lord of the blog

« David Blunket | Main | The Bishops Move »

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Responses

It is so long since I had time to respond to comments that I can't catch up now so just a couple of points.

I do occasionally delete comments. Overtly racist ones get deleted but the main problem is the balance between legitimate criticism and gross personal abuse. If you can't make your point about a person (in the case referred to it was about David Blunket) without resorting to abusive comments then there is something lacking in your life skills. I can't claim that my approach is entirely consistent but if everyone could play the issue rather then the person life would get easier!

I would like to return at some point to the education debate as it is going to shape a lot of young people's destiny for years to come. I think the success or failure of the proposed reforms will depend on the ability to share out pupils across the ability spectrum and that is what we ought to focus on.

It is not impossible to do this but given the ability of wealthier parents to move to the area best served it does mean we have to aim for all schools to be successful.

There were some long past comments on Party Conference which I read with interest but it is too late to respond fully. My memory of Labour Conferences before the changes were that they provided brilliant entertainment for the Tory press but not much opportunity for delegates to be involved.

Dan, I think you underestimate just how much the less articulate delegates and members were squeezed out because they didn't feel able to deliver a speech to hundreds of people in just three minutes. That's why I think the small group approach with Ministers and Party officials present is better at involving members in policy making.

Clive,
You and I know that my posting was not in the least offensive or abusive. I'm sorry to have to say to you that your reflexes to censor have more to do with your sensitivities to the leadership issue.

They are your toys to play with Clive and your actions do little credit to any reputation you might have had as a democrat.

As your programme refuses to accept my blog ref (Ummh!) - here it is http://andrewmarkbaker.blogspot.com

As you have had a long-standing interest in the Israel/Palestinian issue, I'd like to know your views on the Iranian President's call for the elimination of Israel and the broadcasting of cartoons on Iranian children's television glorifiying child suicide bombers against Jews. It seems ironic that the regime is employing the Basij militias to bomb Ahwaz City in Khuzestan (according to reformist Mustafa Moin) and blaming it on interfering British intelligence, while Iran funds, organises and directs terrorist organisations against Israel. Iran violently oppresses its own Arab population, while claiming to support Arabs under Israeli occupation. Isn't it time for Blair to wise up and harden his stance against this fascist regime? Isn't it time for him to say, explicitly, that he would consider military action against Iran if it threaten the sovereignty of Israel or Iraq or continues to assist terrorism? Now that the mullahs have complete control of the Iranian political system, it seems there are no "moderates" or "reformists" left to negotiate with. We are now faced with the most violent and malevolent government ever to rule Iran and it's time the international community to understand the threat Ahmadinejad poses. He is Iran's Saddam. No, he's worse than Saddam - the evidence against him and his regime is far greater than the dossiers issued by the government over Iraq.

Dan,

Why does the UK need to threaten Iran on behalf of Israel? I'm sure you read the quotes I posted, showing the true intent and belief of every Israeli Prime Minister since the establishment of that country - i.e. the necessary expulsion of all Palestinians from their lands. The basic premise of the Zionist enterprise is that Palestinians should be "wiped off the map". Why's your blood up when one of the most powerful, expansionist and violent regimes in the world is verbally threatened by a loud mouthed populist, but not when that same racist and brutal regime actively engages in ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population?

Iran does support Hizbullah which, despite popular ignorance, doesn't fall under the formal definition of a "terrorist" group. It was formed to resist Israeli expansion into Souther Labanon and has specialised in attacking military, not civilian, targets.

Yes, you're right, no Iranian leader can reasonably claim to be concerned about Sunni Arabs. A cursory understanding of hard line Shiah doctrine is enough to expose any claims of concern about Palestinians from him or the Mullahs as mere opportunism.

But a verbal attack of this kind against Israel has to be placed in the context of history and reality, not some knee-jerk belief that comments against Israel (even military - but hardly credible - ones like this) somehow constitute a more serious crime than threats against other people. It's very telling that you encourage military threats against Iran for a mere statement against Israel but have been recommending only diplomatic and economic sanctions for stopping the active oppression of Ahwazi Arabs in Iran.

Israel has proven itself to be an expanist power which believes that it is above all law. It has invaded its neighbours including Lebanon (leading to the establishment of Hizbullah) killing tens of thousands of civilians and actively supporting one of the most violent civil wars in modern history. Its stated goal is the removal of Palestinians and the "expropriation of their lands" (Sharon's words). Iran has done none of these things. Which is the more violent, dangerous and provocative regime (based on actual behaviour, not verbal threats) out of the two?

Your comments seem very opportunistic and appear to assign the usual prime victimhood to Israel.

I also find it strange that you would call on Blair to defend the sovereignty of Iraq when he is actively engaged in ensuring that true sovereignty never takes root there?

"He is Iran's Saddam. No, he's worse than Saddam - "

Your simplistic rants are beneath you.

"..the evidence against him and his regime is far greater than the dossiers issued by the government over Iraq."

And the evidence against Israel knocks them both out of the ball park. Why the selectivity?

S.

Someone: I think that Iran has been the greatest source of instability, terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East. It continues to occupy islands that are legally part of the UAE, it has funded and organised insurgency in Bahrain, Lebanon and Iraq and terrorism against Israel.

One of the most violent conflicts in history was the Iran-Iraq War, which was the result of an unfair division of the Shatt Al-Arab in Iran's favour. Iran was responsible for the Hallabja massacre, although people like Clive will never recognise this. Kurdish organisations set up by Israel and the CIA - Kurdish Israeli Friendship League, JINSA and Jeffrey Goldberg - the have been peddling the lie that Saddam ordered the gassing of a Kurdish village in order to strengthen the case for the invasion of Iraq. The gassing of Halabja occurred a day after Iranian forces invaded the village.

The Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College published a report in 1990 which accused Iran of responsibility for the Hallabja massacre. It stated that Iraq used mustard gas during the war and that this could not be responsible for the deaths in the Iraqi Kurd village; mustard gas has a fatality rate of 2%. It argued that Iran attacked the village first using a "blood agent".

Stephen Pelletiere, who was the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the Iran-Iraq war, stated that: "The great majority of the victims seen by reporters and other observers who attended the scene were blue in their extremities. That means that they were killed by a blood agent, probably either cyanogens chloride or hydrogen cyanide. Iraq never used and lacked any capacity to produce these chemicals. But the Iranians did deploy them. Therefore the Iranians killed the Kurds."

Of course, Clive Soley and Anne Clwyd will talk up the lies against Saddam Hussein, who - love him or hate him - was the only bastion against Iran's territorial and political ambitions in the Middle East. I actually believe the British establishment doesn't care if Iran extend its influence into Iraq, regarding Iranian control as a source of stability. The British have tended to take a pro-British line and many British politicians are keen advocates of the Islamic Republic's oppressive political system. Hashemi Rafsanjani's close friend Emma Nicholson recently heralded Iran as "an advanced democracy"! It is a palpably absurd argument, but one that British politicians employ to

This is why the British allowed the proliferation of Iranian-backed or Iranian-aligned militias in southern and eastern Iraq. But without any counter-balance to this aggressive and ideologically dogmatic regime, Iran's influence in Iraq is malign and potentially destabilising to the rest of the region.

