Sunday, 15 March 2009

'Make Every woman wear a Burkha'- More from the 'anti - war protestor'

This is another gem from Choudhary. Interestingly though in an example of naivety another blogger described Choudhary's group of Muslims who greeted British Soldiers with placards saying 'Anglians go to hell' as anti-war protesters. The poster went on to say that these individuals were right to protest as 'Between 601,027 and 1 million people have died since March 2003 as a result of the invasion of Iraq.' Leaving aside the fact that the statistics are incorrect, a better question would be 'who did most of the killing'? Here is the problem therefore with describing Choudhary's motley band of Jihadists as 'anti war'. They are not, they are in fact pro-war, pro-Jihad. Look at the article below for just one example of Choudhary's views. Also bear in mind that most of the killing in Iraq was done by Jihadists, the Al Qaeda movement and Shia militants aligned with and sponsored by Iran. It becomes clear that these protestors are far from linking their arms and singing 'we will overcome'. They are in fact supporters of extreme acts of violence which have killed many Iraqis. It was not American troops who ploughed suicide car bombs into Shia pilgrims in Iraq. Never mind of course Choudhary et al they have a right to peacefully protest in the UK, I just wish that Geert Wilders had a right to come into Britain for a peaceful debate as well. Full text of Choudhary’s latest below:


Anjem Choudary
Saturday March 14,2009
By Martyn Brown
A MUSLIM hate preacher who demanded that all British women be forced to wear burkhas faced a storm of outrage last night.
Firebrand Anjem Choudary said he wanted every woman to be covered by a full-length cloak in his vision of Britain under Sharia law.The lawyer, who praised the Mumbai terror attacks, also said he wanted to see the “flag of Allah” flying over Downing Street, adulterers stoned to death and drunks whipped.Choudary, 41, sparked fury this week when he branded British soldiers “cowards” and was behind a sickening anti-war protest against troops who were arriving home from Iraq to a heroic welcome.Last night politicians and fellow Muslims condemned his comments while some called for him to leave the country.Choudary, the leader of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, a group set up following the banning of extremist sect al-Muhajiroun, led by now-exiled preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed, said he offered “a pure Islamic state with Sharia law in Britain”. He said: “Every woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, would have to wear a traditional burkha and covereverything apart from her face and hands in public.”“In matters to do with the judicial system and the penal code, one male witness is sufficient to counter the testimony of two females. People who commit adultery would be stoned to death.”Despite becoming possibly the most despised man in Britain with his fanatical views, he remained unrepentant.“That’s a badge I would wear with pride,” he said. “It’s inevitable that when you offer an alternative morality and way of life, many people will hate you for it.”

He said Britons “with their alcohol, gambling, prostitution and pornography” live “like animals in a jungle” and added that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”. He claimed last month on his website Islam4UK that alcohol was “the root of all evil”. Last night his comments were met with outrage. Conservative MP and ex-Army officer Patrick Mercer said: “If anyone thinks that those views are a step forward in society they are seriously deluded. They are repellent and repulsive. I strongly believe the Home Secretary should seriously think about this man’s right to live in Britain.”Tory MP Philip Davies said: “The man is an idiot who does more to incite racial tensions than anyone else. “If he wants Britain to live under Sharia law then why doesn’t he go to another country?” Choudary was also attacked by moderate Muslims. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “Choudary and his tiny group of hooligans are about as representative of British Muslim opinion as the BNP is of ordinary British public opinion. “If their inflammatory remarks ever cross the boundary into actual incitement to violence then they should be prosecuted.”Iraqi war victim Ali Abbas, 18, who came to the UK after losing both arms and his family in the conflict, said: “Where was this Muslim preacher when I and countless others were lying in hospital beds not knowing if we were going to die?”


Young Activist said...

I wanted to give you a chance to finish your thoughts on my blog before I responded to what you had said, but it appears you are waiting for me to republish an article which I removed for editing. I stand by what I said in that post, however, I typed it late at night and when I re-read it I realized it was riddle with so many grammatical errors that I needed to take it down and edit it. I've done some work on it, but I'm just going to take it and make a new post to mark East Timor's independence day. There was also a post about Winston Churchill that I removed because I am considering submitting it to a magazine, and most magazine want original content, so I'll not be putting that back up, at least not in those words, perhaps I'll write another post expressing the same ideas at some point in the future. However, for your reference here are all of the discussions on my blog which you participated in from 2006 onwards on posts that have been removed, both from those two posts in question and from my old blog.

Bar Kochba said...
If you are such a liberal, I wonder why you ally yourself with Islamists who have no interest in democracy or individual freedoms. Honour killings are common in Gaza and the West Bank. Gays are frequently killed (they are hung in Iran and beheaded in Saudi Arabia. But of course, as Iran's president says, Iran has no gays.) Dissidents are shut up and murdered. Do you really think that Hamas and Hizbullah support abortion and feminism?

You are a useful idiot of Islamofasicm.

7:34 PM
young_activist said...
I do not support democracy for other countries, I support popular sovereignty. Democracy is a western concept and it would be wrong to impose western ideas on a people who want to live by their own traditions.

This may be difficult for a closed minded individual to understand Bar, but I do not take the side of one side or another and support that side without condition. I am on the side of humanity, the goal of politics, at least for me, is to alleviate human suffering. Sometimes that means supporting the Palestinian narrative, sometimes it does not.

However, to say that because there are honor killings or executions of gays in some Muslim countries that Israel is justified in doing whatever it wants to the Palestinians is logically and morally absurd. You don't really believe that do you Bar?

I don't think I've ever made any comments about abortion or feminism have I? That is your problem, you are so quick to assume you know everything that you make some critical errors in judgment. I do support feminism, however I do not support abortion. See my above comments about not taking the side of a faction, political or otherwise, in arriving at a conclusion.

As usual you sound very bigoted tonight, but I hold out hope that as you grow older you may realize that all human lives are equally precious. Do you know that Uri Avnery thought very much like you do now when he was your age?

7:56 PM
Bar Kochba said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
7:30 AM
Paul said...
Quite so Bar I agree. The aim of Islamic imperialism is Israel first, then Europe then USA. They have almost gotten hold of Europe through immigration. Countless Muslim 'leaders' such as Gadaffi have said exactly that.

1:11 AM
Bar Kochba said...
YA, where are you? Surely you will condemn the attack on innocent Jewish civilians in Jerusalem by an Arab murderer without reservations.

As for your argument that "Palestinian" terror is the result of despair, know that the murderer had two kids, a wife, a house and a job. And yet he prefered to kill Jews and threw it all away.

1:03 PM
Chet said...
bar kochba,
Where is your manners, Personally I would rather live in Iran than in Israel. If you are the example of Israel's people that would be the last place I would want to live. Again I bet you have never been to Iran. They are very gracious people. Israel has a problem with the zionist government. I have had Israeli's here at my home, guess what they are not going back because of the racist attitude Israel has. I am not your average joe from the US. Been around a lot more than you. Yes when you grow up maybe you will see things differently.

@ young activist, you have a great blog seem very intelligent. Keep up the great work and you seem much older with the way you handled your comments to bar kochba. I don't seem to have that touch much anymore.

How far are you from Rocky Mount, NC? I have lived there and my grandson and his wife are still there. Take care, really enjoy your blog.

4:51 PM
Paul said...
Typical example of Liberal hyperbole "Where is your manners, Personally I would rather live in Iran than in Israel. If you are the example of Israel's people". Well what if you were gay Chet? Would you fancy being publicly hung from a crane? What if you actually wanted a parliamentary democracy instead of rule by the mullahs? Oh hang on Chet what will your response be more name calling? And yet you wish for a more mature debate before telling people to grow up try looking in the mirror. Iran has links to terrorism, no democracy, publicly kills homosexuals and arms terror groups. Oh yes and child marriage there is legal as well. Iranian people are a welcoming bunch their government however are dangerous dingbats.

3:57 AM
Chet said...
This post has been removed by the author.
9:27 AM
Chet said...

Does the TRUTH HURT? What goes round comes round. I stand by my statement Iranians are much better people than most Israelis.

You might want to go back and do some research before you decide who is right and who is wrong. I think you will find that what you find is not all true with what you believe. I have known Iranians and a friend of mine has spent time in Iran. I don't need someone to dictate to me what I have found to be true.

