“Starting your clock” on Israel’s history

33
557

In any discussion of the morality of Israel’s conduct, it is immaterial when you “start your clock” on the history of the Zionist state.

Where you “start your clock” might have some relevancy if the state of Israel had been established in Germany or elsewhere in Europe (Zionists considered Argentina, Uganda and Australia as possibilities for a Jewish state before settling on Palestine) but why would anyone expect Palestinians to pay the price for European anti-Semitism?

The implication that somehow Israel’s brutal oppression of Palestinians can be excused or understood or explained away in light of the Nazi Holocaust can only be based on lazy racism or a superficial cherry-picking of history.

And there is the problem. Palestinians are invisible in Chris Trotter’s “Birth of Israel” piece and yet from the Palestinian point of view oppression is oppression and race-hatred by the Israeli leadership, in words and deeds, is race-hatred.

Trotter also appears confused about the rights and wrongs of the establishment of Israel when he talks about Israel’s “…foundational sins – if sins they be…”. Try explaining that to the Palestinian survivors of the Deir Yassin massacre or the dozens of other massacres carried out by Israeli militia groups in 1948 or try telling it to the refugees denied the right of return to their land and homes in Israel as required by UN resolutions passed every year since 1949 – with the support of successive New Zealand governments.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

It’s an important piece of history to remember that allowing the return of refugees was one of the conditions set for Israel being accepted as a member of the United Nations in 1949. Needless to say, Israel has ignored this for over 70 years.

It’s also important to remember that most European Jews fleeing the Holocaust did NOT go to Israel. They either stayed in Europe or went to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. Even now more Jews live outside Israel than in.

And while it is true that support for a separate Jewish state gathered strength amongst Jews in the late 1940s because of the Holocaust, this was NOT the reason the United Nations proposed the partition of the Middle East in 1947 into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state.

The simple reason Israel exists is because the imperial powers, Britain and the US wanted to establish a secure base in the oil-rich Middle East. The Zionist cause provided the opportunity.

As far back as 1907 the British Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman expressed the “problem” of the Arab world for imperial Britain this way:

There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were cradles of human civilisations and religions, These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another…..If perchance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.”

Bannerman’s solution was for Britain to establish an imperial outpost in the Middle East and so Britain hitched its imperial wagon to Zionism. Winston Churchill put it like this

“…a Jewish state under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four million Jews….would from every point of view be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire”

And so today we have the strongest supporters of Israel being political groupings which are steeped in anti-Semitism – the Republican Party in the US and the Conservatives in Britain.

And so Britain, Europe and the US in particular supported the Zionist project, not because they were worried about anti-Semitism or the persecution of Jews but because it would enable western interests to gain control of Arab oil.

The US itself doesn’t need Arab oil, but it does want control of the flow of that oil to its NATO allies in Europe.

That also means endless strategies to divide the Arab world along religious, ethnic and national lines to prevent Arab unity. Any Arab leaders to challenge imperial interests (eg Egypt’s Nasser, or Iran’s Mossadegh) have been driven from power and replaced with puppet regimes. In all these machinations Israel has taken on the key role of the west’s “enforcer” in the Middle East.

In the meantime it’s important for progressive people around the world to support the Palestinian struggle. It took 40 years for the international community, despite opposition from most governments, to defeat apartheid in South Africa. Israeli apartheid has been going for 70 years but it will be defeated just the same.

Just as it was with South Africa, BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against the brutally racist Israeli state is the way forward.

33 COMMENTS

  1. Well put John.

    Chris Trotter’s piece can only be seen as pro Israeli State and Military. He got huffy about me calling it “reactionary”! Good grief, when you have supported the Palestinian cause all your adult life, patience can wear thin when someone on a left blog effectively makes excuses for Zionism.

    “Anti Semitism a crime–Anti Zionism a duty!”

    • There you go expressing your hurt feelings again. The fact is that there has been no consequences for Israel making the possibility of a one-state-solution a reality. There’s been almost no pressure complicit with the total lack of reconstruction.

      Although it’s easy to criticise fake prisons we shouldn’t lose sight of the big picture. Gazza is an open air prison to 2 million people more than half children. Egypt is also a factor. Since the military coup 8 years ago the military industrial complex has rolled out the red carpet for Egypt. Egypt is able to purchase both Russian and US military technology to secure the Suez Channel and the tunnels to Palestine is being filled in from the Egyptian side and there is no accountability for those crimes and there’s no surprise Israel and Egypt are aligned. The consequences for those in Gazza is despair.