It would not be so bad if the Iranian regime was a progressive force. But its treatment of the Ahwazi Arabs indicates and its verbal attacks on the democratically elected Palestinian National Authority indicates that the regime is only interested in controlling Arabs for its own political interests. I firmly believe that the success of a Palestinian state under Mahmud Abbas would be a force for democracy and freedom in the Middle East. The greatest obstacle to this is not Israel (which has formally accepted the concept of a two-state solution) but Iran's support for jihadis. Iran does not want an independent secular Arab democracy, but a continuation of an Israel-Palestinian conflict that radicalises Muslims and gives the Islamic Republic and excuse for its existence.

I think the minimum the British government should do is to impose full sanctions on Iran and mobilise the international community against this fascist regime in Tehran. It is time for the Islamic Republic to feel the full force of the stick it has been waving at the rest of the world for the past 26 years.

Dan,

In your eagerness to be an adovate of the Ahwazi cause you seem to lose all perspective. The Iran-Iraq war was initiated by Saddam Hussein with the encouragement and support of the then Carter administration in the US. The excuse may have been the Shatt-al-Arab dispute, but to suggest that the resulting carnage - including the bombing of Tehran with the help of US surveillance imagery - was fair payback from a justifiably agrieved Saddam Hussein, provoked by the ruthless Mullahs into starting an 8-year war loses you all credibility. The invasion of Kuwait was also based on a legitimate border dispute - over the Rumaila oil field which straddled the border between the two countries and from which the Kuwaitis were illegally drawing oil (by drilling diagonally from the Kuwaiti side under the border into the Iraqi side). Kuwaiti provokation was far greater than anything the Iranians did over Shatt-al-Arab. Your argument suggests that Kuwait also deserved to be invaded and was the key culprite in the affair, not Saddam Hussein.

There is indeed good reason to doubt the rants of people like Clive who try to characterise the gassing of the Kurds as an attempt at mass extermination of a civilian population - a story which he and others have concocted for their own political purposes. Halabja was taken by the Iranian forces and then retaken by the Iraqis. In this process, chemical weapons were used in spite of the civilian presence. This is no less of a war crime, but nor is it any different from the attacks on Fallujah, Ramadi and Al-Qaym, all of which included the use of chemical weapons by the US. It is also far from established that the attack was NOT carried out by Saddam's forces. If you read Scott Ritter's new book "Iraq Confidential", you'll see that Iraq did indeed hold stocks of nerve agent (which were destroyed during the mid 1990s under the inspections regime). None of the above is meant to diminish from the horrors suffered by the Kurds in Halabja. The point is that you cannot single Iran out on this basis. The Iraqis (with US support) and the US today (with British support) are guilty of the same if not worse. The common denominator in all this loss of innocent life is the same - The United States of America, not Iran.

"[Iran] continues to occupy islands that are legally part of the UAE, it has funded and organised insurgency in Bahrain, Lebanon and Iraq and terrorism against Israel."

The US and UK continue to occupy Iraq, the US has funded and organised insurgencies in countries across Central and South America, and actively supports Israel which has occupied land in ALL neighbouring countries and continues to occupy the West Bank (incidently, Gaza has never been considered part of Greater Israel, has been a burden for Israeli Prime Ministers since it was occupied and despite the publicised dramatics a few weeks ago, was never a uge sacrifice for Sharon). All these insurgencies and occupations have been far more brutal, destabalising and long alsting than anything attributable to Iran.

Get some perspective. The Ahwazis need and deserve immediate and large scale assistance. But spinning a picture of the region which bears no relation to reality does the situation no favours.

S.

Someone: I speak for myself when I write here, not for any other group. In my mind, the much of the situation in the Middle East - certainly the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and the Iraq War - is the result of badly drawn colonial boundaries following the collapse of the Ottoman empire. Al-Ahwaz/Khuzestan, not Palestine, is pivotal to the future of the Middle East, in terms of democracy, security, stability and human rights.

The Shatt Al-Arab issue, which resulted in the conflicts between Iran and Iraq, is the result of a boundary that disadvantaged Iraq. Iran has great access to the Arabian Gulf all the way to the Staight of Hormuz. But the thalweg principle that divided the Shatt Al-Arab equally between Iran and Iraq was wholly impractical for navigation, particularly around Mohammarah/Khorammshahr where the banks on either side of the river are literally within a stone's throw. It hampered Iraq's economic development and independence, while not really benefitting Iran in any material way. The Al-Faw peninsula, Iraq's only access to the Arabian Gulf, is marshland, making it costly to develop infrastructural links between the the interior and the Arabian Gulf.

Despite the historical injustice, Saddam was forced into signing the 1975 Algiers Accord under pressure from the British, the Americans and their client regime in Tehran. The Iraq invasion of 1980 was an attempt to take advantage of what Saddam believed to be a weak post-revolution Iranian state to claim the Shatt Al-Arab. I don't believe that he ever thought of the consequences and he completely underestimated the strength and determination of the new Iranian government. I think he believed there would be an early bargain and he would withdraw, satisfied that he had won the access Iraq needed. Certainly, the atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq War, the million deaths and Iran's use of children in suicidal "human wave" attacks on the front were not a price worth paying for access to the Arabian Gulf.

The 2003 Iraq War was simply a move to finish off a task they failed to complete in 1991 and install a compliant regime to boost oil supply and control the centre of the Middle East, repeating all the old mistakes that led to the conflicts of the 20th century. The criminals now in charge of Iraq have sold off all the country's resources to foreigners before the constitution was agreed and without any democratic mandate and have willingly backed down from any dispute with Iran or Kuwait over the injustices they have perpetrated against Iraq. And it turns out that the main developer of WMDs and the main sponsor of terrorism was not Saddam but the mullahs in Tehran. Blair won't do anything about it for a very good reason.

The fact is that few in Britain are really willing to acknowledge the reality of the situation: that the British decision to allow Iranian-backed militias to take power in southern and eastern Iraq has backfired as it has given Tehran an immense bargaining power. The British establishment has maintained its stance that stability in the Middle East depends on a strong and centralised Iranian government it can negotiate with. Contrary to Iranian propaganda, the British would rather the Ahwazis did not exist - when a colleague of mine met Jack Straw, the foreign secretary denied the Ahwazis existed at all, which is normally a tactic used by Persian racial supremacists!

The bargain Tehran is seeking is the muzzling of Iranian opposition parties in exile, increased influence in Middle Eastern affairs and the right to develop a nuclear programme without international criticism in return for stability in Iraq, which would give Western powers a quick exit from this terrible quagmire they are bogged down in. Iran's forays in the Western Mediterranean have no historical roots, for Persia/Iran has never had any territorial dispute in that region. The support for jihadis is a strategic move to gain control over Arabs. But really, the future of the Middle East again depends on Iran-Iraq relations, which have been defined by the Basra-Ahwaz border as much as the secular-theocratic ideological divide between the Ba'athists and the Islamic Republic.