9:28 AM
Paul said...
"Does the TRUTH HURT? What goes round comes round. I stand by my statement Iranians are much better people than most Israelis." I see sweeping statements concerning entire groups of people. Chet, I am not dictating to you now I do not expect you to actually answer any of this as you seem to run away from debates and issue insults but answer these points if you like:

1. Does Iran execute homosexuals for being homosexuals yes or no? Does Israel?

2. In Iran is it permissible to marry a child (9 years of age) yes or no? Does Israel permit child marriage?

3. Is Iran a theocracy? Yes or no? Does Israel have the death penalty for apostasy?

4. On a Friday in Tehran what do the crowds chant at the Mosque? (clue it sure aint give peace a chance!)

5. How many US and UK troops have been killed by EFPs? Or in direct bombardments of the US Embassy and other bases? Clue Israel never supplied these weapons?

6. Shocking when Israel stormed a diplomatic mission and held staff hostage for 444 days in 1979 wasn't it? Oh hang on that wasn't Israel?

I will gladly provide sources for any of the above, however all you will do is call names and then claim it isn't true because 'a friend told you otherwise or similar. Friends of mine have been there too and I am not criticising Iran's people. You however in your criticisms aim your comments at all Israelis which is bigotry.

10:29 AM
young_activist said...
First of, discussion from all viewpoints is welcome. That is a healthy part of any democracy, however personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please keep it civil or your comments will be removed.

12:42 PM
young_activist said...
Islam is not Arab imperialism any more than Christianity is white imperialism and that should be blatantly obvious to anyone with even a passing knowledge of Islam. The Prophet taught that race is irrelevant, it is what is in a person's heart that matters. That was a rather remarkable revelation at the time considering the state of race relations in the rest of the world. Furthermore Islam has adherents from virtually every race, Arabs are in fact a minority of Muslims, of the 10 largest Muslim-majority nations only 3 are Arab.

Gadaffi is recognized as a nutcase throughout the Muslim world, I would take his over-inflated rhetoric with a grain of salt.

I have no problem condemning the attack that you are speaking of, unlike you I am not a tribalist who only condemns deaths on one side of the conflict and regards all of the others as well deserved retribution. For me it does not matter whether the attacker is Jewish or Arab. Although, in this particular case I have reason to believe that the man concerned was simply a mentally disturbed individual without any connection to the resistance groups. While you are in Israel why don't you travel to the occupied territories and observe the misery inflicted on the Palestinian people in your name. Then tell me if you don't think that much suffering would produce enough anger to push some over the edge and down the path of violence.

12:59 PM
young_activist said...
Iranians want a democracy as much as any other people in the world, and barring some ill-conceived operation by the west they will probably have achieved one in the next two decades. At one point Iran did have a functioning democracy, but there was a problem. The person won the election and the U.S and British governments overthrew the democratically elected government and installed a dictator in order to gain oil money.

There were many savage abuses of human rights under the Shah, Israel and the U.S even helped train his death squads. The Islamic Revolution was only a backlash by a repressed people against their dictator. Why do you think that Khomeni had to pretend to be a liberal reformer while in exile? H e was trying to fool Iranians just as much as he was trying to fool the international community.

Don't you think you're being a little sanctimonious with your comments on Iran? How can you begin to talk about what a few American hostages endured for 444 days at the hands of Iranian extremists without ever mentioning what the whole of the Iranian people endured for twenty six years because of the British and American governments?

You cannot talk about Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism without mentioning that the U.S is also a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S supports groups that are on its list of terrorist organizations in order to destabilize Iran. Do you support terrorist attacks by the west against Iranian civilians?

1:18 PM
Paul said...
"Do you support terrorist attacks by the west against Iranian civilians?"

When did that happen? Is it not an accepted fact that Iran publicly hangs homosexuals and arms terror groups against the west? And issues fatwa’s against people for shock horror writing a book! Will you answer that or just issue more obfuscation?

3:06 AM
Chet said...
Paul, if you would only do some research you would know what most of the rest of the world knows. And what most of us in the US have known for quite some time.

8:54 AM
Paul said...
Paul, if you would only do some research you would know what most of the rest of the world knows. And what most of us in the US have known for quite some time.

Chet, I have done extensive research. I can provide sources for all of my comments Re Iran. Could you address any of the points I make? For starters does Iran publicly hang homosexuals yes or no?

10:26 AM
Chet said...
Paul, you seem to have a big hang up with what happens to homosexuals. What happens their is no different from the US by some people. Do some research and you will find out that many have been tortured and killed in the US. That is an internal affair they have to deal with if that is happening. But for someone to put a whole country down for that reason and it seems that you seriously hung up on homosexuals is apparently not looking at anything else. I don't think it is right to treat anybody that way. What is your hangup?

Maybe you are a homosexual, I really could care less. That is your business.

But when a country tries to steal land and destroy people like Israel is doing with the US giving their blessings, that is wrong. THAT IS A FORM OF TERRORISM!!

11:02 AM
Karin said...
Young activist - I wholeheartedly support your views! I think they have solid foundation, are well thought through and prove, you gave those issues a lot of thoughts and consideration.

" ... and it would be wrong to impose western ideas on a people who want to live by their own traditions. "

YES and again YES, I could not agree more! Eventhough I naturally strictly oppose ANY kind of killing, be it out of of-course-wrong "honor" or concerning gays or dissidnets - I DO believe each people should have the option to chose THEIR way of being governed and if they opt NOT to embrace democracy (not ALL countries are even READY for democracy), so be it! That does NOT mean I defend dictatorship or worse ... all I am doing is defending people's choice for themselves!

Bar Kochba - to call young activist "... useful idiot of Islamofasicm" does NOT show either the courtesy I would expect among educated people NOR the respect I want to see granted while engaging in any discussion! You shot yourself pretty badly in your own foot!

A word to your choice of blog-name ... I have news for you - did you kow that he was a DICTATOR?? Here are some details ...

"Bar-Kokhba was an imperious dictator who was in charge of both the army and the economy during the Jewish revolt against Rome. He held the title of Nasi, which could be a Messianic allusion or could simply refer to the one in charge of army, administration and economy. Bar-Kokhba had unlimited authority over his army and was concerned with even the most minor details. He was not afraid to threaten senior officers of his army with punishment. The 400,000 soldiers in his army were said to have been initiated either by having a finger cut off or by being forced to uproot a cedar tree. Bar-Kokhba relied on his own powers and, according to aggada, when he went to battle he asked God to "neither assist nor discourage us."

Well - that says a LOT about you ...

Paul - child-marriges are NOT common in Iran's society, I am NOT talking about ETHNIC TRIBES which do follow this horrible "custom" in large pats of this world! About gays - of course it is WRONG, but to condem a whole country because of THAT"? come'on ...
BTW ... I've been to Iran, ALL over the country!

Terrorism of ANY kind is to be condemmed ... not only in Iran - ever thought the one Israel unleashes each day on the Palestinians?

BTW - check WIKIPEDIA ... child marriage is LEGAL in the US - it is occasinally practised in the southern states, I know for a fact!

10:42 AM
young_activist said...
I think you misunderstand our position on Iran. No one is here to be an apoligist for the Iranian regime and defend every action it takes. We only take issue with a one sided approach to Iran. There are many things that go inside Iran that disturb me, but those are internal Iranian affairs. If you're really concerned about human rights than you should consider joining a human rights group that works to stop human rights abuses in every country and doesn't use the question of human rights as a sort of political football for hypocrites to toss back and forth. It often seems that people are only concerned about human rights when they are being violated by a country that they don't like.

Iran's internal affairs are, however, for the Iranians themselves to sort out. I have faith in the ability of the Iranian people to realize their aspirations. After all, they achieved a parliamentry democracy once before without outside help. What I do not have faith in is western meddling with the internal affairs of other nations. This is what ruined democracy in Iran, among others. Moral questions aside, this is a strategically stupid approach it will only make things worse and create resentment.

I read on your blog your outrage that an outside group told the British people that they needed to get rid of the Queen. Did anyone elect the Queen? Why then, as a democrat, are you outraged that a foreing entity would sugest doing away with the monarchy? Perhaps you were upset about that idea for the same reason that other are upset about the west telling them what to do. There are plenty of problems in our own countries that need to be solved before we go around telling other people how to live their lives.

8:28 PM
Paul said...
YA, thanks for your comments really you are the only person here to have presented a reasonable case. Others have effectively condoned serious human rights abuses on the basis that 'it happens in the USA' which is nonsense anyhow I mean how many nine year olds got married in America recently not even the Mormons do that.