      As there has been no reconstruction in Gazza it makes fertile ground for ISIS groups claiming they can get rid of Hammas. Israel has so much impunity to take land it guarantees that there will be no peace in Palastine. The point is the rest of the world is treating Palestinian resistance towards the sins of Israel as illegal and illegitimate.

      Why not provide Palestinians with accurate weapons so they can hit Israeli military targets? It’s seems absurd to place Palestinians in a completely different category from those others who have a right to exist like Isrsel, like the French Resistance, like Veitnam. So the fact that New Zealand actually considers Hammas to be a terrorist group is wrong. I think to label Palestinians as terrorist so we can buy cheap military gadgets to be a real ethical problem.

      Now that there is a long history of labelling any form of resistance as terrorism should not justify every action taken by a state. The point is when resistance to occupation is treated as terrorism and the occupiers are greeted in the fancier parts of Sky City we send a moral message that occupation and apartheid is okay. That is truly an okay hand gesture.

    • Calm down Tiger Mountain. Saying that Chris Trotter’s piece is pro Israeli State and Military is a but OTT.

      As far as I could tell his article was trying to get us to engage with the perceptions that support Israel’s existence. Some might view that as being apologist int tone but understanding the background and the thoughts of people at the time is hardly a (thought) crime.

      Disclaimer: Obviously the government of Israel is every bit as immoral as every other government that has been actively engaged in colonialism (including past NZ governments).

      • The Jerusalem Post stated “Anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism, France’s National Assembly determined on Tuesday, voting on a resolution calling on the government to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

        Which is surprising because the IHRA does not say that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism.

        However US Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating antisemitism Elan Carr also made the same claim when speaking to the 2019 Israeli American Council (IAC) National Summit.

        So there is clearly a deliberate campaign to claim that the IHRA definition equate anti-Zionism as antisemitism.

        • Nope. People with a narrow imagination for war and a giant hope for utilitarianism often think of war is this quick, easily won victory. War is anything but. If one side lacks the imagination for wicked things, they lose.

  2. I suppose I should let him speak for himself if he can be bothered , but I’m quite sure that Chris does’t have any different view of the rights and wrongs of the Israeli Palestine mess than either John or Tiger. He is simply making an observation of how the world leaders are addressing it. With blinkers and cowardice as they all pay homage to the big bully .
    You’r all on the same side.
    D J S

  3. Few would argue that the losers of the story of Palestine-Israel are the Palestinians. My post acknowledges this explicitly (albeit with considerably less shroud-waving).

    The weakness of John’s piece is, of course, that it focuses solely on the experiences of one side of the conflict. That, and an utter failure to understand the world historical significance of the Holocaust.

    If peace and reconciliation is, indeed, your purpose, then understanding must also be extended to the people who, in this instance, stand on the winning side. Candidly, however, I do not believe peace and reconciliation to be the name of John’s game.

    The most succinct summation of John’s (and, I suspect Tiger’s) argument would be:

    “From the River, to the Sea, Palestine will be free!”

    A tragic slogan. Rather than be erased from history a second time, Israel will turn the Holy Land into a radioactive desert that no one will be able to inhabit for 1,000 years.

    How’s that for re-starting the clock!

    • That’s funny. It’s the Iranians who are threatening to turn it into a nuclear wasteland, not the Israelis. There is no apartheid in Israel. I know this because I have lived under the system in South Africa and I have been to Israel. Israelis are not racists, either. They are the world’s biggest victims of racism AND terrorism. Antisemitism, as embodied by the contributors to this site, wants all jews gone..genocide. Antizionism wants Israel gone..genocide. The end aim of both is the same.

      • I thought Iran had condemned the use or manufacture of nuclear weapons by anybody.
        Even if you don’t believe them as the US MSM would have you disbelieve, their stated position doesn’t allow for a stated threat by them to use them on anyone. You might believe they would use them, but the claim they are threatening to do so requires a reference.
        D J S

        • An all too true dismissal of the claim by Israel of some nuclear threat, which is really about applying sanctions on Iran (as on Iraq) and having a threat of regime change hanging over them as per 2003 on Iraq.