What happens in Al-Ahwaz, where a secular and progressive movement is building, is as important as as what happens with the Palestinians. Most support for the Ahwazis comes from the Germans, Spanish and Portuguese, while the British politicians are under the spell of the monarchists and mullahs and are reluctant to show solidarity for grass-roots democratic movements. The British establishment is elitist and only negotiates with elites, not grass-roots movements. Clive has shown his disdain for the Iranian opposition on his blog because he is part of that establishment that wants Iran's rehabilitation in international affairs, no matter the cost to regional and global security, democracy and human rights.

The truth is that the Middle East with its mixtures of very conflicting cultures throughout the ages, and lack of stability has created politically schizophrenic states.

In one sense Israel embodies this. It has launched clumsy and insensitive miltary operations and occupation against Palestinians. On the other hand, it is a democracy, has built up a reputation in research (eg spinal chord) and also has Arab members of the Knesset. You are safer protesting in Tel Aviv i imagine, than Tehran

Palestinians lead wretched lives, yet many come through with great dignity. Israeli military actions - which target terrorists - must be weighed against Palestinian groups that exclusively target civilians. It's also notable that Hamas launched suicide bombings since 1994 - ie the height of the peace process. Indeed suicide bombings have been used to undermine politicians like Rabin, Peres and Barak - all more disposed to Palestinians than Sharon - as if the purpose is to prevent any peace deal from sticking. How is it that Sharon would never have won an election in 1996 is in power now? Suicide bombings are as much a cause of events as a reaction to the situation.

Hizbollah does fire rockets into Israeli towns - so it's wrong to suggest they don't target civilians.

None of this is to justify the wrong policies of expansion and settlements Israel made -nor excuse brutal military tactics. Perhaps we should also ask why Palestinians didn't get their state before the West Bank and Gaza were seized in 1967.

But Israel is not the only country in the Middle East to seize land and occupy. Two hundred miles west Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus, drove out 200,000 Greek-Cypriots and built illegal settlements. Turkey has always claimed this was to protect Turkish Cypriots in response to the Greek-backed coup to take over the island. But in turn Israel might also claim that it seized land because it was about to be attacked by its neighbours. The 'racist' nature of Zionism must also be weighed against the fact Arab states also expelled Jews after 1948. A Palestinian state is aimed at Palestinians - there is nothing particularly racist at that is there? Ditto Israel - but within recognised borders!

Nick: The common assumption of the jihadists and their backers in Damascus (I never really understood why the most secular government in the Middle East would support religious fundamentalists) and Tehran is that the killing of Israeli civilians is justified as they are "occupiers" and the country has a system of national service (everyone is a soldier). There are, however, serious problems with the Israeli state. There is little doubt that it is racist and that Israeli Arabs are second-class citizens. But this is also the case of many minorities in Middle Eastern countries - Bedouin, Tuareg, Saharawi, Assyrians, Turkmen, Kurds, Ahwazis, etc - all of whom have been expelled from their homes, denied the right to be educated in their own languages, etc. In fact, Iran treats its minorities far worse than Israel treats Palestinians - chiefly because the brutal oppression is hidden from the world media and because many in the West do not want to bring attention to ethnic minority issues. But within the Western left at least, the only racists are the "Zionists" and the only oppressed are the Palestinians.

Thanks Dan; the last part of my post was to argue that Zionism itself was not racist, and no different to a Palestinian state prioritising citizenship for descendants of Palestinians.

The Left in Britain is generally silent about other occupations in the world (China/Tibet, Turkey/Cyprus, Indonesia/East Timor (which ended in 1999))compared to Israel/Palestine. I wonder why that is?

Nick: I think the left was quite active on the East Timor issue, largely due to the attention given to the issue by intellectuals such as Chomsky and Pilger. Many in the left need to be prompted by trend-setters before they take note of an issue. I think the motivation behind left-wing analysis of global affairs is the desire to confirm their critiques of their own governments. If they cannot pin the blame for a problem on Western imperialism/capitalism, then the problem tends not to register on their list of priorities. In fact, the left-wing is just as guilty of exploiting the developing world as those it criticises - although this exploitation is in a more benign form. There are, as you point out, many Palestines across the world for which there is little left-wing writing because they do not directly involve Western governments. Darfur is one issue completely neglected, although the atrocities committed there are worse than in Israel/Palestine. The Congo War never got the attention it deserved and up to three million people died directly or indirectly as a result. Why is there no solidarity for the state of Somaliland? Somaliland is a state that has become independent without the need for international or Western approval and whose system of government and economic development is surprisingly successful, given the circumstances. Surely Somaliland should be raised up as an example of how the developing world can live without "Western" institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO? But the left-wing seems not to have noticed because Somaliland does not recruit members like the Palestinian issue. It is a sign of the intellectual poverty of the left.

Nick

“The truth is that the Middle East with its mixtures of very conflicting cultures throughout the ages, and lack of stability has created politically schizophrenic states.”

No, that’s not the truth at all. As Dan indicates, current instability is due to a colonial legacy of artificial borders and despotic regimes. There is a popular myth that Israel-Palestine conflict is due to some deep and ancient enmity between the “sons of Abraham”. This is a smoke screen, an attempt to mystify the conflict and put it beyond the reach of normal moral, legal and political analysis. Yes, the Middle East is full of a wide range of racial and religious groups, as is every other part of the world. But the idea that this has been the cause of an imagined history of conflict is pure fiction. It is Europe where Jews have been systematically persecuted, not the Middle East. In fact, certain periods of the Muslim Empire were regarded as a “Golden Age” of Jewish prosperity and security. Further, the conflict over Israel is not one between long standing indigenous groups, but between a European ideology – Zionism – imported by Ashkenazim (European) Jews into the Middle East. A philosophy which was alien to the Sephardic Jews of the region who had not suffered the persecution meted out to Jews in Europe.

“[Israel] has launched clumsy and insensitive military operations and occupation against Palestinians.”

Invading and occupying neighbouring countries, killing tens of thousands of civilians, bombing UN refugee camps, shooting children dead for throwing stones, firing rockets into crowds of protestors, blowing up cars and houses containing “terrorist suspects” usually killing other family members and bystanders in the process, would usually be called criminal acts of state terror if they were the policy of any other country. But in the case of Israel they are “clumsy and insensitive”. You reveal your belief in another myth - namely that Israel is beyond comparison and cannot be held to the same standards as other nations.

“On the other hand, it is a democracy built up a reputation in research (eg spinal chord) and also has Arab members of the Knesset.”,

It is a founding principle of Israel that the population of non-Jews within its borders is to be carefully controlled in order to ensure a Jewish majority (name me another country in the Middle East with the same ethic policies). To then allow members of a controlled minority to sit in the Knesset is hardly a shining example of democracy. And even if it were, by what logic does repression, murder and ethnic cleansing become acceptable as long as it is voted for in a democratic parliamentary system? Milosevic also had popular support for his actions among Serbs. Please also explain why advances in spinal chord research balance out state terrorism? You’ve lost me.