However I seriously take issue with what I regard as a hypocritical approach. You said "It often seems that people are only concerned about human rights when they are being violated by a country that they don't like." Indeed YA you are exactly like that! It is pure hypocrisy to endlessly castigate Israel whilst ignoring the fact that far worse Human rights abuses are conducted daily in Arab regimes and Iran.

For what its worth I condemn Israel using detention without trial against terror suspects. However to condemn that, whilst saying that matters such as the public hanging of homosexuals in Iran or the award of 200 lashes to a rape victim are never to be discussed is pure hypocrisy. Okay well if one is an 'internal matter' for the Iranians why not give the Israelis that same latitude?

The further problem is that none of the abuses of women, gays, apostates and non-muslims that occur under Sharia in places like SA and Iran are internal matters. Both regimes have set themselves upon expanding the writ of political Islam and expanding their realm. Ayatollah Khomeini said exactly that. Another fact about Khomeini one of his wives was ten years old! I do not feel like condoning any of that in the name of cultural relativity.

I disagree with generally but can empathise with some of your criticisms of Israel although it is utterly vile to call their people nazis however. What I don't understand however is why through your silence you give a complete licence to the other side. I feel some of you on here know that, I remember how on another blog one of the commentators here used to fawn over continuously members of Hizb Ut Tahir the islamist organisation that is banned in certain European countries. The posts on that blog were entirely unambiguous. Talk of 'why the apostate is executed in Islam' or how Jews and Christians were inferior in law to Muslims did not draw a single word of condemnation. I wonder what the response would be on blogs such as this and others if Israel executed a Jew for leaving Judaism? it would not happen of course. I'm off now Peace.

7:21 AM
Paul said...
Oh and as to my comments Re the Monarchy in UK on my blog. Read what I said I did not condemn foreigners dictating to the UK I condemned the hypocrisy of the fact that it was done under the aegis of a UN human rights body. A body that included members such as Saudi Arabia and Cuba yet there they were lecturing the UK on human rights!

7:26 AM
Chet said...
young activist

Here is a link of an article I think you might like.

7:55 AM
young_activist said...
I am naturally concerned about human rights abuses wherever they occur. For that reason I have joined and supported Amnesty International which works to fight human rights abuses in every country. However, from a pragmatic standpoint I am most concerned about those abuses which take place with the complicity of my government, those abuses where the actions of westerners could play a positive role in resolving the issue. That is why I am focused towards Israel, without western complicity Israel would not be able to abuse the human rights of Palestinians on such a grand scale. I am just as concerned about abuses of human rights within Iran as I am in Palestine. However, in Iran western interventions have only worsened the situation. It is after all what led up to the current problem. The best approach for the west to take with regards to Iran is to leave the issue to the Iranian people. Iran is really the only country in the Middle East with a populous that is ready for, and wants, liberal democracy. A small group of radicals cannot hold back the tide of social change in the face of such overwhelming opposition from the populous forever. I mean even Khomeini’s grandchildren are actively fighting against the regime.

With Iran, confrontation will only strengthen the position of the radicals. That is why, with Iran I feel that a dovish approach of non-confrontation is the best strategy. We cannot really influence the situation much except to make it worse. I'm wondering Paul, how do you propose that the west ends the human rights abuses in Iran that you are so concerned about? Do you honestly think that western activism can be a force for positive change in that country?

A different approach is required for dealing with human rights abuses in the Arab world. You mentioned the case of a rape victim being sentenced to 200 lashes. A while back there was also a blogger arrested for calling for liberal reforms. In both cases western pressure resolved the situation. The west does not posses enough influence to effect major policy changes within the Arab nations, but we have had reasonable success with individual cases. If you look back on my blog you'll find that I have been very critical of human rights abuses in Arab countries and of the west's close relationship with tyrannical regimes. I personally favor dropping our support for those governments and leaving them to face their people. My criticism is such that if it was to be read by officials from the governments in question and I traveled to those countries I could be arrested for my comments. To say that I am not adequately concerned about human rights abuses outside Israel makes no sense.

Khomeini is dead and Iran and the Arab world are so preoccupied with containing each other that it would be somewhat difficult for them to expand themselves militarily. They can babble on about it all they want, in the end all that is just meaningless rhetoric meant to appease the hard liners. The real concern should be Saudi Arabia using the money we give them for oil to set up extremist madrassas in areas of the world, such as Pakistan, where poverty and lack of education leave the populace vulnerable to recruitment by extremists, but that is a problem to be solved with books and not bombs. People like Greg Mortenson have found a much more effective approach to combating the problems you are concerned about than the western governments have.

With regards to Israel, illegal detentions should be the least of your worries. That is a problem even in the west. I’m much more concerned with institutionalize racism, economic deprivation, settlements, land theft, killings of civilians, and the like. Those are issues that the west is capable of doing something about. The problems in Iran are not.

10:52 AM
aoc gold said...
Where Go The Boats?


Dark brown is the river,
Golden is the sand.

It floats along forever,

With trees on either hand.

Green leaves a-floating,

Castles of the foam,

Boats of mine a-floating

Where will all come home?

On goes the river

And out past the mill,

Away down the valley,

Away down the hill.

Away down the river,
A hundred miles or more,
Other little children

Shall bring my boats ashore.
-----by aoc powerlevewling

Bar Kochba said...
Apartheid Wall. Ha! You are a fool.

The wall is not built to keep the Arabs in, but to keep terrorists out. If the Arabs would stop attacking and murdering Jews, there would be no need for this wall. A Jew's right not be blown up far outweighs an Arab's right not to be inconvenienced.

8:26 AM
Karin said...
Bar Kochba ... after having read your comment I am very much tempted to lose my good manners but you know what? You're not worth it!

Who do you think you are? You are nothing but a racist whinzling who has the totally idiotic vision of Zionist supremacy!

I tell you here and now that the tide is turning, the world is slowly but surely waking up and recognising more and more the horrendous crimes YOU ZIONISTS commit against humanity! If "Jews" (as YOU put it) wouldn't brutally occupy an entire population and oppress every single aspect of their lives, no Palestinian would have a reason to resist and fight for his rights (or don't they have rights in your eyes??) and for his land!

LIFT THE OCCUPATION OF PALESTINIAN LAND AND THE SIEGE ON GAZA ... and things would look MUCH different in no time!

I purposely say ZIONISTS as I have nothing whatsoever against Jews in a religious context. Jews who follow their religious laws are good people - I know plenty of them!

Listen good .. what goes around, comes around or in other words, every ACTION triggers a RE-ACTION and once this will inevitably one day begin to happen, I won't have any desire to be in your shoes as not even YOU will be able to manipulate this law of nature to your benefit! It originates at a MUCH higher force ... a force YOU will have to face one day and take responsibility for your actions!

Then you'll have time without end to do your little dance in hell ...

11:07 AM
Karin said...
y_a ... there's a video on my blog ... have a look!

11:09 AM
Bar Kochba said...
Which crimes again humanity? Surely you must mean living. It so offends you when Jews take breaths of air. Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. It is anti-semitic to deny Jews the right of self-determination which is extended to all peoples.

Israel occupies nothing. In '67, Israel liberated Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, along with Gaza, Sinai and the Golan. Judea and Samaria form the Jewish biblical homeland. It belongs to no state. The Jordanians were occupying it in '67 and now Israel controls it. There has NEVER, EVER been a "Palestinian" state in that area. In fact, there has NEVER been a "Palestinian" state EVER. The only reason why Gaza is "besieged" is because the Arabs insist on firing rockets at schools and homes in Sderot and Ashkelon. Israel provides Gaza with all of its water, electricity, money, food, etc. Why don't the Gazans ask their Egyptian brethren to help? Or is it only the Jews' obligations to arm their enemies?

1:44 PM
young_activist said...
I've already been over many of the human rights abuses with you BK, so I'm not going to repeat them here. If you're really curios you can look it up on B'TSELEM or Amnesty International, the links are on my sidebar. However, if you chose to ignore the reality on the ground just to suite your own fantasy then its not really my job to educate you. I suppose that all of the anti-Zionist Jews are anti-Semitic too? Actually from the perspective of a linguist it is the Zionists who are anti-Semitic because they are racists against the Arabs, who are a Semitic people. Get real!

I suppose you don't consider the Palestinians a people. That smacks of racism. Fortunately, many of the early Zionists were a little more candid than you are and they openly established the racist, imperial nature of Zionism.