      • Amazing how you have been brain washed Gaby. If you are a Palestinian living in Israel and you have not done military service then you are a second class citizen, with many laws discriminating against you. Of course Palestinians are not permitted to do military service for Israel. Look at the education money and the health care spent on the two groups, they are vastly different.

        • Palestinians do not do military service in Israel because they are not Israeli citizens. They are under the authority of the PA. Israel/Arab citizens, on the other hand, are not coerced to do military service, but many opt to, especially Druze and Bedouin. iF i’m ‘brainwashed’, you’re downright confused!

    • Kia ora Chris,
      It’s hard to know where you stand on the issue because you are unsure if any “sins” were committed by Israel during its ethnic cleansing operation to create a majority Jewish state in the Middle East.
      Instead you seem to be saying the winner deserves the spoils of “victory” and Palestinians should just suck it up as each day more of them are murdered by Israeli snipers, more families are forcerd off their land and their homes bulldozed to make way for Jewish-only settlements.
      At the end of the Second World War the world began moving away from such barbarism and towards an international order where human rights are important, international law begins to hold some sway and UN resolutions generally point in the right direction for humanity.
      My position is not a slogan – it’s based on the hard, cold reality of Israeli military might actively supported by the US and the brutal consequences this has for Palestinians. In this situation there is no point calling for negotiations because all the cards are held by Israel and Palestinians have only justice and the majority of humanity on their side. This counts for little in terms of negotiating strength with a nuclear power actively backed and supported by the biggest superpower on the planet – the US.
      The strategy therefore is to utilise the power of the mass of humaity to pressure their governments and corporations to Boycott, Divest and apply Sanctions against Israel – BDS – until it abides by international law and United Nations resolutions. This is precisely what the latest United Nations report from their Special Envoy to Palestine, Michael Lynk, has proposed. It’s what New Zealadn needs to do.
      The very strength of the BDS movement is evident in the near hysteria with which Israel and the US rail against it and it is becoming more effective year by year. So just as communities around the world pressured their government’s to implement sanctions against South Africa – so we can do the same with Israel.
      My personal view is that the “two-state solution” is buried under illegal Israeli settlements and the way forward is for the establishment of a single secular, democratic state where human rights are the rights of all religious and ethnic groups are protected under a democratic constitution.

      • Not necessarily.

        The optimum, and certainly still attainable, is for the two parties to accept the 1949-67 borders – yet not be so fixed upon “separation”. There is no reason why there cannot be Jewish settlements/settlers on the West Bank (they can choose either Israeli or Palestinian citizenship), just as there are Arab Israelis (who might prefer a Palestinian passport if it did not interfere with there right of residence within Israel).

        For this to occur, Israel would have to provide compensation for occupied West Bank land. And with a peace settlement there would have to be economic harmonisation – involving access to work within Israel for Palestinian citizens. An annual quota system whereby descendants of the 1948 refugees were allowed residence in Israel when they obtained work there (albeit with Palestinian passports) might address some of Nakba in a way non threatening to the Jewish identity.

      • John, my throwaway line – “if sins they be” – was an admittedly clumsy reference to the Israelis’ response to the concerted attack upon their fledgling state by their Arab neighbours in 1948. Much is permitted, even in international law and the UN Charter, in the name of self-defence.

        The crux of the Israel/Palestine problem, it has always seemed to me, is that underpinning the ultimate objectives of both sides is a secret hope that it will, somehow, be possible to ethnically cleanse the territory of their enemy.

        Certainly, it is extremely difficult to avoid arriving at this conclusion when analysing the actions of the Israeli victors over the course of the past 70 years. The Zionist leader (and admirer of Mussolini) Vladimir Jabotinsky was firmly of the view that the Palestinian Arabs had to be kept behind the “Iron Wall” of Jewish colonialism.

        Understanding this urge to ethnically cleanse Israel/Palestine is extremely difficult if you do not start your explanatory clock in the 1930s. Both sides were, after all, fundamentally influenced in formulating their ultimate objectives by their respective relationships with the Nazis and Nazism.

        It was Nietzsche who warned: “Have a care when fighting monsters, lest ye become a monster yourself.” Nowhere is the truth of his words borne out more strongly than in Israel/Palestine.