“Palestinians lead wretched lives.”

Why?

“Israeli military actions - which target terrorists - must be weighed against Palestinian groups that exclusively target civilians. It's also notable that Hamas launched suicide bombings since 1994. Indeed suicide bombings have been used to undermine politicians like Rabin, Peres and Barak - all more disposed to Palestinians than Sharon”

Yet the killing of child protestors and other civilians, systematic torture, imprisonment without trial, extrajudicial killings, collective punishment, home demolition, the taking of land by the State of Israel for the purpose of building settlements populated by armed zealots from London and New York, and the systematic destruction of Palestinian society and economy all predate suicide bombings. The argument that Israeli attacks only target “terrorists” is a lazy and weak one. The killing of tens of thousands of men, women and children has been justified with the same lazy claim. I assume if the Metropolitan Police started firing tank shells and 1000lb bombs at London estates with the claim that flat 23b contained terrorist suspects, your reaction would be the same. Israeli attacks are aimed at the destruction of Palestinian society as a whole. There were also far more support for settements built under Rabin, Perez and Barak than under Sharon. He is only the most brutal of the lot. To read this as meaning that the others were "more disposed to Palestinians" is like debating about who was more partial to Jews, Rudolph Hess or Martin Bormann?

“None of this is to justify the wrong policies of expansion and settlements Israel made -nor excuse brutal military tactics.”

In fact, all the points you've written are popular excuses for Israeli policies, whether you intended to or not.

“Perhaps we should also ask why Palestinians didn't get their state before the West Bank and Gaza were seized in 1967[…]The 'racist' nature of Zionism must also be weighed against the fact Arab states also expelled Jews after 1948. A Palestinian state is aimed at Palestinians - there is nothing particularly racist at that is there?[...] The 'racist' nature of Zionism must also be weighed against the fact Arab states also expelled Jews after 1948”

The call for a “Palestinian State” is a reaction to displacement and ethnic cleansing brought about by the establishment of a Jewish State. Prior to 1948 there was no impetus to define a “Palestinian State” because although violent evictions of Palestinians had occurred at the hands of European settlers, the policy of mass eviction had not yet begun. The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, no less of a crime, was also a populist and brutal reaction to the Zionist expulsion of Palestinians from their lands en masse. The cycle was initiated by the Zionist enterprise. If it wasn't then why were Jews not expelled from Arab countries prior to 1948? To therefore say that Zionism is not racist because Palestinians are also calling for their own state is a false argument. The only other states in history to officially define people's rights on the basis of ethnicity have been uniformly denounced. The reason that people focus on Israel is that its brutal and racist policies are not denounced but publicly supported by powerful Western governments - militarily, politically and economically.

“But Israel is not the only country in the Middle East to seize land and occupy. Two hundred miles west Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus […]”

Turks also massacred more than 1-million Armenians and have systematically persecuted Kurdish nationalists for decades. US and EU support for Turkey is based on the same self-serving reasons as support for Israel. All such support should be withdrawn, and all such crimes should be met with complete, transparent justice, not a selective, Orwellian use of language and lazy misuse of history.

Dan,

Please stop associating me with your pathological hatred of some nebulous group you like to call “the left”. For your own sanity, go and find them, sit them down and tell them how you feel. I’m a Muslim and an Arab. My life has been and continues to be defined by the events in that region. After decades when Palestinians were characterized as crazed terrorists and Israel was presented as their victim, people in the West are finally beginning to see the truth (though there’s clearly a long way to go judging from Nick’s post). This is a good thing. People are also realizing that they are responsible for their governments and that they are no longer willing to allow these governments to commit crimes in their name. They therefore focus their actions on addressing the ills of their own governments’ policies. This is also a good and laudable thing, brought about largely by “the left”. You seem to find this hard to digest. Why?

Yes, there are other issues to be raised, other causes to be championed. But please stop acting like a fan-boy record collector who’s just discovered a new obscure label and therefore looks down on those still listening to passé titles like “Freedom for Palestine” and “No to Western Imperialism”.

S.

"This is also a good and laudable thing, brought about largely by “the left”. You seem to find this hard to digest. Why?"

Because the left are mostly hypocrites. Yes, I have talked to people face-to-face about issues affecting Iran and other states. You know what I have heard from the "anti-imperialists"? These issues do not matter because they do not fit within the confines of their pseudo-Marxist rhetoric - alternatively, within the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, there is a greater sympathy for repressive regimes than the opposition groups that oppose them. This is particularly the case in Iran. I know that within the left in India there is a tendency to actively support the Islamic Republic (which murders Communists), while simultaneously preaching secularism and class politics at home. This situation in the UK is slightly different, largely because of the large Kurdish community in London which is left-leaning. Nevertheless, there is an extreme distrust of those supporting regime change from within - ie revolution - in Iran. I have had left-wing activists from the so-called anti-war movement - in which I once participated - accuse me of being a CIA/MI6 agent and of creating a vanguard for invasion. This is simply because I speak about the human rights and economic justice issues the left avoids. By vilifying opposition groups in Iran, the left (and I include Clive in this broad definition - he has also stated he distrusts the Iranian opposition) is effectively bolstering the power of a fascist regime in Tehran. They are the opposite of what they claim to be against. But I have not associated you with these idiots. What I think is needed is that left and progressive forces recognise that:
1. The territorial borders that define modern nations in the Middle East are the invention of imperialism with no respect for the cultural or political history of the peoples that populate the region.
2. The way to creating freedom, equality and justice in the region is to rectify historical injustices and embrace the principle of self-determination (which would cover the Palestinians, Kurds, Turkmen, etc), human rights and plural democracy.

S,

i take exception to the tone of your e-mai; you state that the world is only now discovering the truth about their victimhood - but then state that there is a long way to go 'judging from Nick's post'. What i said was perfectly balanced - "Palestinian lead wretched lives but come through with grat dignity" is that somehow anti-Palestinian? Yes Israel's operations are cruel and clumsy - again does that undermine Palestinian victimhood? You seem to be trapped in this straitjacket way of thinking that to criticise Palestinian terrorism is somehow to criticise Palestinan suffering. The unwillingness to look at the immorality of suicide bombings of civilian in buses and cafes - or worse to portray such actions as legitimate warfare is equally lazy.