Where the Palestinians firing rockets at the Israelis when the Zionists conspired to seize their land? NO! This blame the victims attitude is traditionally the domain of anti-Semitics, which I suppose technically you are one. No one blamed the Jews for the Holocaust because of the actions of the courageous resistance fighters, many of whom have since endorsed the cause of Palestinian self-determinations and rejected Zionism. But, I suppose their opinion doesn't matter to you since they are anti-Semitic.

The Palestinians aren't asking for charity, they are asking for justice. The Israelis are not so generous as you imply, except perhaps with death and rockets, but even if they were ten times as generous you say that is still only small compensation for the destruction of their livelihoods by the Zionist racists.

2:05 PM
Paul said...
Bar Kochba made serious issues here that none of you addressed all you did was call him a racist. The 'wall' has been built to stop terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks that the Palestinian authorities proved utterly unwilling to stop themselves. Would anyone address that point or will you just resort to name calling?

2:35 AM
young_activist said...
I didn't address that issue here because I have already discussed it extensively with BK on his blog.

The wall is built outside of Israel's internationally borders and it does not separate Palestinians from Israelis, it separates Palestinians from Palestinians. If the purpose of the wall was security and not annexation then why is it being built through Palestinian land?

8:27 AM
Paul said...
The wall has stopped suicide bombings - FACT. The PA could not bring itself to do that, hence the wall was built which does protect Israel's citizens. Its purpose was security and it has become a sad reflection of what is necessary in the face of intransigence form the PA.

1:14 PM
young_activist said...
If the purpose of the wall is security then why is it being built on Palestinian and not Israeli land?

2:23 PM
Bar Kochba said...
The 'Green Line' is not an internationally recognized border. It was simply the armistice line between Israel and Jordan. Judea and Samaria aka the West Bank do not belong to any country. Jordan renounced all claims to that territory. Therefore, calling it "Palestinian" land is erroneous. There is Israeli land and land without any sovereingty under Israeli control. As such, Israel's government felt that if it would build the fence following the 'Green Line', it would be establishing facts on the ground, so to speak, and confirming this as a future border. As Israel’s Supreme Court noted in its ruling on the route of the barrier, building the fence along that line would have been a political statement and would not accomplish the principal goal of the barrier, namely, the prevention of terror.

The route of the fence must take into account topography, population density, and threat assessment of each area. To be effective in protecting the maximum number of Israelis, it also must incorporate some of the settlements in the West Bank.

It is only a wall in small areas. Only a tiny fraction of the total length of the barrier (less than 3% or about 10 miles) is actually a 30 foot high concrete wall, and that is being built in three areas where it will prevent Palestinian snipers from around the terrorist hotbeds of Kalkilya and Tul Karm from shooting at cars as they have done for the last three years along the Trans-Israel Highway, one of the country's main roads. The wall also takes up less space than the other barriers, only about seven feet, so it did not have a great impact on the area where it was built. In areas where the fence was built, terror attacks have decreased by 90%.

10:56 AM
young_activist said...
You're right Bar, I seem to have forgotten that Israel can do whatever it wants because Palestinians don't exist and their blood is worthless and Israel can do whatever it wants because it has a divine estate agent that has given it immunity from any code of morality.

I am a bit better versed in Zionist propaganda than I was a view months ago. You really need to get off your talking points and actually learn about the conflict instead of seeking out 'evidence' that fits in with your preconceived notion of what Israel is, or more accurately what you want it to be.

The international community (and the Israeli courts in cases where it is convenient for factories, for example, to not have to comply with Israeli law) does in fact recognize the Green Line as the border of a Palestinian state, but if there is fact no border than why do only Israelis have the exclusive right to the whole of the territory compromising Israel/Palestine? Oh that's right, you think that only Jews should have political rights in Israel and Palestine and you wonder why we say that you advocate apartheid!

This wall desecrates Christian religious sites, cuts farmers off from their lands, and divides communities in two. How can you say it has no impact? You really should try to understand an issue before you parrot the Zionist propaganda.

As early as May 2004, the fence construction had already destroyred over 100,000 olive and fruit trees, 75 acres of greenhouses and 23 miles of irrigation pipes. At that time it occupued neraly 4,000 acres of confiscated land. 15 communities with a combined population of over 130,000 people are going to be affected by the wall. The wall also separates communities from their water resources and will prevent over 200,000 Palestinians from receiving medical treatment inside Israel. In addition the wall, along with the occupation, severely represses Palestinian economic activity, a situation which will create more poverty and violence.

4:05 PM
Bar Kochba said...
Silly little boy.

The security fence is for safety purposes, and not political ones. The Israeli Supreme court argued that the fence should not follow the "green line" noting that “it is the security perspective — and not the political one — which must examine a route based on its security merits alone, without regard for the location of the ‘green line.’”

The Justices also concluded “it is permitted, by the international law applicable to an area under belligerent occupation to take possession of an individual’s land in order to erect a separation fence upon it, on the condition that this is necessitated by military needs. To the extent that construction of the Fence is a military necessity, it is permitted, therefore, by international law. Indeed, the obstacle is intended to take the place of combat military operations, by physically blocking terrorist infiltration into Israeli population centers.”

If Arab terrorism would stop, the fence would have no need.

You are wrong when you claim that Arab poverty is at the root of terrorism. Arafat was a multi-millionaire who stole form his people and funded terror. (Bin Laden is a multi-millionaire as well. The London Tube bombers were all middle-class assimilated British Muslims). Many terrorists come from a decent, middle-class background. The root of terrorism is the Islamic hatred of non-Muslims, in particular the Jews. Both Hamas and Fatah derive their mission to destroy Israel from the Qur'an and Islamic holy texts. (If you don't believe me, check their founding documents.) That's why any compromise to them only encourages terror. Sucide bombings only began after Oslo, the rocket attacks on Sderot intensified after the Gaza pullout and the Second Lebanon War was only made possible by Israel's withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in the 80s.

6:40 PM
young_activist said...
Palestinian violence is different from other forms of extremism in the region. It is more mainstream and is very much driven by poverty, right or wrong when you are a brutally repressive occupying power anything that goes wrong tends to be blamed on you. In Palestine poverty creates misery which creates both anger and a "I have nothing left to live for, but much to die for" mentality. Arafat was a political leader, he did what he did for politics, Arafat was a political leader, not an ordinary Palestinian. To use him as an example of a typical Palestinian makes no sense.

If terrorism comes from Islamic ideology then how do you explain non-Islamic terrorism both within and without Palestine. After all, it was a Christian who founded the PFLP.

You speak as if you have a respect for international law. We both know that is not the case. At the end of the day, no matter what arguments you make, you will support Israel simply because it is the Jewish state no matter what it does. Israel could be sending the Arabs to the gas chambers and you still wouldn't criticize it. After all, you are defending an attack on non-violent protesters. If you defend such attacks on civilians then you really don't have any right to be complaining about suicide bombing and rocket attacks.

At any rate, the Israeli Supreme Court has no right to rule on Palestinian matters. An international court has ruled that what Israel is doing with the wall, as well as on many other matters, is illegal. Maybe if you actually had some respect for international law your argument would carry a little more weight.

8:11 PM
Bar Kochba said...
Your comment about gas chambers is simply obscene. I am on the side of Israel, not only because I am a Jew, but as a human being. Israel has contributed much, much more than its share to the good of humanity. It has taken in hundreds of thousands of refugees, built a modern and vibrant democracy, and is a world leader in science and technology, all in 60 years. Israel is far from perfect (I criticize Israel's gov't non-stop on my blog), and yet it is by far one of the most moral and humane countries on the planet. The Jews have always been the canary in the coal mine. They were with the Fascists, the Nazis, the Communists and same today with the Islamists. Israel is reviled throughout the Islamic world, Jews are demonized in mosque sermons and Islamic immigrants have beaten up and attacked many Jews in European countries and Canada. This is not a Jewish problem. It begins with the Jews but does not end with them.

I'm glad that you recognize the widespread influence and acceptability of Pseudostinian terrorism and extremism. (If you accept that the majority of them support terror, then should they not all held accountable?) This is a society that teaches its children to hate. Palestinian textbooks are full of anti-semitism and intolerance towards other faiths. (You can check Children's shows exhort kids to blow themselves up. When Israel abandonned the Gaza strip, it left behind the green houses of the Jews of Gush Katif, which would have been an economic blessing to the Arabs. Instead of using them, they destroyed them in a fanatical fury. The streets in Gaza overflow with sewage because the Arabs used the pipes to build rockets. This is a society rasied and indoctrinated in hatred and death, that builds nothing but only destroys.