        • Chris , re your comment. ” ultimate objectives of both sides is a secret hope that it will, somehow, be possible to ethnically cleanse the territory of their enemy”
          “Secret hope”?
          Chris, have you read any writings by Palestinians, any of their poetry, their stories,.. their dreams and their hopes?
          It’s an axiom of Israel-defenders that Palestinians aren’t allowed to speak for themselves. Yet Palestinians, who value education highly by the way, are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, and always have been.
          A few examples:
          Mahmoud Darwish, “I wish I could be a candle to light away the darkness”.
          More from Darwish, ” We Palestinians suffer from an incurable disease called “hope”. Hope for liberation and independence. Hope for a normal life where we shall be neither heroes nor victims. Hope to see our children go to school without danger. Hope for a pregnant woman to give birth to a living baby, in a hospital, and not to a dead child in front of a military control post. Hope that our poets will see the beauty of the colour red in roses, rather than in blood. Hope that this land will recover its original name: “land of hope and peace.”

          Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish “We need to have an accurate diagnosis. Palestinians are occupied. The Israelis are the occupier. Palestinians are the weak. Israelis are the strong. Palestinians are the oppressed. Israelis are the oppressor. But in order to get rid of this oppression and occupation, all should be free in order to live together. ”

          Samah Sabawi: Palestinian are asking the world to support their aspiration to co-exist with Israeli-Jewish people as equals on their ancestral land. They want an ethical decolonlzation and a reconciliation that is based on justice and equal human dignity for all.

          Raji Souhani, Human Rights Lawyer:
          “Two States , one State, or no State: the Palestinian people exist and their humanity -their human rights -must be recognised. This is our dream. We are not fueled by outrageous demands. Dignity, equality, humanity: these are the cornerstones of human rights and international law. Are these demands so unreasonable? “

          • As usual, Lois, with your incomparably emotional style, you have turned the Arab/israeli conflict squarely on its head. The Israelis are the victims here, the Arabs the oppressors. They could have had their own state 8 times but have only their culture of death, terror, religious and racial intolerance to blame for their plight. ‘Useful idiots’ like you prolong the conflict by buying into the Arabs’ narrative of victimhood. Maybe some Israeli children draw pictures and write poignant poems about what its like to live under a constant barrage of rockets aimed at innocent civilians? But you have no compassion for them, do you?

  4. As to starting the clock – it began with next year in Jerusalem, then the migration of the Redeemers of Zion from the Pale, then the gathering at Basel in 1897 (the western Jews determined on support for the Redeemers of Zion) and subsequent influence of the empire of the day (British) for the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations then followed – this was inherited by the UN in 1945 leading to the Partition Plan and vote in 1947.

    That form of fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration was chosen because Palestinians opposed (unlimited) migration of Jews into Palestine – something only a Jewish majority state homeland would be comfortable with. The UN presumably made that decision because of the holocaust, ironically the UK abstained – yet the decision was made in part because of its White Paper (in force 1939-1947) which blocked access to Palestine when need for a Jewish homeland refuge was at its highest.

    In that context I will note the irony of American hard-line support for Israel while betraying the Kurds of Turkey and Syria to persecution by a NATO ally. The demonstrable bias by the American administration – in so far as its duty to defend the collective security of all nations (UNSC permanent member and veto holder, even while with-holding its membership dues), not play favourites, is of course now at the heart of why Zionists are currently beyond any moral compass as to their ambition to have it all from the river to the sea.

    Like the UK before it, in 1939, it is now the problem.

  5. Ultimately this is an issue of international law.

    In the beginning the UN enabled two new states, a majority Jewish homeland and another majority Palestinian.

    Then rather than provide international peacekeeping force to replace the British troops in Palestine – it allowed Arab armies to march and attack Israel at its formation – only the Israeli victory allowed its crimes at its formation (rather than the other crime that would have occurred with its defeat). In this the UN was negligent and culpable for what has happened since. As was the UK which acted as though the Arab threat would force Israel to abandon any declaration of existence.

    The real sorrow of the Nakba was that Arabs could not accept the consequence of their failure to conquer Israel and thus allow a Palestine state to form on the 1949 borders (yes there were refugees but so where there refugees when India and Pakistan were formed). This has become the real tragedy. In 2000 when land for peace was offered, there was refusal – this time by the Palestinian Authority itself and so the tragedy was perpetuated.