You attribute the explusion of Sephardic Jews by Arab countries (many Sephardic Jews ironically being Jewish Arabs) as due to Zionism. Wasn't the expulsion of these Arabic-speaking Jews Anti-Semitism - especially as they were not especially Zionist? You don't look at this, and just imply it's all to do with the State of Israel. Arab state did not need to expel their Jewish citizens. And, without in any way excusing for a second the explusion of Palestians, Israel has 1 million Arab citizens. How many Arab countries has Jewish citizens or Jewish members of Parliament? Why don't you compare other Middle East countries to the standards which you rightly judge Israel; Syria occupying Lebanon, killing Lebanese leaders, Turkey occupying Cyprus, human rights abuses in Saudi etc

As for Israel controlling its population to ensure a Jewish majority; can Westerners get citizenship in Saudi Arabia or other states in the Middle East? Turkey bans Greek-Cypriots from returning to their villages in Northern Cyprus, whilst populating the territory with settlers from the Turkish mainland. No comment there i notice. Doesn't make Israel right here - but it's not alone as you well know.

To compare politicians like Peres or Barak with Nazis is another lazy argument; Barak offered Palestinians a state - now arguably it wasn't enough - but the Nazis sought to exterminate every Jew they could find, so the parallels are absurd.

Again you seem to follow this train of thought where people must be for Israel or the Palestinians - so that criticising terrorism is somehow pro-Israel or anti-Palestinian. You can be equally condemning of Israel's illegal occupation - but also condemn the orchestration of suicide bombing also. Suicide bombing and terrorism goes directly against the Palestinian cause on two main levels. Firstly it is starting to lose world sympathy - which was very strong throughout the second Intifada, but is in danger of weakening since July 7th. But more damaging is that in its own way it is destroying Palestinian society by making extremism the norm. What then happens is that when such extremism is cultivated it becomes much harder politically for that society to gain normality later on. Even if the extremism is directed externally, it can also turn in on itself.

The inability of Abbas to establish the rule of law in Gaza in turn raises questions as to whether a Palestinian state will develope or collapse into civil war - which would be the cruellest punishment for Palestinians. I do not say this will necessarily happen - but it is a risk. Which is why the sooner a state is established the better.

A mistake you also make is to imply Jews are a 'race': of course this is no more true than calling Muslims a race. I wasn't arguing the case for Zionism - just saying it is probably no different to the policies of neighbouring states. You don't take on the point i raised about the term a Palestinian homeland - presumably citizenship isn't going to be open to Italian nationals. Does that make Palestine 'racist'? Of course not.

Again i will make the point: Palestinian are victims, neglected by history. They are the victims of injustice. What Israel did in occupying in 1967 was wrong. The expulsion of Palestinian before was wrong. But none of this excuses suicide bombings, nor should this prevent us from criticising them as crime; they are part of the problem and not just a reaction to the 'situation'. Equally they do not justify Israeli actions either.

After all - and this reflects on both sides - what are the achievements to show for both occupation and suicide bombings amidst the debris and carnage?

I would like to add to Nick's comment that the Palestinian National Authority - the elected body of the Palestinians - is being undermined by violence from foreign-backed groups. So, there is no contradiction between condemning the suicide attacks launched by groups funded and armed by Syria and Iran and supporting the Palestinian cause, which is overwhelmingly secular and democratic in nature (Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas won two-thirds of the vote on a 70 per cent turn-out).

I wonder, S, what you think of the occupation of Palestinian land by the Jordanians and Egyptians. The Jordanians made similar claims over Palestinian lands as the Israeli settler movement in the West Bank and it was hostile towards the PLO, which threatened the Jordanian monarchy. Would you also condemn Jordan and Egypt (which occupied the Gaza Strip) for their "imperial" intentions and anti-Palestinian stance?

I'd quite like to know S's views on the Sudan where the Arab government has killed over 1 million black Christian and Animist southerners, and now murders non-Arab Muslims in Darfur. Many Middle Eastern states were opposed to a UN resolution criticising Sudan.

Israeli Arab woman can vote - how many other Middle Eastern countries is this freely allowed? Israel may or may not be racists defending on your definition of Zionism (which is not racially-based, as i understand there are black and Asian Jews in Israel). But perhaps it is the least Sexist state in the area?

But Israel is politically a Jekyll/Hyde entity - the dividing line between the entity being the 1967 border

Nick: Contrary to common assumptions, the Janjaweed are comprised of Baggara semi-nomads (Bedouin), who are racially black Africans. It is simplistic to assume that the Dafur conflict is racial. It is a genocide being carried out to reinforce Sudanese sovereignty, which rulers in Khatoum believed was being threatened by local Zaghawa (Bari) rebels. The Zaghawa tribe straddles the Sudan-Chad border, another casualty of arbitrary colonial borders, although the Baggara tribe also lives in territory from the Nile to Lake Chad. The government's fears are heightened by the fact that Idriss Deby, Chad's president, is a Zaghawa and could attempt some sort of extension of Chadian influence into Darfur. The chief difference between them is that the Zaghawa have their own language and have a tradition of settled agriculture while the Baggara are Arabic-speakers (although their racial features are almost identical) and are traditionally nomadic cattle-herders. Both groups are impoverished and politically marginalised - the Baggara and the Zaghawa are both victims of colonialism and the lack of economic development. The ecological problems in the Sahel region have heightened tribal tensions and Khartoum has sought to manipulate this to its advantage. In the end, the Baggara and the Zaghawa will have to work out a solution, with international assistance. It is a shame that the tribes did not unite politically and demand solutions from the government, because they would have had greater chance of long-term sustainable development in the region. However, desperation breeds opportunism. But please, don't see this within the narrow idea that conflicts in Sudan are racial or religious, because they are not - conflict is largely the result of the struggle over economic resources, such as oil, fertile land and water.

I'll ...defer to your obviously greater knowledge of Sudan here.

But i think there is a religous/ethnic dimension fuelled by secular considerations you mention (oil etc).

The Islamic coup in 1989 was the prelude to enforcing sharia law on the non-Muslim south. The south was very nearly anhialated - even the Christians were at war with themselves. Darfur in turn has tied down the Khartoum regime whilst the re-grouped South is consolidating. I'd give Sudan fifteen years before full partition into North, South and West.

Nick: The Southern Sudanese are mostly animist with Christian influences. The problem with the Western analysis of the Sudan conflict is that it has been heavily influenced by Christian fundamentalist missionaries. These Christians are keen to portray all conflicts as a clash of civilisations. In fact, one of the Darfurian rebel groups, Justice and Equality Movement, is Islamist and reportedly aligned to Hassen Al-Turabi, the former parliamentary speaker and former ally of Osama bin Laden. So, the Darfur conflict cannot simply be seen in stark religious or racial divides. It is far more complex.

The North-South divide was partly the result of British imperialism, which prevented those from the South and North travelling to each other's territories. In the 20th century, the British concentrated development around Khartoum, while leaving Southern "savages" to the missionaries.

In the 19th century, the Great Mahdi attempted to unite all Sudanese tribes to prevent this kind of tribalism, but the British stopped him from realising his aims and murdered him. Gaafar Nimeiry's federalist project could have been successful in bringing an end to conflict in Sudan, if he had not introduced Sharia, a form of jurisprudence that empowered the likes of Hassan Al-Turabi and was not fully accepted even in Khartoum.