I would recommend that you learn some Israeli history. The brutal attacks started long before any "Occupation". The Arabs murdered hundreds of Jews in pogroms in 1920-21 and 1929. What were they upset about then, the "occupied lands" of '67?

Paul said...
YA, I seem to remember that on British TV about a 10 years ago there was a brilliant series by Brian Waldren on 'heroes'. What Waldren did was discuss at length in a lengthy soliloquy, whether in fact legendary figures such as Churchill and JFK deserved the heroic status popular culture has afforded them. I wish I could find a link to the series somewhere or look for it on you tube but I can't yet.

Anyway Waldren position on Churchill was very revealing. He mentioned the man's attitude to class and to Indians as examples of bigotry. Waldren summarised Churchill as being a deeply flawed individual but a hero nonetheless. He said he deserved such status as when he stood up to Hitler he did so out of conviction. In 1940 Hitler was by far the stronger man and had conquered Western Europe. Also there were strong forces in Britain that argued for the UK to sue for peace. He did not and that is to his credit. Also in standing up to Hitler the UK lost all of their empire and was in debt to America for over 60 years. These latter facts kind of disprove 'I could describe how Churchill disliked Jews and only opposed Hitler because he thought it was in Britain's national interests'. Therefore the fight against Hitler was most certainly not in Britain's interests. It was simply the right thing to do and a courageous leader saw it through. Furthermore with Churchill whilst the British public adored him, we did vote him out of office in 1945!

January 24, 2009 12:10 PM
Young Activist said...
People have always been looking for heroes and when they don't find any they'll invent them, but true heroes really are very rare if they exist at all. I do believe that Churchill confronted Hitler out of conviction, a deep conviction in the national interest of the U.K. True, the war was costly for Britain, but it would have been far more costly for Britain to be invaded as Hitler would almost certainly have attempted if he could have established a peace long enough to knock out the Soviet Union. Churchill was an intelligent man and deeply versed in history, he was obviously aware of this.

Anyways, I'm not so much concerned about changing the legacy of Churchill so much as changing the way we interpret our history and current activities. The way Churchill is treated as a historical figure, at least in this country, borders on being a secular god, his legacy only exemplifies a far bigger problem.

In the U.S the mostly highly mythologized and idealized period of our history though is the American War of Independence. How is that war perceived in the U.K?

Chet said...
This is one beautifully written article. I don't know what to say. With your permission I would like to cross-post it. I would hope also that all who read it will want to do the same. Don't ever stop writing.

January 10, 2009 9:59 PM
Karin said...
I have to hand it to you ... you are VERY GOOD!!
The article is sound, realistic, well researched ... keep on the great job!
I'll be in touch!

January 10, 2009 10:22 PM
nindee said...
Great thoughts, dear friend.
I'd like to share this to my friend as well if it's ok.
Never stop to open up our minds and our hearts.

January 10, 2009 11:39 PM
young_activist said...
Thank you to all of you for your kind thoughts. Please feel free to pass this on.

January 11, 2009 9:26 AM
Bar Kochba said...
This article is based on complete historical revisionism. It is the product of living in a fantasy world.

Your portrayal of Israel as a colonial power is absurd. Living in the United States, you must be aware that your country is built on the ruins of what was Indian territory. Every single country in the Americas exists because the European settlers dispossessed the native Amerindians. Yet, nobody dares suggest that these countries are somehow illegitimate. On the other hand, the Jews are the indigenous people of Israel and are constantly having their right to their land challenged by Islamic and Western imperialists.

The territory that today occupies Israel was purchased legally by the Jewish National Fund and various Jewish organization, during the times of the first aliyot. Jews had a constant presence in Israel since biblical times and began to return en masse in the 18th century. No Arabs (ARABS --- the term "Palestinian" did not exist yet to refer to any people) were displaced. Rather, the early Zionists purchased the land from the landlord effendis and settled the land, legally and legitimately. During the war of Independence, hundreds of thousands of Arabs fled, at the behest of the invading Arab armies, and were promised that they would be allowed to return once the Jews had been killed. Israel belongs to the Jewish people, according to every political, historic and religious right. To paint the Jews as colonialists in their native land is absurd. The Arabs have 22 states- the Jews have one tiny strip of land, consisting of less than 1% of the land in the Middle-East. The real colonists and occupiers are the Arabs squatters on Jewish land.

It is an abuse of history to claim that the Arabs have endured unimaginable horrors during the past 60 years. Over a million Arabs are equal citizens in the state of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle-East. They enjoy more rights than their brethren in neighbouring countries. Nowhere else can Arab women vote, hold office or can Arabs freely express their opinions.

This is not a battle over land. Hamas is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state. Fatah has the same long-term goal but wants to use a two-state "solution" as a Trojan horse. Israel has offered the Arabs peace many times before. As Abba Eban said, the Arabs never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity. In 2000, Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat 95% of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, with joint sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Saudi Crown Prince told him that it would be a crime if he refused! Of course, Arafat walked away, not content that Israel exist.

Israel came into possession of Judea and Samaria, its biblical homeland, after liberating them in 1967. When in history has a winning nation been expected to return land conquered in a defensive war? 6 Arabs nations invaded Israel! When the Egyptians ruled Gaza and the Jordanians ruled Judea and Samaria, never was there any talk of "Palestinian" nationalism. Their occupation was illegal under international law as that land had been promised to the Jews under the Mandate for Palestine! A two-state solution already exists, with "Palestinians" making up over 2/3 of the population of Jordan. Israel cannot be divided up any further. Withdrawing from Judea and Samaria would put Israel back at what Abba Eban famously dubbed "the Auschwitz borders", since they are indefensible.

The sides in this battle are clear. Israel, a democratic nation, is faced with a genocidal murderous enemy, Hamas which is a proxy of Iran, led by a Holocaust-denying madman who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map. On one side stands Western civilization, life, freedom while on the other stands the forces of Islamic barbarism and hatred. Israel is the proverbial canary in the coal mine but the same hatred has manifested itself in NY on 9/11, on the London Tube, in Bali, and in Mumbai. It always begins with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews.

January 11, 2009 2:40 PM
Paul said...
It is an abuse of history to describe Israel as 'colonial'. The country was established under a UN mandate indeed the only recent example of colonialism in the area was British. It was sadly Britain that refused to allow Jews to settle in an area agreed under a League of Nations mandate that predated Israel being founded. Much as I love America could we have some balance and less revisionism please? I mean good job the US has never colonised anywhere right?

Oh and it’s interesting how Karin does not allow comments on her web log anymore. I miss debating with my friend and yet I feel it may be embarrassment on her behalf at comments by supporters of the ‘Islamic resistance’ that caused that end. The comments in question called for the Jews ‘to be returned to the gas chambers’. Another name for the Islamic resistance is Hamas. No wonder free speech is no longer permitted at ‘Munich and a bit of everything’.

January 19, 2009 5:06 AM
young_activist said...
The mandate for the creation of the state of Israel had defined geographic border, it is colonialist to disregard those borders with settlements, walls, etc. However, it was not the right of the U.N to give away the land of another people.

European bigotry is what made many Jews feel they needed a state of their own. Why should the Palestinians be forced to pay for the crimes of Europe? Why did western countries refuse to absorb refugees?

I talk about Israel because it is ongoing with the support of my government. Past U.S colonialism is over, it can't be changed, ongoing U.S abuses are what needs to be adressed by Americans, and the support the U.S gives to Israel enables the abuses being inflicted upon the Palestinian people. This is the most egregious, although not the only, example of U.S enabled human rights abuses.

January 19, 2009 6:38 AM
Paul said...
'European bigotry is what made many Jews feel they needed a state of their own. Why should the Palestinians be forced to pay for the crimes of Europe?'

A typically anti-Semitic statement. But could you please point out where approximately 45% of Israel's Jews came from in the 1940's? They were Arabs themselves and had suffered the depredations of Islam for generations. Up until then countries like Iraq were regularly organising pogroms against Jews.