    And while the only resolution in international law, consistent with historic UN resolutions, is two states on the 1949-67 borders and some agreement on the options for the 1948 refugees, there remains one obstacle – the governing power in Gaza does not intend to ever recognise a continuing state of Israel. Something only the occupation of Gaza by UN forces and or then those of the PA can resolve.

  6. You are probably right about the geo-politics of global empire and control of important resource regions – in this case the ME. It was very much a Belt and Road matter (first Russia-Constantinople, then German-Ottoman, then Nazi, then Communist). It is still that today, if more in the petrodollar/SWIFT aspect (Russia/Iran/China).

    And while like SA (during the Soviet Union era) Israel serves an imperial cause in the region, I do not agree that it serves to keep the region divided – for many decades it was only unity against Israel that united the region (two branches of Islam, not all Arab and has a range of government types – religious and or elite to secular party or military). What has happened of late is that the end of the Sunni regime in Iraq (which was the rival of Iran, whether Shah led or Shia led), has led to a wider regional fall-back Sunni Arab axis united against the Shia Iran – to prevent a new Persian domination of the Arabs (where Shia Arabs are seen as some 5th column). In that context, Israel has been seen as a counter-balance to Iran – and Saudi-Arabia is looking to modernise (to be less dependent on Persian Gulf oil exports and also as a society).

    In terms of why the western imperialism supports Israel today, there is one main reason – a united front against Iranian adventurism (claiming to be the leading force against Israel to unite ME Moslems under their leadership while arming Shia Arabs in the region does concern many in the region and beyond). As to why the western public tolerates Israel operating as it does west of the Jordan, largely because of Hamas in Gaza and the related wider regional security matter (Libya, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq also full of Islamist militias making civil society governance impossible).

    As with South African apartheid as a bulwark against communism (of the ANC …. ), until the end of the Soviet Union regime, this gives the Israeli propagandists the advantage, and they are using it to portray criticism of state of Israel Zionism as a form of antisemitism. However in the USA the GOP is heavily influenced by Christian sentiment that cares little for justice (or even the imperial order aspect) but picking winners based on their own bible prophecy that the return of the Jews to their homeland is part of the coming of God’s Kingdom. Thus their vehement opposition to the BDS campaign being applied against Israel.

  7. It would be interesting to hear Daily Blog Contributor Mike Treen’s take on this. Mike, after all literally put his life on the line, and participated in a Kia Ora Gaza sponsored international flotilla trying to deliver humanitarian aid of medical and basic items to Gaza. What type of administration denies the transit of such goods?

    He was assaulted, tasered and detained by Israeli state forces, and it could have been much worse going on the treatment of past flotillas. The Israelis typically board the boats in international waters, illegally. There have been hundreds of pro Palestinian UN resolutions over many decades ignored by Israel and the US.

    “But the holocaust…” is no excuse for Israel operating an Apartheid state. The founders of Israel never intended to share–it was always an expansionist project. The funny old thing is–if the US ever pulls the funding–which in the admittedly long odds of a Sanders Presidency, could happen, it would be game on again.

    In the meantime I am with John Minto and the growing goodwill and momentum of those supporting BDS.

    • Oh, come oonnnn, Tiger! If you seriously believe Bernie will challenge the US Israeli lobby in any meaningful way, then I have a bridge in close proximity to AOC’s congressional district that you might be interested in.

      • It’s interesting that it appears he will not be tested on this point – and that this is a Democrat voter decision (not quite just a voter decision in 2016).

  8. Chris’s problem is that he buys into a key aspect of the foundation myth. The fact is that for six months between the partition plan being announced in November 1947 and the UK army withdrawing in May 1948, that is before any of the puny Arab armies intervened, Israeli terror groups ethnically cleansed as much territory that had been allocated to the Arabs as they could.

    “In December 1947, the British announced that they would withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. Palestinians in Jerusalem and Jaffa called a general strike against the partition. Fighting broke out in Jerusalem’s streets almost immediately…Violent incidents mushroomed into all-out war…During that fateful April of 1948, eight out of thirteen major Zionist military attacks on Palestinians occurred in the territory granted to the Arab state.” “Our Roots Are Still Alive” by the People Press Palestine Book Project.

    “Menahem Begin, the Leader of the Irgun, tells how ‘in Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we were the first to pass from the defensive to the offensive…Arabs began to flee in terror…Hagana was carrying out successful attacks on other fronts, while all the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter’…The Israelis now allege that the Palestine war began with the entry of the Arab armies into Palestine after 15 May 1948. But that was the second phase of the war; they overlook the massacres, expulsions and dispossessions which took place prior to that date and which necessitated Arab states’ intervention.” Sami Hadawi, “Bitter Harvest.”

    “For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion…The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’…The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”

    “By 1948, the Jew was not only able to ‘defend himself’ but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’” Norman Finkelstein, “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”

    • From your link: “If the legal lessons are not learned, there will always remain retributive impulses and revengeful emotions on the Palestinian side.”

      This is my impression also. I, get the impression that pro palastinians think to highly of the “highly moral and noble” cause of Palestinian injustices that they underestimate how long that kind of non-violent mode of war can be maintained while it is exposed so tragically to the horrors of war.

      I believe pro Palestinians are over confident about non-violent modes while at the same time lack the wisdom to acknowledge that maybe, given a free Palestinian state, they may very well turn around and do to Israel what Israel is doing to Palestiam. So I’m asking what conditions for victory are you comfortable with?

      Although Israel failed to completely wipe out all Palestinians they are eliminated enough that they will never come back to a peaceful existence with Israel. The few attempts to bring back Palestinian sovereignty gets stymied by Israeli artillery and sniper fire. The Israelis on the other hand have learnt they don’t need to send in foot soldiers.

      The Israeli leadership since the 1930’s have done a pretty shitty job but even there critics have to concede that they’ve done a good job over on the Palestinians which is also a huge perversion of what they set out to do.

      Another thing is what would have happened if Palestinians had of survived the initial purges and well there doctrine and leadership was just inept at facing the realities of warfare. And I would argue they still are.

      While policies that set parameters to not shoot first and avoid conflict at all costs are great for peace keepers, police and bureaucrats – these are not practical rules of engagement for the types of engagements Palestinians encounter. To skip out an opportunity to ambush an enemy is denying an opportunity for your own people to survive. To NOT use every strategic advantage at your disposal for some ideological goal would make you, as a commander, a huge liability.

      Although many Palestinians show huge restraint 2 things usually happen. One is they die entering restricted areas or the second thing is they slide down the slippery slop of becoming a full blown warrior that even his family might be proud of. Palestinians do at times commit highly immoral acts like attack and murder under the protection of a white flag. And flotilla runners also run the blockade under parle.

      This is the most brilliant part of Bibi’s administration. He doesn’t even have to do anything to brake down Palestinian sovereignty. He just puts Palestinians in situations they can’t handle and allow them to destroy themselves. A quick look into Pro Palestinian tactics reveals that often times Palestinians are counselled out of conflict but a group of usually younger hot heads will disobey non-violent orders.

      If you’re in a situation between taking a bullet from an Israeli firing squad or using kinetic energy to save your own life I think it’s pretty obvious what most sane people would choose.

      • Gaby, Are you referring to Ilan Pappé ?
        What a nasty attack.
        “HOW DARE YOU!!”
        Pappé is a distinguished historian, born in Israel, who researched Israeli army archives to discover what really happened in 1948. He was shocked to find that really happened, was not what he had been taught , growing up in Israel. He published the truth..that’s what real historians do. For this he received death threats from right-wing Israelis. He thought he could cope with that but when his children started receiving death threats too, he moved to Britain and now teaches at Exeter University

  9. John, Chris is describing things — he, like us , wants a fair go for the Palestinians. Just like you and I want a fair go for Maori.

    I doubt that in a state that integrally puts Jews (v. Pakeha in NZ) first. So, we go to supporting Palestinians automatically, and we are so right!

  10. Hail, footnoters, letter-writers — all the big businessmen I know are details-men. Strange, cracked, fools. Or, encapsulate your central truth. That’ll help us along. 20 years ( 11 to do anything for us).

    The Israelis are now the Fascists they escaped from. Realpolitik. Perfectly understandable. Doves?

  11. 20 years at most before shit hits fan. No time anymore for footnotery. Only kernel now.

    And I’m for the Palestinians.

Comments are closed.