The British and the Christian missionaries, up to this day, have sought to create religious and racial conflict where none exists. The problem with Sudan is the existence of an authoritarian elite that is failing to redistribute resources and the familiar problem of a post-colonial state that is unable to govern properly. If Sudan had a fully functioning state and if significant parts of the population were not living on the edge of starvation, there would be less conflict. The challenge for the international community is to stabilise Darfur, support the peace process and create long-term economic strategies to alleviate poverty and inequality.

Nick

“What i said was perfectly balanced […] Yes Israel's operations are cruel and clumsy - again does that undermine Palestinian victimhood? You seem to be trapped in this straitjacket way of thinking that to criticise Palestinian terrorism is somehow to criticise Palestinan suffering […] The unwillingness to look at the immorality of suicide bombings of civilian in buses and cafes - or worse to portray such actions as legitimate warfare is equally lazy.”

You say that your comments were perfectly balanced. There are two problems with this

a) The conflict, burden of responsibility, levels of casualties, and each group’s power and external support are not. By neglecting to recognize these facts you present this issue in a way which is unjustifiably lenient on the Israelis and unjust to Palestinians. This “moral equivalence” lens is yet another myth perpetuated in the western media and spouted from the mouths of cowardly politicians. It has no basis in reality. Moral equivalence in this case is moral cowardice.

b) You do not speak in a balanced way. Palestinian suicide bombings are a “crime” while Israeli repression, murder, torture and ethnic cleansing is “clumsy, insensitive” and even “cruel” but appears yet to have reached the status of a “crime”. In your selectivity you go against Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem (Israeli human rights organization) which are unanimous in their description of routine Israeli policy towards Palestinians as crimes against humanity, without equivocation or caveat.

You seem to believe that the issue revolves around suicide bombs, and that if only these would stop then Israel wouldn’t have to be so “clumsy, insensitive” and “cruel”. As I mentioned in my previous reply, the expulsions, mass imprisonment and torture, murder, mass killing, home demolitions and other forms of collective repression pre-date the advent of suicide bombs.

You speak as if the issue is to condemn or advocate suicide bombings. Okay, I condemn them. Now what? Are we any closer to addressing why they happen? What’s behind them? Dan’s opportunistic linking of suicide bombing with foreign influences doesn’t address the issue either. Foreign powers that claim support for Palestinians are parasites looking to win domestic favour, they are not drivers of Palestinian actions. Hamas, the most prolific organizers of suicide bombings, are a purely Palestinian group with an entirely Palestinian leadership, all of whom grew up in the occupied territories. This is not some insidious external influence.

The question that polite society won’t address is what pushes people to the point where they are willing to kill themselves and others around them? The first female suicide bomber was a paramedic. Aren’t you even curious as to why someone who trained to save lives might be driven to take them so indiscriminately? Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, murdered leader of Hamas, was a pediatrician in Gaza for many years before Hamas or suicide bombs were every heard of. Other notable leaders of Hamas worked as doctors in the occupied territories, seeing every day the human cost of Israeli “clumsiness”. You seem very willing to propose reasons for Israel’s policies (regardless of chronology). Aren’t you even curious about what could traumatize and radicalize an entire society to the point where they adopt such a cult of suicide?

“You attribute the explusion of Sephardic Jews by Arab countries (many Sephardic Jews ironically being Jewish Arabs) as due to Zionism. Wasn't the expulsion of these Arabic-speaking Jews Anti-Semitism - especially as they were not especially Zionist? You don't look at this, and just imply it's all to do with the State of Israel.”

I don’t imply it, I state it openly. As I mentioned in my previous reply, the expulsion of Jewish communities from Arabic countries was an opportunistic step taken by despotic Arab leaders to curry favour with their populations who were angry at the mass killing and expulsion of Palestinians while the world looked on indifferently. It was indeed an unjustifiable crime, but again, if it were based on some long-standing anti-Semitism why didn’t it happen before 1948?

“Israel has 1 million Arab citizens.”

1 million Arab citizens who’s numbers are controlled as a matter of national law so that they remain a minority. They are tolerated as a fig-leaf and face restrictions on where they may live and buy property in order to maintain the dominance of Jewish communities in politically sensitive areas. I fail to see the positive aspects you seem to be lauding.

“How many Arab countries has Jewish citizens or Jewish members of Parliament?”

Not many, but nor are there national laws which control Jewish presence in Arabic countries. Also, since the survival of Israel depends on a continued flow of Jews out of other countries and into Israel, the diminishing number of Jewish communities in Arab countries is something which is presumably welcomed by any good Zionist.

“Why don't you compare other Middle East countries to the standards which you rightly judge Israel; Syria occupying Lebanon, killing Lebanese leaders, Turkey occupying Cyprus, human rights abuses in Saudi etc”

Who told you that I don’t? Is this really your argument? That before speaking about Israel I should produce a list of other regimes I find objectionable? With all the regimes you’ve mentioned (except Turkey, an increasingly important ally of the US and UK and therefore beyond any serious reproach) there are few popular illusions regarding human rights abuses. In the case of Israel, western public opinion is almost entirely characterized by convenient popular myths that place Israel in the role of constant victim, supported by an ever present misuse of both the Nazi holocaust and accusations of “anti-Semitism” as a means of deflecting criticism of Zionist ideology and Israeli barbarism.

“As for Israel controlling its population to ensure a Jewish majority; can Westerners get citizenship in Saudi Arabia”

I as a Muslim Arab can’t get citizenship in Saudi even if I marry a Saudi woman. But the two are not comparable. Saudi Arabia is based on a tribal system and the royal family keeps its power through patronage to other tribes. Since I’m not a member of any tribe within the Kingdom, I can never be a citizen. Not good. But notably, this state of affairs was not reached by the mass expulsion of one people, and the engineering of the national ethnic demography by laws which state that anyone in any part of the world who claims to be Jewish can claim land and citizenship in Israel, but refugees who were brutally expelled and still have the keys to their front doors can never return because they are Palestinians, not Jews.

“To compare politicians like Peres or Barak with Nazis is another lazy argument; Barak offered Palestinians a state - now arguably it wasn't enough - but the Nazis sought to exterminate every Jew they could find, so the parallels are absurd.”

Barak offered Palestinians no such thing. He, like Rabin before him and Sharon now, offered Palestinians surrender under Israeli terms. Nothing else. The parallel is accurate. All Nazi leaders wanted Europe cleansed of Jews. Not all agreed that extermination was the best means but all agreed with the aim. All Israeli Prime Ministers since Ben Gurion have publicly expressed the need to expand Israel to its biblical “Eretz Israel” borders (covering all of the West Bank, Southern Lebanon, Sinai, Jordan and the Golan Heights (Syria) – Gaza was never part of this plan) and the need to either expel the Palestinians completely or crush those who remain into subdued, controlled enclaves. Some have been more brutal than others, and there has been some limited disagreement regarding the means, but the aim remains unchanged.

