes to the conclusion that a single, multi-ethnic state is the only possible future. This is also favoured by the moderates on both sides".



At 19/3/07 9:06 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Israeli Diplomacy:


At 19/3/07 9:17 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice Israeli Soldiers give out cookies:


At 19/3/07 9:34 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

same old same old. Israel sucks.

At 19/3/07 12:12 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Israel should just use nukes, turn it into new beach side property investment...

I would trust them either, its not like there the most honest and trust worthy people in the world...

bomb them Israel and say it was an accident...


At 19/3/07 10:48 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

"This is also favoured by the moderates on both sides".

Yeah I can live with that. But the Moderates arent the issue. I mean, if it were about the Moderates most of the issues facing the region (if not the world) would probably never had occured.

On both sides we have extremists - Zionists who want to expand Israel and never give an inch, and those Islamic fundamentalists who want to see the destruction of Israel and Jews killed.

I wonder if keeping the sides apart isnt a better idea. The world gave the jews a piece of land, but not a mandate for expansionism.

This post is not meant to shit stir, im really interested in your replies anti, sam and brewer in particular

At 20/3/07 8:16 am, Blogger Anti-Flag said...


"On both sides we have extremists - Zionists who want to expand Israel and never give an inch, and those Islamic fundamentalists who want to see the destruction of Israel and Jews killed".

I disagree. The extremism on the Palestinian side is relative to the extent of oppression they're subjected to. It is a direct result of the occupation etc. The extremism can therefore be dealt with by bringing an end to the suffering of Palestinians. The Zionist side is far more dangerous because it is an ideological fanaticism that isn't grounded in any reality. Furthermore, those 'Islamic fundamentalists' you speak of have on numerous occasions declared they would recognise Israel once it abides by international law. The 2002 Arab declaration that even Hizbulllah, Hamas and Iran recognised stands testimony to that. Recently, this declaration was reiterated. Again, this reinforces the relationship between the 'extremism' of the Arab side with the occupation, but importantly, it shows the willingness of the extremists to do away with their extremism if the terms -that international lawrecognises- are met.

"I wonder if keeping the sides apart isn’t a better idea. The world gave the Jews a piece of land, but not a mandate for expansionism".

Firstly, as you said it yourself the "world" gave the land to the Jews. Who is the 'world'? Empire. Its arrogance and racist understandings of 'the other' justified with little consideration of over 1500 Arab villages documented in Ottoman and even British records. The Arabs did not exist, because they weren't human enough to be consulted with, or even thought of. Balfour's 1917 declaration again stands testimony to this. So excuse me if many victims of empire in that part of the world have no respect for the racist and selfish decisions that have been made at their expense. Nor would they accept the results of those decisions. It’s preposterous for you to even assume that. The decolonising movements through out the Middle East and Third World have answered you. So it's morally wrong to assume that the 'world's decision has any weight. Nor is it morally right for the Palestinians, although I'd understand the sentiment, to have the Jews of Europe return back. That is why the single state solution is the only solution. Most Palestinians recognise this. Nor does not continue the British legacy, and creates a new norm that is not perpetuating historical decisions. Call it a final detachment from a bloody history.

A few other reasons why the single state solution is more suitable: The problem with the two-state solution is, geographically, it's impossible unless your idea of a Palestinian state consists of Bantustans. Gaza and West Bank are separated. Additionally, it's far too small an area that is being offered to the Palestinians considering its population. Also, what about the right of return of those Palestinians who were forced to flee? Where is the justice for them? Again, it's impossible for them to return to the laughable state that will be created considering its size. Another point, the 'Palestinian state' created will be economically weak, vulnerable and exploited by Israel which relies heavily on Palestinian labour, and the surrounding Arab states. They will not allow for a strong Palestinian state in case of fears of disgruntled groups within the Palestinian side mobilising to resist the above possibilities and fighting for the rest of their land.

At 20/3/07 10:05 am, Anonymous TJ said...