I will never deny Europe's shoddy legacy of anti-Semitism. Shockingly it is being repeated now, we have Muslim youths attacking star bucks in London and turning up at 'demos' armed with knifes. Giving Hitler salutes to pro - Israeli demonstrators and quite openly siding with Hamas an organisation that is committed to killing Jews and destroying Israel. Those are your people not mine. If you want me to be critical of Israel's actions in defending itself then a condemnation of the rabid anti-Semitism associated with your position would be a quid pro quo. Look at YouTube, in Canada a Muslim woman shouted ‘get back to the oven’ at pro-Israeli demonstrators. For their part the pro-Israel demonstrations have all been dignified.

The opposition to Israel amongst the Arabs is nothing at all to do with nationalism. It is to do with Islam and a desire to implement Islam on a democratic state. Funny thing the opposition groups are given names like 'Islamic Resistance' (Hamas) and Islamic Jihad. The intention of such groups is to subjugate the Jews as Dhimmi. Don't believe me? Try reading Hamas's charter. Yet the Jews have a right to live there and are not going away. For their part the Arab citizens of Israel enjoy full democratic rights another factor you conveniently ignore.

January 19, 2009 12:43 PM
young_activist said...
If your going to make absurd allegations of anti-Semitism against me then I have no interest in further discussion. This is the typical accusation used to silence criticism of Israeli policies. It has even been used extensivly against Jewish critics of Israel, and much in the same way that Joseph McCarthy hampered legitimate efforts to fight Communism it makes it more difficult to fight genuine examples of anti-Semitism.

These Arab Jews were only allowed in after Israel's founders decided they needed more people than were emigrating from Europe. The Mossad is widely suspected within Israel of going so far as to launch terrorist attacks against Iraq's Jewish communities in order to encourage immigration.

I will not pretend that historical relations between Arabs and Jews were without blemish, but they were generally marked by mutual respect and tolerance, certainly by comparison to Europe. Jews were employed as high ranking officials by both the Ottoman Emprie and later Iraq. Even today the Arab world's remaing Jewish communities enjoy a high profile in Morocco where they are adviser to the King, in Bahrain where they serve in Parliament and as the ambassador to the U.S, and of course in Palestine where they have played high profile roles as Palestinian diplomats, members of Parliament, cabinet members, and activists. Still, nothing that was done to the Jewish people can justify what is being done to the Palestinians.

I would not associate with the acts you describe, so no, these are not my people. It is inevitable that anti-Semitic bigots will express their views under the aegis of criticizing Israel just like anti-Arab bigots will express their views under the aegis of criticizing Palestinian actions. It is also inevitable that Israel's actions will produce an anti-Semitic backlash against less educated individuals in much the same way 7/7 and 9/11 produced anti-Muslim backlashes among less educated in the west.

There is no rabid anti-Semitism associated with my position, that all people should be able to live in peace and equality, this is another example of anti-Semitism being used to stiffle discussion and intimidate dissenters.

The fact that pro-Israeli people are so hung up on citing two anti-Semitic incidents in Florida and Canada while Israeli warplanes were incinerating hundreds of Palestinian children and bombing the U.N compound with chemical weapons makes their case look pretty pathetic. The fact that these two incidents are so well know should demonstrate how isolated they are.

and pro-Israel demonstrations have not been all that dignified either. I listened to a sound bite from one in New York which a man said that all Arabs should be killed to prevent another 9/11, another man yelled "don't screw the Jews bam" and all Muslims were said to be Nazis, all in the course of less than a minute.

Well, like I said, I don't speak for the Arabs, I'm not pro this people or that people I am for justice and against repression. It has nothing to do with nationalism for me either, it has to do with basic human rights and opposing racism. Actaully I think nationalism is an international scourge. But since you obviously don't share this view did you know that nationalism was what unified Palestinians until the 1980's when Hamas was founded? Did you know that Hamas was founded with tacit Israeli support and encouragement? Islam, however cannot explain the large numbers of Christians and Jews in the Palestinian movement. The PFLP, one of the most violent Palestinian factions, was founded by a Christian, the DFLP is aetheistic, Arafat married a Christian, Jews have tried to organize joint Jewish-Arab militant cells, etc.

Arab citzens of Israel do not enjoy full democratic rights. They are discriminated against both officialy and unofficialy, their only two parties were just banned from politics, and Israeli politicians frequently refer to them as "the demographic problem" and hint at a future campaign of ethnic cleansing or "population transfer" if their numbers are not kept in check.

I fail to see how killing 1,300 Palestinians, mainly civilians can be seen as self defense. is Hamas entitled to similair acts of "self-defense"?

January 19, 2009 1:33 PM
Bar Kochba said...
YA, you show a remarkable ignorance of history. I do not believe that you are anti-semitic but you have little understand of Middle-East events. Might a recommend that you read Israel: A History, by Martian Gilbert. Gilbert is a historian and the book is quite balanced. (It made my blood boil for being too "even-handed", but it presents events fairly). It was recently republished in celebration of Israel' 60th anniversary. Please read it, if only to understand better the "plight of the Palestinians".

It is a huge misconception that the UN awarded Israel to the Jews. It is not as if, in 1945, after the Holocaust, the Jews showed up knocking at the door in Israel asking for the country back. Even after the exile of Jews in 70 CE, Jews always maintained a presence in Israel. Beginning in the 1800s, Jews began actively to return en masse to Zion. Herzl established the Zionist Congress to work for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Israel. The Jewish National Fund was created to redeem and purchase land for settlement in Israel. Through the little blue pushke (charity box), Jews in Europe and America contributed to the JNF and land was purchased legally from Arab absentee landowners. Rich Jews such as the Baron Rothschild also supported settlements. Herzl travelled around the world and met with world leaders to gain legitimacy for the new movement. The UN didn't give the Jews a state. As Chaim Weitzman, the first president of Israel, said: "no state is given to a people on a silver platter". Jews built settlement, towns, cities and established the political infrastructure that would eventually become Israel's government. Israel exists not on international suffrance or as a gift from the UN but by virtue of the Jews who built the land and established a state, legally. Over 20 000 young Israeli soldiers gave their lives so Jews could have a homeland.

This land never belonged to a "Palestinian people". No such people existed before 1967. No independent "Palestinian" state was ever in existence. You hold Israel guilty of the original sin of being in existence. Israel belongs to the Jewish people according to every political, historical and religious right. No other people has a history in that land. Jews bought the land from effendi Syrian landowners. No Arab land was "stolen".

While in Arab countries, there was never a Holocaust or a widespread campaign to exterminate Jews, Jewish life was a series of massacres, forced conversions, humiliations and deprivations. Under Islamic law, Christian and Jews have dhimmi, or second-class status. Jews in Yemen, for example, were not even allowed to wear shoes. Jewish orphans would be kidnapped and forcibly converted to Islam. Many families arrived to Israel (some walked for miles by foot!) missing children, kidnapped. The fact that many Jewish communities rose to affluence doesn't disprove this. There were many successful and prominent communities in Europe as well. This sort of historical revisionism is deplorable, akin to Holocaust denial. If you would have actually have met Sephardic or Mizrahi (Oriental) Jews, you would know how harsh life was under Islamic rule. During the Second World War, many Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and pogroms erupted in Iraq, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. The Mufti of Palestine was a Nazi sympathizer and spent the war years with the Fuehrer in Berlin. He showed him plans to build a death camp modeled on Auschwitz near Shechem (Nablus).

In 1948, there were close to a million Jews in Arabs land. Now, there only exist small communities of a few thousand in Turkey, Morroco and Iran. They live in a precarious balance. Please do not gloss over the harsh history of Judeo-Islamic relations. Jews in Morroco lived in mellah, comparable to European ghettos, for example. Pogroms occurred in: Aleppo (1850, 1875), Damascus (1840, 1848, 1890), Beirut (1862, 1874), Dayr al-Qamar (1847), Jerusalem (1847), Cairo (1844, 1890, 1901-02), Mansura (1877), Alexandria (1870, 1882, 1901-07), Port Said (1903, 1908), Damanhur (1871, 1873, 1877, 1891), Istanbul (1870, 1874), Buyukdere (1864), Kuzguncuk (1866), Eyub (1868), Edirne (1872), Izmir (1872, 1874).[14] There was a massacre of Jews in Baghdad in 1828. There was another massacre in Barfurush in 1867.

Arabs have 22 countries while Jews have one. If they desire to exercise their political rights, they are entitled to do so in the 22 countries that belong to them. The two parties that were recently banned supported and encouraged terror against Israeli targets. Ahmed Bishara, head of the Balad party, was convicted of treason and fled to Hizbullah in Lebanon. These parties are a threat to the Jewish character and to the civilians of Israel and are against Israeli law.