“Suicide bombing and terrorism goes directly against the Palestinian cause on two main levels. Firstly it is starting to lose world sympathy - which was very strong throughout the second Intifada, but is in danger of weakening since July 7th.”

The world has long ago abandoned the Palestinians to their own fate. I doubt that those who conduct suicide attacks care whether their actions are likely to cause offense in London.

“But more damaging is that in its own way it is destroying Palestinian society by making extremism the norm.”

No, it is the result of a destroyed society (destroyed by whom?), not the cause.

“The inability of Abbas to establish the rule of law in Gaza in turn raises questions as to whether a Palestinian state will develop or collapse into civil war - which would be the cruellest punishment for Palestinians.”

Abbas, like Arafat before him, is being used by Israel to suppress Palestinian society by proxy and to oversee the surrender of the Palestinians. This is the crux of the Oslo and Camp David agreements and Blair’s shameless and self-serving new “Road Map” to surrender. Abbas is part of the same corrupt, thieving organization that sold the Palestinian Right of Return in 1991 in return for statesman-like titles and the trappings of statehood. Yes, Palestinians voted for him en masse, but what choice did they have? They played the only political game offered to them. But on the streets, the support is still for Hamas.

“A mistake you also make is to imply Jews are a 'race': of course this is no more true than calling Muslims a race. I wasn't arguing the case for Zionism - just saying it is probably no different to the policies of neighbouring states. You don't take on the point i raised about the term a Palestinian homeland - presumably citizenship isn't going to be open to Italian nationals. Does that make Palestine 'racist'? Of course not.”
Racial supremacy is defined by its proponents, not on the basis of some scientific classification of race. The concept of “race” itself is a pseudoscientific jumble in the same category as Eugenics. The definition usually only makes sense in the racist’s mind. See Hindu supremacists in India, modern Neo-Nazi groups in Europe and the US (one must not only be “white” but Anglo-Saxon and Protestant to fit the bill) Jewish communities do indeed define themselves racially as well as culturally.

Incidentally, Israeli culture (and government policy) is racist even amongst Jews, preferring European Ashkenazim to Sephardic or African Jews. This is why the authorities are importing East Europeans and Russians with little or no identifiable Jewish heritage by the plane load, ahead of Orthodox Jewish families from Ethiopia and Sudan. Racial demography is everything – Jews ahead of Arabs, Europeans ahead of all others.

Dan

“I wonder, S, what you think of the occupation of Palestinian land by the Jordanians and Egyptians.”

See above comments regarding opportunistic Arab despots and the differences between public awareness and western support for Egyptian/Syrian/Jordanian human rights abuses and those of Israel.

Nick,

“I'd quite like to know S's views on the Sudan where the Arab government has killed over 1 million black Christian and Animist southerners, and now murders non-Arab Muslims in Darfur. Many Middle Eastern states were opposed to a UN resolution criticising Sudan.”

What do you expect my answer to be? “Lovely job, come on you Janjaweeds!” Do I need to sign a statement of opposition to human rights abuses committed by Arabs and Muslims? Why do you assume that being an Arab and a Muslim means that I will defend these actions?

“Israeli Arab woman can vote”

See comments above regarding racist demographic controls to understand the value of an Arab vote in Israel.

S.

'According to defense officials, the Israel Defense Forces made use of the 'human shield' procedure on 1,200 occasions over the last five years'
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3154142,00.html

Someone: Firstly, Hamas does receive funding from Iran, although not as much as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which has training camps in Iran.

"Abbas, like Arafat before him, is being used by Israel to suppress Palestinian society by proxy and to oversee the surrender of the Palestinians."

Frankly, I think you are insulting the Palestinians. Fatah has led the Palestinian struggle and the PLO. Like Arafat, Abbas won the election for the presidency of the PNA by popular vote. If you are accusing Fatah and Abbas of surrendering, you are accusing most Palestinians of surrendering. What would you rather have? Perpetual war? Note also that Iran declared the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a victory for Palestinians, but this actually occurred after Abbas' election.

Hindu supremacists do not define themselves by race, by the way, as there are many Hindus in Nepal and southeast Asia and Indians themselves are different races, broadly Aryans and Dravidians. Hindu nationalism uniquely believes in conversion to Hinduism and the BJP introduced the concept of dual citizenship (thanks to Hindu nationalists, the Indian government has registered me as a Person of Indian Origin!). In contrast, Zionism does not require one to believe in Judaism to be a member of the Jewish nation (the fastest growing religion in Israel is the Russian Orthodox Church, due to the influx of Russian "Jews"!). My cousin is the president of a synagogue and does not believe in God, such is the strong secular tendency within Jewish identity.

Dan

"Firstly, Hamas does receive funding from Iran, although not as much as the Lebanese Hezbollah, which has training camps in Iran."

And if they are, what of it? Are you suggesting that Iran is driving a Sunni Arab resistance? If Iran is providing funds then this is nothing more than a populist exercise to try and latch themselves to the Palestinian struggle in the same way that Saddam did by allocating money for the families of suicide bombers. It doesn't drive Palestinian action. No Palestinian leader takes orders from Tehran.

"If you are accusing Fatah and Abbas of surrendering, you are accusing most Palestinians of surrendering"

Palestinians have clearly not surrendered, neither in the territories nor in the Diaspora. Abbas has. If Abbas is truely such a popular leader, why does he command absolutely no authority among Palestinian society? If Arafat, Abbas and the PNA represented the interests of Palestinians, why did they give up the Right of Return without receiving any concessions from the Israelis? On what basis did they sign away the rights of millions of Palestinians to return to their homes? The PNA was and continues to be a notoriously corrupt organisation, filled with craven seekers after personal titles.

I think its you who insults the intelligence of Palestinian society by assuming that they voted for Abbas because of some allegiance to him or the PNA. People voted for Abbas in the vain hope that this might lead to an easing of Sharon's brutal policies, since Sharon and Bush had already named Abbas as their choice for leader of the PNA. What would be the point of voting for Hamas? This would only bring down more violence from the Israelis. They voted for Abbas because there was nobody else to vote for. In the end, he sold them down the river just as easily as Arafat.

As for the withdrawal of Gaza, this was something that has been proposed by every Israeli Prime Minister since the land was occupied in 1967. Resistence there was so fierce that it was regarded as being too costly to hold. But pressure from right wingers prevented this. Sharon, always a pragmatic man, was the only one with the front to push for a withdrawal, but only because, in the words of one of his ministers, it would be a key step in preventing the establishment of a Palestinian State. Gaza was of no use to Israel. By giving it up they could claim to be making a painful sacrifice for peace, while they continue to build on the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In the mean time they continue to terrorise Gaza from the air and provoke further Palestinian attacks. The resulting picture is simple - "we withdrew our settlers, weeping and wailing, from Gaza, giving the land to these savages and look, they still attack us! How can anyone still speak of a Palestinian State after this?".

Your determination to shoe-horn Iran in to every discussion is truely amazing by the way.

"What would you rather have? Perpetual war?".