There was I thinking Israel was created by the UN General Assembly...apparently not, apparently it was 'Empire'...interesting distortion of history antiflag...

Personally, knowing many arabs who to all intents an purposes seem 'moderate', mention Jews to them, and you see a flip side manifesting itself in active dislik and contempt...even going so far as to talk of Jewish 'control' of world finance and media...same old conspiracies and even quoting from 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and dismissing the accepted truth that that book is a forgery. Actually out of curiosity antiflag, are you willing to condemn all those stereotypes and repudiate the content of "The Protocols"

At 20/3/07 12:57 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...


In fact, Anti-Flag's history is more accurate than yours.

"The Palestinians were more forthright - their private and public positions were one and the same, and that was that U.N. partition plan was the illegal partition of something that the U.N. had no right to partition. They noted that the Jews were a population minority, and still held legal title to only 6% of the land, and had no moral right whatever to assert sovereignty over the majority Arabs among whom they lived, even though they were actually occupying 65% of the area legally set aside by the Mandatory for the exclusive occupation of the Arabs - Arab land being the largest portion of the land in the Partition Plan."

Israel declared itself a State unilaterally, supported only by the U.S.
Truman said:

"I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

....as if any of this matters. It is the on-going ethnic cleansing that modern Israel practices that is the issue.

The protocols of the elders of Zion may well be bogus. What is not is the 25 Israel firsters who are both high ranking members of the Bush Cabinet and responsible for the disastrous U.S. foreign policy.

I don't give a rat's arse for conspiracy theories but if you want to debate the power and control of both U.S. foreign policy and the World media conglomerates by those sympathetic to Zionism I'll be in.

What is your opinion of the "one-state solution?"

At 21/3/07 8:22 am, Anonymous sdm said...

I found this interesting....

"Now the pressure is to end West Bank occupation. It must happen because it is the only way to secure peace with Palestinian and Israeli states living side by side. There’s a hard haul ahead, to negotiate evacuation and possible land swaps to compensate for land, such as in the towns which have been built with populations of up to 35 000 and which Israel wants to retain. It would, however, be unrealistic to believe that withdrawal from the West Bank will be enough in itself. Peace can only ultimately come when the rejectionists — the Palestinian organisations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Arab states like Iran — accept the fact of Israel’s existence.

Is a binational state the answer? On the face of it, of course. Unfortunately, and for the foreseeable future, it belongs to a never-never land. It looks more attractive the further one is from the Middle East. On the ground it enjoys support only from the extremes on both sides. It’s a non-starter for the vast majority of Israelis because it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Those who propagate from afar lack a sense of Jewish history and the survival ethos created by centuries of persecution. Nor do most Palestinians want it. Why should they drown themselves in a joint state which will be dominated by Jews in every walk of life, whether the economy, government or the professions? Rather their own Palestinian pond in which they will be the masters.

Instead of one-sided attacks on Israel, which are not only counter-productive but raise worrying questions about motives, there should be an unequivocal commitment to peace. Genuine peace efforts should have twin aims: first, to persuade Israel to end the occupation and help a viable Palestinian state to come into being; and second, to persuade the rejectionists to change so that Israelis need no longer fear annihilation if they let down their guard."

At 21/3/07 9:45 am, Anonymous TJ said...

SDM sums that up veryb well. Basically at present I see no hope of a one state solution succeeding if by 'success' one means a state that guarantees the safety of its Jewish citizens. Until a genuine will in the arab world appears, that Jews have the right to live in Israel/Palestine or whatever people wish to call it, free from the persecution which stems from bizarre stereotypes, cliches and conspiracy theories such as those of the Protocols, then there is no option but for Jews to maintain control of their own destiny.

Btw antiflag, still waiting for that repudation of those Jewish sterotypes and the principles of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you can bring yourself to do that, your opinions may appear to have a little more balance, rather than just an anti-jewish predjudice.

At 21/3/07 9:56 am, Anonymous lol said...

I wonder whether this company would be accepted in a nation ruled by fundamentalists like Hamas


At 21/3/07 11:06 am, Blogger bomber said...

Here is why I think TJ and Scott are wrong…

Nice article Scott, but it misses some key points – by trying to gloss over the destruction a 4 decade long brutal occupation of land which isn’t Israel’s, the article seeks to bury the real issue – which is the 4 decade long occupation of land which isn’t Israel’s. I particularly like this bit…

“Instead of one-sided attacks on Israel, which are not only counter-productive but raise worrying questions about motives,”

…What a load of fucking bullshit, we rightly criticize the group punishment apartheid policies of Israel and that worries you about my motives Scott? Shall we whisper anti-Semitic together Scott? I don’t give a fuck about nationality or race on this issue, I fully comprehend the horror that must have occurred in the national psyche from the Holocaust and centuries of persecution – but that doesn’t justify what Israel is doing and has been doing for 4 decades. You can attempt to apologize and dress it up as a step in the direction of reasoned debate – I call it a fucking sell out. And I find it insulting Scott that anyone could suggest that the Palestinian people would prefer to live in the degradation their environments have become BECAUSE OF ISRAELI OCCUPATION over and above a chance to live in peace.

Anti-Flag – no need to sweat it with TJ, apparently I support Communist mass murder for my choice of kitsch wallclocks eh TJ.

At 21/3/07 11:39 am, Anonymous sdm said...

Hey Bomber

Id really encourage everyone to take a look at "Apartheid? Israel is a democracy in which Arabs vote" By Benjamin Pogrund

A brief bio:

Benjamin Pogrund is well equipped to write about apartheid and Israel. He was born in South Africa, where a leader in the fight against apartheid and outspoken proponent of equality as editor of the Rand Daily Mail. He now lives in Israel, where is is founding director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem. he is also co-editor of the newly published book, "Shared Histories: A Palestinian-Israel Dialogue".

You can find the article here


He is hardly a pro-zionist - consider:

"No occupation can be benign. Israeli harshness and misdeeds are reported day in and day out by Israeli media. Everyone is suffering, Palestinians as victims and Israelis as perpetrators. Death and maiming haunts everyone in the occupied territories and in Israel itself. Occupation is brutalising and corrupting both Palestinians and Israelis. The damage done to the fabric of both societies, moral and material, is incalculable."

Personally, my only reservation about a single state solution is that I wonder how the two groups can live together, and whether it is just better that they have their own country.

Anyway, take a look at that article.



At 21/3/07 12:07 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

All I can say Bomber is that you also decided not to put up my post on the failings of your other kitch icon Che Guevara...maybe that just proves me right eh...

At 21/3/07 12:24 pm, Blogger bomber said...

All I can say Bomber is that you also decided not to put up my post on the failings of your other kitch icon Che Guevara
I don't know what you are talking about, if I missed a post you wrote about me having a Che Guevara poster I'm terribly sorry -

...maybe that just proves me right eh...
..yeah, or maybe you're just desperate to make a point, any point.

Any point.



Point. Any?

At 21/3/07 12:41 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

You have a Che Guevara on your wall according to this listener article:


the same Che Guevara who proclaimed:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary", "These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate".

Yet you criticise Robert Mugabe. Odd.

At 21/3/07 1:19 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

I'd encourage everyone to have a read of


At 21/3/07 3:22 pm, Blogger bomber said...

You have a Che Guevara on your wall according to this listener article:


the same Che Guevara who proclaimed:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary", "These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate".

Yet you criticise Robert Mugabe. Odd.

Oh TJ, TJ, TJ – dear dear TJ – TJ do you know why I have Che on my wall TJ? No, you have no idea, yet you want to paint me out as some type of hypocrite – and you’re not going to accept my liking of awkwardly kitsch aesthetics this time, you have me on the ropes TJ – you’re circling, you throw in the Robert Mugabe jab and feel smirkingly superior.


Dear TJ. Dear, dear TJ, I have a poster on my wall of Che Guevara BECAUSE of what Jean Paul Satre had to say about Guevara, I studied existential philosophy at University and fucking loved Sartre. But you of course assume I have it on the wall as some sort of sheep following love of trendy left wing shit right and want to use Guevara’s uncontextualised excesses as an example of my hypocrisy – (double yawn)

Here’s what you do now before you post your reply TJ

1: Go find out who Sartre is
2: Find out what he said about Che
3: Do a little remedial existential philosophy
4: Throw in a little Dr Bob Solomon for taste, cause that mofo is the crack cocaine of philosophy.
5: Think real hard about it all

See, the world isn’t as black and white now is it TJ – you whacky right wingers.

At 21/3/07 4:12 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Yep Jean Paul Sartre said that Che was "The most complete human being of his age" Not a bad assessment for someone renowned for signing death warrants and torturing political prisoners I guess, but then not entirely surprising given that Sartre aligned himself with the Communist Party in the 1950s, just as the crimes of Stalin were being documented and other intellectuals were consequently abandoning the party...and a man who stated "It was not our duty to write about the Soviet labour camps" when questioned on the subject of the gulag...

But yeah just hang tough to those cool 'icons' of popular culture...and remember, when it comes to socialist icons, its not your duty to write about the labour camps either...

At 21/3/07 8:21 pm, Blogger bomber said...

Oh my God - it's like banging my head against a brick wall - TJ, 2 questions -
1: Why did Sartre (from an existential perspective) call Che the most complete person?
2: Do you burn books you don't understand?

At 22/3/07 12:20 am, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

"It’s a non-starter for the vast majority of Israelis because it would mean the end of the Jewish state"

Seem to remember this being said about South Africa.

The one state option will be grabbed by Israel with both hands approximately three and a half minutes after the U.S. withdraws it's support.

"Israel to end the occupation and help a viable Palestinian state to come into being"

Tell me Scott. How long does a state "occupy" another before it becomes territorial acquisition by force?
If America stayed in Iraq for forty years, subsidised several million Americans to go live there, provided those Americans with social services denied the Iraqis, extended the "green zone" to include more than fifty percent of the country would you still be calling it an "occupation"?

Now what if, forty years on, America was killing 8 Iraqi children for every American child killed by the insurgents? Would that make you start to wonder what the f*ck is going on?

Have you or TJ ever read any history of the area apart from that spewed by the Jewish Virtual Library. Benny Morris? Pappe? Anything by (God forbid) a Palestinian? You do know, I suppose, that Palestinians have more PHD's per head of population than most Westerners. There are some historians amongst 'em. Edward Said is a a good one to start with.

Have you ever considered how preposterous it is for Israel to demand Hamas and Fatah "recognise" Israel when to do so would be to deny the Nakbah. Do you know what the Nakbah is?

Let us not forget that Hamas resulted in blowback from Israel's "divide and conquer strategy that blew back and that it is the legitimate, democratically elected majority party of Palestine which Israel not only refuses to recognise but feels free to assassinate and kidnap at will.

What I find truly astonishing is that someone who professes to be a Political Science graduate does not have enough curiousity to at least read someone like Pappe who is a Jew, born in Israel and a tenured Professor at Tel-A-bloody-viv University before recycling the platitudinous crap from the popular press. What I find particularly galling in your case is that it is your business to do so. I can't speak for TJ who doesn't seem to know that the debate has moved way beyond the old canards and probably has a pinup of Golda Meir on his wall.

At 22/3/07 8:08 am, Anonymous sdm said...


Did you read the article I linked to? Here it is again:

Take a look.

Im not a zionist, you should fucking know that by now. I agree with most of what you say - although I reject Anti's assertion that all the extremist actions by the Islamic Fundamentalists are legitmite and proportionate.

I am familiar with Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe.

I have no particular position on a one or two state solution. Thats actually why I come here - to engage and learn. And I think you know that

At 22/3/07 12:06 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A report prepared and published by the Palestinian National Information Center - State Information Service, revealed that the Israeli army carried 1123 violations against the Palestinians and their properties in the period between March 6 and March 12.
The violations included opening fire at the residents, shelling neighborhoods, and repeated invasions into cities, villages and refugee camps.
During the reported period, soldiers fired at residents and properties 42 times, shot and injured 13 residents.
Troops carried 30 arrest invasions and abducted 103 residents. A total of 60 invasions were carried out during the reported week, and a total of 219 breaking into homes and property were reported.


At 22/3/07 1:15 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whose bit of dirt is it?


At 22/3/07 2:05 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Lol Bomber, who really cares why Sartre called Che Guevara "The most complete person"? at the end of the day he was voicing support for a thug, a torturer and a murderer...who became cool and kitschy because of the way he looked...pretty shallow really.

Now as for that picture of Lenin on your wall...I'm dying to hear your rationale for that ha ha

At 22/3/07 2:06 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Still no condemnation of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' by antiflag...guess I just have to assume she accepts its teachings as gospel...

And she reckons zionists are bigots ha ha lol

At 23/3/07 8:04 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Btw antiflag, still waiting for that repudation of those Jewish sterotypes and the principles of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. If you can bring yourself to do that, your opinions may appear to have a little more balance, rather than just an anti-jewish predjudice".

TJ: Because I criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli state doesn't put me in a position where I have to prove I don't have 'anti-jewish prejudice'. Nice try but I'm not interested in your categorising game.


"Im not a zionist, you should fucking know that by now. I agree with most of what you say - although I reject Anti's assertion that all the extremist actions by the Islamic Fundamentalists are legitmite and proportionate".

Again I repeat, the extremism exists because of the occupation and the brutal oppression and humiliation the Palestinians are subjected to on a daily basis. Remove that, and I guarantee you the extremism will go with it. And considering the history and the amount of suffering Palestinians have experienced with little or no support from the international community it has been proportionate, in fact.

Nor am I interested in criticising the tactics of the oppressed. How dare we, in our comfortable Western homes criticise people- who our governments have historically turned their back on after creating the conditions for their oppression to flourish- tell them how to respond and act? That's some fucking nerve. The other side likes to focus on this criticism a lot and in the process tactically draw away from the main issue. Many Palestinian supporters disagree with me, but I honestly don't care. I believe in what Malcolm X said that it is the right of the oppressed to use whatever means necessary to liberate themselves ESPECIALLY when there is no one to help them. It's sad, but that's the reality of it. In fact, international law recognises this right to resist.


At 23/3/07 8:25 am, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...


I read Pogrund's article month's ago when I first began reasearching this question and was impressed, as you seem to be. Now I recognise it as a piece Dershowitz-type argument - Angels on a pinhead - designed to blunt the criticism (Apartheid) by such as Carter.
His argument is specious. Of the Wall he says:
"Its immediate purpose is to prevent Palestinian suicide-bombers from entering Israel"
This is absolute nonsense as it cannot achieve that object and has been built on Palestinian land to alienate another 10% of the West Bank. Take a look at the map on my website.
His arguments are purely Semantic. He rejects the term "Bantustan" because he says the Afrikaaners had a different purpose in mind (work camps), ignoring the fact that the effect is the same.
Where voting is concerned he tries to make out that Arabs have the same rights. This is bullshit. They have token rights only. Imagine the outcry here if Maoris were not allowed to stand for general seats.
As far as Apartheid is concerned, I rely on the testimony of the former Education Minister of Israel Shulamit Aloni:
Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
You do not exhibit a familiarity with Pappe or Morris. An understanding of the Nakbah is pivotal to comprehending the Hamas/Fatah mindset. If the Nakbah is accepted, the hypocrisy of the Israeli position becomes manifest.
It is therefore necessary to debunk the history as stated by Pappe, Morris, Finklestein, Shahak et al before finding excuses for Israel. This, given the great mass of evidence, is very difficult to do.

So let me put it this way. If I was able to prove to you that a million Palestinians were terrorised by the Irgun, Stern Gang and Haggannah into abandoning their land back in 1948 in breach of every U.N. provision and law of natural justice and that Israel refuses to acknowledge or discuss compensation or the right of return for those people while collecting billions of dollars from Germany in Holocaust reparations, would that have any effect on your opinion?

At 23/3/07 8:26 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SDM you are wasting your time. The One state solution is an attempt to destroy Israel. The Palestians are not interested in peace - if they were then there would be peace (why did they reject the Clinton proposal?)

Here is a solution for you Bomber. Why dont all the westerns get out of the middle east tomorrow. And then we can refuse to give them any aid, or trade, and not let them travel to our countries. then we can see how long they survive.

You attack the west and america. Alright, how about the west completely disengages from the middle east. Then see what happens.

At 23/3/07 8:29 am, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

Just noticed the post by anonymous above re the 1123 violations against the Palestinians. I wonder how many of these made it into the mainstream press?

At 23/3/07 9:34 am, Anonymous TJ said...

Antiflag I would not have thought it would take much to say "I refute the racial stereotypes and conspiracy theories of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in order to illustrate that as a Muslim you would be quite happy to interract with and live amongst Jews, after all, the book is a forgery, right?

At 23/3/07 12:06 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

Anon: while your idea has some merit, it is flawed in one key area: If the US were to pull out, in would come China and Russia. You do make a resonable point however - everyone is very keen to kick the metaphorical shit out of the US, ignoring the good work that they do.

Anti: You run a thesis that basically goes like this "my side can fight, your's cant". Since the establishment of Israel, there has been plenty of rhetoric coming out from people who want it destroyed.

For Instance:

In Mid-May, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser began making bellicose statements. On May 16, 1967, a Radio Cairo broadcast stated: "The existence of Israel has continued too long. We welcome the Israeli aggression. We welcome the battle we have long awaited. The peak hour has come. The battle has come in which we shall destroy Israel"

On May 31, the Iraqi President Rahman Aref announced, "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

Now, against the backdrop of such comments Israeli paranoia is born.When you have a group of countries surrounding you who want to destroy you, you get aggressive. Why dont you just come out and say you want Israel destroyed yourself. But good on you for justifying the killing of innocents, and then you speak of 'morals'.

"Remove that, and I guarantee you the extremism will go with it."

I doubt it - I think the destruction of Israel is their end game

At 23/3/07 12:18 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

Anonymous above explains the hypocrisy of Israel’s position rather nicely with this statement:
"The One state solution is an attempt to destroy Israel"

What would be destroyed? Not the Knesset, not the people. Everything would remain - the only difference being the right of every natural citizen to share in the Government.

Nobody thought that South Africa would be destroyed by one man one vote.

What would be destroyed is thing that Israel denies exists – citizenship and power based on the “type” of person one is which is abhorrent in this age.

Thus is revealed Israel’s true agenda. It is not Governance over the occupied territories alone that they aspire to. It is Governance after the expulsion of a people based solely on the race of that people.


Do you refute the Walt and Meerschiemer paper that asserts that AIPAC, JDL and other organisations have a disproportionate influence over U.S. political discourse?

Do you dispute that Jews own the majority of Western Media?

Do you dispute that the media has a bias towards Israel?

Do you dispute that Ledeen, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol (pere et fils), Kagan, Feith, Abrams, Wurmser, Libby and the majority of the PNAC/Neocon gang are Jewish and that most of them hold Israeli passports?

Does it not seem odd that the names above are all powerful members of the Bush cabal and are the prime instigators of the War in Iraq and cheerleaders for an attack on Iran.

Do you dispute that AIPAC has twice been caught spying for Israel?

Protocols smotocols.

At 23/3/07 12:42 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...


It seems odd that a student of politics would consider "bellicose statements" as a weightier argument that the 10 to 1 ratio of deaths inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians or the 35 to 1 ratio in Lebanon.

Let us not forget the "bellicose statements" emanating from Israel against Iran at this time. Let us also not forget who has the capability of following them up with nukes and cluster bombs.

At 23/3/07 12:48 pm, Anonymous sdm said...

When talking about perception I think they are relevant.

At 23/3/07 1:55 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Brewer, spare me. The fact that 'Jews' may or may not own parts of 'Western Media' does not I believe make any difference to anything, last time I looked the 'media' for want of a generalisation was generally more slanted toward the 'Palestinian' cause than the Israeli one. Also, last itme I looked, Rupert Murdoch, Tony O'Reilly and Ted Turner weren't Jewish. Thinking that might just be your little predjudice coming out there ;)

Whether or not there are 'neocons' who hold pro Israel views is neither here nor there, US policy toward Israel has been largely consistent since 1948, whether the administration in the US has been Democrat, Republican or 'neocon'. Certainly aid has been given, but certainly so has aid been given to Egypt, Jordan, Iran (Prior to 1979, when incidentally Israel and Iran were pretty much allied) Kuwait and other countries. This is notwithstanding the aid that as, in the context of the Cold War, also given by the USSR to countries including Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen...

Certainly its a strange 'Jewish Conspiracy' that would give aid to such a wide range of recipients.

At 23/3/07 2:02 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

but don't you make judgements about people from what they put on their walls at home TJ?

At 23/3/07 2:12 pm, Blogger bomber said...

Lol Bomber, who really cares why Sartre called Che Guevara "The most complete person"? at the end of the day he was voicing support for a thug, a torturer and a murderer...who became cool and kitschy because of the way he looked...

Oh my God – TJ do you burn books you don’t understand in your spare time? – I guess you didn’t even attempt to understand Sartre huh TJ? I suppose you’ve shown by previous posts though that you aren’t really all that interested in trying to understand things, you prefer knee jerks thinking don’t you?

pretty shallow really.

Well that’s the book burner calling the book owner shallow I suppose

Now as for that picture of Lenin on your wall...I'm dying to hear your rationale for that ha ha

Wow, do you think if I did have a picture of Lenin that would make me a terrorist TJ? Actually I’ve never had a Lenin poster on my wall but am really amused that you dare to judge me for one that I don’t even have, I have one of Karl Marx though with a quote beneath it that he wrote, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways: the point is to change it”

I’m afraid TJ your desire to make a point no matter how petty rules you out for serious blogging interaction, one can’t do a battle of wits with someone so obviously disarmed.

At 23/3/07 2:36 pm, Anonymous TJ said...

Next you'll be saying that you'd be willing to put a picture of Hitler on your wall because he was effective in making public transport efficient and he cared for the environment lol...

At 23/3/07 5:46 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...


Thank you for your reply.
A little information for you as yours seems a little out of date.

Jordan Levin, chairman and CEO of Time Warner, bought Turner Broadcasting Systems in 1996 from Ted Turner. Walter Issacson is the News Director of CNN

The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 1997 revenues of $23 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its chairman and CEO is Michael Eisner. In August 1995, Eisner acquired Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., which owns the ABC Television Network, which in turn owns ten TV stations outright in such big markets as New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Houston. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies.

Number three on the list is Viacom, Inc., headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein). Viacom owns 13 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount. Redstone acquired CBS in December 1999.
Viacom's publishing division includes Simon & Schuster, Scribner, The Free Press, and Pocket Books. It also owns the world's largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks.

Edgar Bronfman Jr. owns a huge stake in Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress.They control Universal Studios.

Bronfman became the biggest man in the record business in May 1998 when he also acquired control of PolyGram, Deutsche Grammophon, Decca-London, and Philips record companies.

Arthur Sulzberger owns the NY Times, the Boston Globe

Murdoch. Ahhh Murdoch.
Let's leave aside the fact that he is Jewish by the law of the Talmud (Mother Elisabeth Joy Greene), and look at his backers:
Michel Fribourg, Armand Hammer and Edgar Bronfman.
Who runs Fox? - Peter Chernin.
Sandy Grushow is chairman of Fox Entertainment, and Gail Berman is president. Murdoch has received numerous honours for service to Israel.

Here are a few more names:

Joel Klein is chair and CEO of Bertelsmann's American operations, the largest publishing conglomerate in the world.

Marty Peretz publishes the New Republic, which is unabashedly pro-Israel, as is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard.

Now none of this proves a thing unless we can detect bias. Let me state loud and clear that some of the most intelligent proponents of the dissenting view are themselves Jewish. I post the above simply to prove a point.

Now to bias.

"WASHINGTON, May 10 /U.S. Newswire/ – On Capitol Hill yesterday, a two-year study of network news coverage of Israel/Palestine revealed extensive underreporting of Palestinian deaths, particularly of children’s deaths. The study, conducted by media watchdog organization If Americans Knew, shows that in 2004 eight Israeli children and 179 Palestinian children were killed.

In reporting on this situation, the organization found that the networks reported on Israeli children’s deaths at rates up to 13 times greater than Palestinian children’s deaths. In reality, 22 times more Palestinian children were being killed than Israeli children.


...and this from Glasgow University.

"The study suggests that television news on the Israel/Palestinian conflict confuses viewers and substantially features Israeli government views. Israelis are quoted and speak in interviews over twice as much as Palestinians and there are major differences in the language used to describe the two sides. This operates in favour of the Israelis and influences how viewers understand the conflict.


Independent surveys of content in the U.S. media are rare. From my personal viewpoint, the almost universal ignorance of the basic Israeli/Palestinian conflict signifies that the media is not doing it's job from whichever side of the conflict one examines it.

"Let statistics speak for themselves. According to a recent survey, only 3 percent of the American public even know that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied territories. Only 7-11 percent of the American public, according to recent CNN polls sympathize with the Palestinian people?s plight."

At 23/3/07 6:15 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

sdm ...
"When talking about perception I think they are relevant."

So what they say is more relevant than what they do??

And if the bellicosity is equal, what is left? I refer, of course, to Netanyahu, the Israeli Chief of Staff, Olmert and others who call for an attack on Iran.

At 23/3/07 8:18 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

Well whaddaya know. Headlines in the Jewish Forward:

Soros and Media Heavyweights Attack Pro-Israel Lobby’s Influence on U.S. Policy

"In the space of three days, major critiques of Jewish lobbying were published by controversial billionaire George Soros, Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Nicholas Kristof, the respected British newsmagazine The Economist and the popular Web site Salon."

Oh dear TJ.
Looks like there are a few heavyweights among the self-hating, prejudiced, anti-Semitic crowd.
Reckon it was that Lebanon thing. That's what did it for me.

At 23/3/07 8:31 pm, Anonymous Brewerstroupe said...

Oh and.......

U.N. envoy likens Israeli actions to apartheid.

GENEVA - A United Nations human rights envoy on Thursday likened Israeli treatment of Palestinians in occupied territory to apartheid, and said its settlement policy amounted to colonialism.

South African lawyer John Dugard warned Western states they would never rally support among developing nations for effective action against perceived abuses in Sudan's Darfur, Zimbabwe and Myanmar unless they tackled the plight of Palestinians.

Dugard said Gaza was an imprisoned society, with the situation in the West Bank little better.

"Settlers, largely unrestrained by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), subject many Palestinians to a reign of terror — particularly in Hebron," he said.

He said some 500,000 Israeli settlers were now living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories seized by Israel during the 1967 Middle East War.

"Apartheid and colonialism are contrary to international law," he said.

....couldn't have put it better myself.


Post a Comment

<< Home