Close to 700 Hamas terrorists were dispatched in the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza. They hid among civilians, amplifying civilian casualties. Israel takes great pains to avoid hitting civilians yet innocents die in war. It is inevitable, especially when the enemy fires and stores weapons, and hides, in schools, mosques and hospitals. It seems that you hold Israel guilty of self-defense. Jews fighting back seems to be a crime to you. Peace is when rockets are falling on Israel and Jews are doing the dying quietly.

January 19, 2009 2:27 PM
Paul said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
January 20, 2009 3:59 AM
Young Activist said...
Debate is fine, but I will not tolerate baseless ad hominem attacks. If you have something to say then say it respectfully, otherwise your comments will be removed.

January 20, 2009 5:27 AM
Young Activist said...
I am not trying to gloss over the historical record, so please don't intepret it like that, I am only tring to show the absurdity of the claim that supporting Palestinians, or being Palestinian, is akin to being a Nazi.

I will look at the book you described, but Gilbert's work has been described as "propoganda" by Benny Morris, so I'm a little sceptical, but I'll check it out. You should know by now that I am not pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli, why would I be? I am against repression and injustice, and the repression and injustice that I am empowered to combat is that supported by my own government. Furthermore, Palestinian violence is part of a cycle of violence, a cycle in which the initial and ongoing act is the dispossesion and occupation of the Palestinian people.

Yes, Jews always maintained a prescense in Palestine, those who view the one state solution as an ideal (although perhaps not pragmatic) would like to see Jews continue to live in Palestine, but as individauls or Palestinians, not as a group. I know the apartheid analogy get brought up a lot, but it is kind of like in South Africa, people had no problem with whites living in South Africa, it was only when they lived there as a group and to the exclusion of everyone else that it became a problem.

Herzl was atheist and a chauvinist. He did not care where his state was located. He only settled on Palestine after his proposal for Uganda nearly split the Russian Jews from the movement and threatend its survival.

Some early Israeli leaders were very honest about the situation, so let me quote them to you.

"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."

"We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return.”

"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own feet during the days of the First and Second Temple”

“We must expel the Arabs and take their places…. And, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places- then we have force at our disposal.”

David Ben-Gurion

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, What is to be done with the Palestinian population? ‘Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ' Drive them out! ' "
Yitzhak Rabin

"But first and foremost, terrorism is for us a part of the political battle being conducted under the present circumstances, and it has a great part to play: speaking in a clear voice to the whole world, as well as to our wretched brethren outside this land, it proclaims our war against the occupier."

Yitzhah Shamir

January 20, 2009 5:54 AM
Young Activist said...
Banning the Arab parties is not only wrong, it is a huge strategic mistake for Israel. It will make Palestinians with Israeli citzenship feel wihtout voice and radicalize them, it will eliminate an important liason Israel has to the Arab world, and it will give legitimacy to claims of discrimination against Arabs. What harm was it in having Arab parties in the Knesset?

Saying that the Arabs have 22 other countries so they can be expelled from Palestine is like saying Americans have 49 other states so they can be expelled from New York.

And I'm not sure about your number either, do you have a source?

January 20, 2009 5:58 AM
Paul said...
Okay YA I will explain my position further. I called you an anti-Semite and that appears to have stung. Stung you in fact so much you deleted my otherwise non-offensive post. My reason for saying what I did was this comment by you: 'The Mossad is widely suspected within Israel of going so far as to launch terrorist attacks against Iraq's Jewish communities in order to encourage immigration.'

Come on YA that is nonsense and surely you can understand why I might accuse someone who says such a thing as being an anti-Semite?

Doubtless you are an intelligent and kind hearted person; I am gravely concerned however as to the direction such a comment is heading. However for my part I do not believe you to be akin to the woman screaming 'get back to the oven', or the mobs in London that have been attacking Starbucks and beating up Jews. If I accused you thus or suggested you were I apologise. I do hope you are being sincere though and not simply stifling debate over an issue you feel insecure. I am concerned at what you wrote and the fact that in my opinion you seem to criticise every attempt by Israel to defend itself. I will shortly be posting on my blog my thoughts on the proportionality of Israel's recent actions; needless to say your opinion will be welcome.

January 20, 2009 7:23 AM
Young Activist said...
This event may be so far outside of your preconceived notion of Israel's early history that you summarily dismiss it as a conspiracy theory akin to the absurd and genuinely anti-Semitic theories surrounding 9/11. However, it is a well documented, albeit not well publicized, fact that Zionists in Iraq bombed Bagdad synagogues. This was the conclusion of a later inquiry of the Israeli government into the matter and it is not widely disputed by historians. Whether they were freelance terrorists or had links to Mossad, we will likely never know, it has been too politicized and the record is too vague. However, while the Israeli government vehemently denies it, it is suspected of involvement by many Israelis. In an interview with journalist Arthur Nelsen the Mossad agent convicted for the bombing in an Iraqi court, Yehuda Tajar, asserts "knowing that I personally, in order to save Jewish lives, or at least to decrease their numbers [in Iraq]. I wouldn't have hesitated to put a bomb in on order not to kill, but so that people would [leave Iraq]." This is important, if Iraqi Jews required this sort of coercion to leave it means that they were, at least not initially, the enthusiastic Zionists they are made out to be in Israel's mythologized early history.

January 20, 2009 12:40 PM
Young Activist said...
and as an afterthought, no, I do not feel insecure discussing Israeli policies. In fact I will challenge you to a debate on the following proposition: Israel's recent offensive in Gaza was both morally and strategically mistaken.

January 20, 2009 12:48 PM
Anonymous said...
selfish human greed leads to such inhumanity in Gaza presently.
All paties are to be blame somewhat and somehow but most important is what can we do for a better future for everyone ?.
For a start, its people like you and hopefully if am not wrong, Mr Obama will make the change for a better World.
I had my fair share of Wars during my time,,,,it will never end unfortunately but we must avoid it as much as possible.
An eye for an eye ?,,,as such we are all blind !
Live life,,,my motto in life,,,be happy and be healthy.
Pls note, we human are killing the World too,,,what else must we do ?.
Geeeeees,,,,,when will we all learn to live together ?. We are all human not animals for God's sake.
Just be fair, be honest, be kind and enjoy living cas. life is very precious and short.

Bless you,,,good nite.


January 21, 2009 8:36 AM
Paul said...
YA, I'm happy to have such a debate with you. It's somewhat disingenuous of you to frame the debate in such a way whilst ignoring the other points I made and in fact deleting a non-offensive comment I made due to you being unwilling to discuss the virulent anti-Semitism that has been at the heart of recent demonstrations in Europe and America.

I'm very busy at the moment with work but will post an answer on the issue you feel worth debating.

Quite simply the moral imperative rested with Israel in both 2006 and 2008 to act in self defence and protect their citizens. As to the strategic and tactical considerations I will discuss those on my blog in an upcoming post.

As to the Mossad bombing Iraqi Jews, a cursory glance at the facts available proves nothing although it would appear the Islamic brotherhood were responsible. In any case Iraqis Jews had a long history of suffering pogroms. The account by Tajar which you quote appears to have him hypothesising on a possible course of action rather than actually admitting to such a course of action. The views of Nelsen and others are worth repeating of course but they have also been discredited.

Young Activist said...

Okay, I've lready given this three weeks, so I'll respond now.

On your first point go back and read the thread. When you asked about this thread earlier I explained why it was down and offered to publish it for you if you were interested. You never responded, but since you seem to have a renewed interest I published it on your blog for you. This dispute came up within the context of a discussion about Jewish migration to Israel from Arab countries, a topic which is not relevant to the suffering of the Palestinian people, but one which I discussed with you anyway.

I brought up the fact that the consensus among Iraqi Jews was that the Mossad had bombed their synagogues to encourage migration. When you claimed this was an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory I offered evidence that it was at least a respectable view, although I drew no conclusions about this saying "Whether they were freelance terrorists or had links to Mossad, we will likely never know, it has been too politicized and the record is too vague." As to what motivated the bombers I pointed to the results of an official Israeli government inquiry that blamed Zionist agents, while you dismissed this too as a conspiracy theory and claiming "cursory glance at the facts available proves nothing although it would appear the Islamic brotherhood were responsible.", which is an interesting allegation to make since it, as you acknowledge not supported by evidence, but more importantly since the Islamic Brotherhood was not organized in Iraq until 1960 as the Iraqi Islamic Party, many years after the bombings.

Here you are rebuffing a claim that I never made, I've posted the thread so you can go back and look over it. I'd hardly describe this as either a conspiracy theory (perhaps the claims about the Islamic Brotherhood would warrant that label), or a lost argument.

On your second point, again go back and read the thread. I never said the MEK was a Salafist group, its ideology is "Islamic Socialism", but this has very little to do with the debate. As to Jundallah, I would hardly describe ABC and the Asian Times as "conspiracy theorists", you have a very peculiar conception of that word. It is not strange at all that the U.S would try someone who they in the past worked with, Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are just two high profile examples, there are many others.

And as far as war crimes go, since when is Bashir's behavior the standard that conduct in war should be measured against? I always judged actions against international law, but apparently you feel that if it is not as bad as what Bashir has done it is perfectly acceptable. By this standard that excuses Israeli abuses both Osama bin Laden and Robert Mugabe are upstanding global citizens. Do you really believe in this standard when it is applied universally?

Paul said...

YA, thank you and happy Easter. Firstly lets look at the issue of Jewish migration from Iraq to Israel. You claimed that an Israeli Government inquiry blamed 'Zionist agents' for the bombings. However a cursory glance at sources states 'Israeli officials of the time and in particular Mordechai Ben Porat and Shlomo Hillel, prominent figures at the Iraqi Zionist underground, vehemently deny the charges. An internal investigation conducted in Israel in 1960 found no proof of an order to execute such an attack. More possible responsible parties have been suggested, such as the Iraqi CID and the Muslim Brotherhood.'

I apologise that my source is wiki, yet wiki in this instance does at least provide access to a variety of sources on this matter. Perhaps its best if we both say that some Iraqi Jews did feel the Hagannah or Mossad were responsible. Others such as Moshe Gat and Mordechai Ben Porat state differently and blame Arab nationalist or Islamist groups. However you are plain wrong to state that the Israeli government blamed Zionists they did not.

On another point you again surprised me by saying 'I never said the MEK was a Salafist group'. Well I will quote you directly on what you did actually say 'Actually, the U.S is arming al-Quadea affiliated groups carrying out "destabilization campaigns" (i.e: terrorism) within Iran's borders.'

There you have it exactly what you said, now are you sure the MEK is an 'Al Qaeda grouping? They are a defunct Maoist grouping in the process of being disbanded by the Iraqi government.

Finally I will stick to my guns that it is foolish to compare Olmert with Bashir. Of course the writ of international law should be observed (so long as that law is democratic and constitutional). But Bashir has murdered hundreds of thousands and seems to have the acquiescence of the Arab league in that endeavour.

Olmert may have acted over zealously in defending his people according to some, or not at all according to others. There is a difference. I have said it before, but this is not comparing apples with apples.

Thanks for replying anyway and reinvigorating my interest in this blog.

Young Activist said...

I must have misread the report, it found that most witnesses believed the attackers were Zionists, and it is acknowledged that a Zionist agent carried out (on his own) a second bombing to try to vindicated the arrested agent, but the official inquiry never implicated Zionist agents in the initial attack. But like I said, this issue is secondary, what is important in the context of that discussion was that many, perhaps a majority, of Iraqi Jews believed the attack was carried out by Mossad agents.

I never said MEK was a Salafist group, I said Jundallah was Salafist, I then quoted a source that pointed out that the U.S also had ties to the MEK, which neither I nor the source identified as Salafist, and also to another group which the source identified as a Kurdish group. Where did I say MEK was Salafist?

I tried your link with the BBC, but it didn't work, anyways whatever is going on in Darfur is irrelevant to Israel. It is of course much easier for western media to write articles critical of Sudan's government than Israel's, in coverage of Sudan the official pretexts and denials do not have to be even mentioned, whereas with Israel they are often treated as fact. In fact with Darfur, the highest credible estimates of casualties are accepted as fact without further investigation whereas with Israel the Israeli government's numbers are treated as fact. The Sudanese government say less than 10,000 people have died and that it has had nothing to do with the conflict. Now, of course I don't take that very seriously, but apparently some favored governments are taken seriously in the documentation of their crimes.

I would encourage you to look over my post about Israel's invasion of Gaza, it was very clearly not defensive, this was the pretext, but not even Israeli officials take it very seriously. It was, after all, as predicted, destructive to its declared objectives of protecting Israeli lives (Palestinian lives are ultimately worthless in the calculations of the Israeli government). But even if the decision to launch the operation was not a crime (which I believe it was) much of the conduct of the operation, such as the use of white phosphorous and deliberate attacks on civilians and destruction of property definitely are, as is the refusal of the Israeli government to launch credible investigations. The government in fact said it would defend any Israeli soldier implicated in war crimes by an international body regardless of guilt. That behavior suggests that actions that constituted war crimes and crimes against humanity were official policy.

Paul said...

Thanks for replying. I provided a link to where on my blog you said the US was supporting Al Qaeda groups in Iran. However we should agree to disagree or else we'll just end up in a puerile argument over who said what.

I will check out what you said on your blog later. One point I have made which you have not addressed is to contrast Israel's actions with those of recent NATO operations. Of course I am not suggesting that two wrongs make a right. My point is that in both Lebanon in 2006 and recently in Gaza Israel could fairly be said to be operating in self defence.

But what about Serbia in 1999? Serbia posed no possible threat to NATO members and yet was subject to an intense air campaign that destroyed its civic infrastructure. You have condemned Israel's similar (in your opinion) targeting of civic infrastructure in Gaza recently. Yet NATO in 1999 went so far as to blow up Serbia's own television service, I am still amazed that this happened. By contrast Israel recently did no such thing against Palestinian media outlets. Palestinian outlets as you are aware frequently pump out vile propaganda, with a character called Asud a Jew eating bunny. All the Serbian presenters were guilty of in 1999 was of being cocky. I apologise now I don't have time to find a source for Asud but he is real and you have probably seen him yourself. My point is that by comparison with Israel Britain and the USA have recently done worse. I'll make more of a mention of this later after I've checked out your blog.

Young Activist said...

Israel's action in comparison to past actions by NATO states is not relevant. I don't know too much about the NATO campaign in Serbia, I was still fairly young when that took place, I do know that people in the broader human rights movement which I would associate myself with were at the time and still are extremely critical of what occurred, perhaps even more so than they are about Palestine, but I don't know enough to have an opinion about the operation. Certainly the actions which you described were barbaric instances of state terrorism that deserved full denunciation with war crimes trials for those responsible. However, it is not ongoing, so while looking at history helps to give a better understanding of the present, it cannot be changed so it does not merit the same attention as a comparable or even less severe issues going on right now. As for current NATO/U.S military operations (of which arming and enabling Israel's assault on Gaza was one) I have been very vocal. In the last week or so I have made posts about both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sudan's activities in Darfur could be described as defensive, Hitler's operation in Warsaw could be described as defensive, that label offers no justification, particularly when other outlets for resolution were available or when what was being defended was not justified.

Israel's actions, like the actions of every other state must be judged independently of the "everyone is doing it" excuse, the only time when human rights abuses are relative is in which we are deciding which ones to focus attention on.

There it would make sense to direct attention to the worst abuses enabled by your state (i.e the worst abuses you have power to influence). The situation in Tibet may be just as bad or even worse than the situation in Palestine, but because the U.S plays an enabling role in Palestine but a positive (if only for cynical reasons) one in Tibet I will devote a lot more attention to Palestine and not really ever mention Tibet. A genuine Chinese human rights activist would do just the opposite. Now, a Chinese bigot might pretend to care about the Palestinian only to express anger towards the U.S much like western bigots talk about problems they have no control over in China and the Islamic world while ignoring problems in their own country, but for people genuinely concerned with human rights pragmatic factors dictate our interests.

As for the tv you mentioned, I am not familiar with this character, but I can say that no actions by the Palestinians justify the abuses that they have been subjected to. In fact, the hatred of Jews among some (a definite minority) of Palestinians is a product of Israel’s successful effort to equate itself with Judaism. Let me give you another example, I was reading about American Indians today. Some hated whites, some scalped whites, some burned whites. That can never justify the U.S’s genocide against the native populations of America. Israel’s efforts against an entire nation can similarly never be justified by the backlash of certain members of that nation to repression.