No, simple justice will do. But this has nothing to do with what I want. You can't speak about the will of the Palestinian people in electing Abbas with one breath, and then deny their right to continue fighting the injustice they face with the other. You, like Nick, seem to take the line that the violence is driven by Palestinian actions.

The details of Hindu supremacist ideology are irrelavent. The point is that supremacists choose a deliniation and decide who falls within and outside it. The same is true of Zionists. The delineation may be complex and involve aspects of religion, culture, race, anything and everything. If there is no such delineation, what's the founding logic of a "Jewish State"? Why should you or anyone else care if people deny the right of existance to a state which, according to your logic, has no specific constituents. Following your logic, there is no such thing as a Jew because the term can't be bounded entirely in terms of race or religion. You seem to be arguing that something which clearly exists in practice - i.e. Jewish seperatism and supremacy as enshrined in the ideology of Zionism - doesn't exist in principle.

Zionism has always been a primarily secular ideology. Israel was always set up as a secular entity. As was the Nazi party. What's your point?

"the fastest growing religion in Israel is the Russian Orthodox Church"

See my points above about the preference of Zionist leaders for Euroean culture and racial characteristics, even to the extent of importing non-Jewish Russians and East Europeans to keep the racial demographics right when the flows of European jews started to dry up.

S.

"If Abbas is truely such a popular leader, why does he command absolutely no authority among Palestinian society?"
You are you to decide this? There was a democratic vote that most Palestinians participated in and it gave Abbas - with his agenda of negotiation, in contrast to Barghouti, who came a distant second - a clear mandate. So, on what basis do you say he has no authority? It is true that it is difficult to exercise power when foreign-financed groups who refuse to test their popularity in elections continue to wage a violent campaign - violence that is also directed against those Palestinians who advocate a secular state.

"Your determination to shoe-horn Iran in to every discussion is truely amazing by the way."
I find it amazing that no-one really wants to talk about the threat that fascist state poses to the Middle East and that the only issue that ever matters is the Palestinians.

Don't get me wrong, I do have problems with Zionism. Jews are clearly not a race, but neither are they a religion. I think that the way Israel was allowed to develop was flawed and disastrous. But the fact is that Israel now exists and that the people that gained citizenship of Israel are not going to go. The way to move forward is not, as the jihadis and Iranians desire, the destruction of Israel. The only solution to this problem is a two-state solution, with Israel guaranteed security in return for a complete withdrawal to 1967 boundaries and the closure of illegal settlements - as demanded by the UN, but never enforced. Perhaps this is not as far as you want it to go, but I think that if this can be achieved with the full support of the Arab League and the UN, it would at least give Palestinians some pride, dignity and self-determination. A successful and peaceful Palestinian nation would not only assure Israelis of security, but could stimulate the ailing Israeli economy, prompting moves towards some sort of formal economic integration between two governments, rather than Israel's current domination and exclusion of Palestinians. I also think that the reform of the Israeli political system is necessary for peace and stability, with electoral reform to prevent far-right Zionists from having a veto over the peace process. Most Israelis regard settlers as freaks anyway.

S, you say much yet you don't engage any of the points raised.

The racism/discrimination of countries in the Middle East is very well-known. How many churches can be built in Saudi Arabia? What happens if you change religion there, how many minorities have been executed following bogus charges?

You use the definition of Israeli Law of Return citizenship as the sole definition of discrimination in order to assert that Israel is somehow the most uniquely racist/disciminatory. Yet the total lack of rights for non-Muslims in the Middle East (or, rather the total lack of any democratic values) means that this assertion is wrong.

Saudi Arabia's policies for example could be held to ensure that non-Muslims never form any subtantial population, for example. Would you not agree that this is at least as disriminatory as Israel's Law of Return?\

You sidestep the comparison i made with Israel having 1 million Arab citizens, and Arab members of the Knesset, and the fact Arab states totally expelled their Jewish minorities (who were ironically Arab ethnically). You say that, 'at least' they don't have laws controlling Jewish prescene. Well they threw Jews out, and i believe Saudi Arabia bars Jews entering the country - what do you say to that? So the idea that Arab countries don't practice disrimination in the same way as Israel is just wrong.
And you don't comment on the fact that Israeli Arabs can vote freely, can voice their opinions freely, go to university and serve in the Knesset.

If all of Israel was intent on Palestinian destruction - why did it not expel Arab citizens after 1948? Israeli Arabs are living within the 1949 borders. Did the Nazis allow Jews the vote by the way? Your comparison with Nazis is typical cliched drivel.

No the foundation of Israel did not justify these explusions of Jews from Arab lands - and to say Israel 'caused' this is to attribute a crime to someone else. It is like an illegal Israeli settlers killing a Palestinian and blaming it on Hitler.

You say, in respect of the Camp David offer of a state, that BArak offered Arafat 'no such thing'. Really? Are you saying no state at all was offered? You may interpret it as 'surrender' - but at least be accurate over the facts - though i agree with Palestinans that the amount of land was not enough.

Sephardic Jews do complain they lose out to Ashkenazim - but whether this is outrightly racist, or whether this is because of a cultural difference within a state founded by Ashkenzim is open to debate. And if you think Israel was racist to Sephardic Jews, then again i ask you what you make of the Arab counntries who drove them out. At least Israel housed its Sephardic refugees, who now are intergrated into Israeli soceity. Why did Arab countries not build houses for Palestinian refugees?

The issue of suicide bombing is destructive to Palestinian society - and i make no apology for asserting this. Arguably it is what strengthens the hand of reactionaries in the US and Israel. Surely Palestinian life was better pre-Intifada than now? And it is a part of the problem and not just a reaction to it. The fact you ignore this, and just use the vague ethereal term of 'Israeli destruction of society' in turn shows an underestimating of the consequences of suicide bombings and its motives. Are you saying that suicide bomb groups are cpmmitted by youths who are desparate for a two-state solution?
Hamas certainly isn't - so yes, these actions are a cause of the problem as much as Israeli occupation. I condemn both equally. It is a pity you cannot do so.

So Israel is not the only discriminatory country in the Middle East. It is a schizophrenic country; on the one hand democratic giving rights to minorities ahead of any comparable example in the Middle East, yet on the other oppressing Palestinians, destroying homes and killing many innocents. Democratic on one side of the 1967 border, miltaristic on the other.

So what do you propose then? I agree with the two state solution, as near as it can to the 1967 border. But i also agree that EU aid to the West Bank should be tied to genuine attempts to disrarm the bombers; aid should until then take infrstructural form (giving real goods rather than money that can be stolen by officials). If you agree that all Palestinians should be allowed to return to Israel, then in turn would it be wrong for a similar insistance for Sephardic Jews expelled from Arab countries? You seem to imply that any acceptance of any deal by Abbas or Arafat must be wrong - but what exactly do you think is the way forward? Are yo u against the two state solution. Israel is a reality, but so must be Palestine. Otherwise it is like Greece refusing to recognise Turkish sovreignty because of the theft of land by the Ottoman Empire.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: