Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

We can live in truth or lie in death

Today, 58 years ago, the United Nations partition plan for Palestine was officially enacted, despite the opposition of every country in the region, and the first major Arab-Israel war began. Webdiary columnist Roslyn Ross marks the event with this sobering review. Roslyn's last Webdiary piece was There can be no tolerance of torture.

by Roslyn Ross

I remember growing up during the Cold War years, wondering, more often than one would wish, just when the radio-active cloud would roll across the horizon. In those days the likelihood of World War Three seemed very real when probably it wasn’t.

In these days the likelihood of World War Three may not seem so real when probably it is. Not only do we have the bloody mess of our own making which is Iraq but we have George Bush threatening to ‘nuke’ the Iranians.

Now, there’s no denying that the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may sound a little crazy, but then so does George W and unlike the Americans and the Israelis, the Iranians have not actually attacked, let alone bombed anyone, for over a century, without being attacked first, as they were by Iraq, in a war backed by the Americans. But who is going to let the ‘facts’ get in the way of a good story let alone anything approximating truth as more recently published translations of what Ahmadinejad actually said suggest?

It was interesting to spend a couple of months in Russia last year and to discover that what Russians believed about the West during those chilly years of stand-off, was exactly what we were led to believe about Russia. Each side was convinced of its rightness and innocence and each side was convinced about the aggression of the other. Both sides were being told lies.

Interestingly, the ‘lies’ remain, only the names have been changed. The charges levelled against the Russians, are now being made against Muslim/Arab terrorists and movie bad guys are now Islamic extremists instead of evil Russians. Not only are we being lied to now, as we were then, but the lies of today sit upon a dangerous pool of ignorance. If, in the near future, we found ourselves caught up in the nuclear nightmare of World War Three, how many people would know the underlying causes?

Some ‘causes’ are recent; the injustice of invasion, occupation and economic ‘colonisation’ of Iraq with reports showing some 200,000 Iraqis dead and counting three years into the conflict, and taking into account the Gilbert and Burnham report published in the Lancet in 2004 which estimated 100,000 Iraqis dead after just 18 months of war and occupation. And then there are the tens of thousands dead and maimed in Afghanistan because of American ‘retaliation’ for 9/11... an act, committed, not by Afghans but by Saudis!

But one of those ‘causes’, fertile with potential, has been with us for more than half a century; The Great Catastrophe. May 15 marks the 58th anniversary of the dispossession of the Palestinian people and the beginning of their suffering under occupation and colonisation by Israel. In all instances many people are woefully ignorant about what is going on although in the case of the Palestinians, most are completely ignorant about the original injustice of partition and the ongoing human rights abuses the Palestinians have suffered and continue to suffer to this day.

And one major reason for that ignorance is the lack of information provided by the media and our political leaders. The Palestinians, more than any other occupied people, have been buried under a deadly weight of political correctness. In other words, you can’t talk about the human rights abuses, and war crimes, that Israel has carried out and continues to carry out against Palestinians because the anti-semitic ‘flag’ might get waved and we can’t have that. Or can we?

It has long been said that truth is the first casualty of war, perhaps even more so when the war is one of invasion and occupation. The Greek tragic dramatist, Aeschylus (525BC-456BC) is reputed to have been one of the first to say it, and it was probably hardly original even then, but truth has always been a flexible medium in the hands of the powerful. The controversial journalist John Pilger, would argue it is even more so today because of what he calls ‘journalistic censorship,’ which is both imposed from above and by journalists on themselves.

It is not truth, but journalism, which is the first casualty of war, said Pilger, in his address, ‘Reporting War and Empire, at Columbia University, New York.

It is, he says, censorship by omission, whose power is such, that in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries such as Iraq.

Or Palestine, I would add, a country whose own suffering has been generally ignored because the public is, in the main, ignorant as to why Palestinians are fighting against the State of Israel.

It is this ‘weeping sore’ of injustice which has for so long fuelled anger in the Arab and Islamic world. The success of Israeli and Jewish lobbyists in their bid to gain egregiously biased support from the United States for their continued occupation and colonisation of Palestine has turned this anger into rage.

And yet, if the press and politicians are to be believed it is only the Israelis who have a right to be enraged. It is the suicide bombers that we hear about and the suffering of Israelis, not the constant murder, misery and suffering of the Palestinians.

We all heard about the nine Israelis who died in a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv last month, but how many heard about the 66 Palestinians killed by the Israeli Army in the past three months? Most of them were civilians and many were women and children. For more than a month Israel has been bombing Gaza with some 200 shells a day.

Yes, this is in ‘retaliation’ for some feeble home-made rockets which the Palestinians fire at their occupiers in a pitiful fight for freedom, and which do little or no damage, but the Israeli over-kill, literally, is considered acceptable when the Palestinian resistance to occupation is not! Hardly fair one would have thought unless you belong to the ‘might is right’ school.

And to make matters worse, in between bombing the Israelis collectively punish the imprisoned population with sonic booms which doctors say cause miscarriages and which terrify adults and completely traumatise children.

One in five Palestinian dead is a child. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights says at least 408 Palestinian children have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in 2000. Many of these children, one as young as four, had been shot in the head by Israeli Army snipers.

Gaza is surrounded by an electric fence and is a huge prison, ‘with a million inmates,’ as described by Israeli film-maker, Ram Loevy. It is a place of collective punishment, and in the purest sense, a ‘concentration camp.’ It may have been one of the first in Palestine but it is not the last.

With the Israeli Apartheid Wall, an enormous rise of concrete where land-grab masquerades as security, snaking through the occupied territories, more and more Palestinians are finding themselves ‘concentrated’ into ‘camps’ controlled by Israeli Army checkpoints.

The wall divides families from each other, farmers from land, people from jobs, children from schools, the sick from hospitals and the occupier from the occupied. And the colonisation continues apace. In the weeks following the pullout of 8,000 illegal settlers from Gaza, about 23,000 Israelis moved to the West Bank.

The Palestinians live under constant harassment from settlers and the Israeli Defence Force. On April 10 Israeli army forces distributed fresh demolition orders in Agaba, a village in the west of the Jordan Valley. They come on top of sixteen previous demolition orders which threaten to destroy the social, economic and cultural institutions of the village. The village is located on a hilltop and therefore of strategic ‘value’ to the occupation forces. During the Oslo period, when colonisation of the Occupied Territories became Israeli Government policy, this area was designated a C zone and slated for more settlement expansion.

The villagers of Agaba, like so many others, continue to fight to hold on to their land. On April 17 IDF forces attacked a school in Anata and injured five children. Since August the Apartheid Wall has run through the middle of the schoolyard. Anata has always been a part of Jerusalem’s urban area, but the Wall and a settler bypass have turned it into a ghetto. There are plans to expand settlements further making life even more of a living hell for the Palestinian community as Israel pursues, what a UN report has termed, its unilateral approach to a ‘solution’.

From the moment that the United Nations and the international community made the decision to partition Palestine, against the will of the majority of the people living there, in order to allow the creation of the State of Israel, the scene was set for bloodshed.

Whatever one may believe about Jewish ‘rights’, whether because of their suffering at the hands of the Nazis, or because thousands of years before, some followers of their religion had lived in this part of the world, the simple fact remains that to dispossess people in order to set up your own State is morally and legally wrong.

The international community and the United Nations simply did not have the right to partition Palestine even though, at the time, the proposal ‘supported’ by the UN amidst accusations of diplomatic intimidation by the Americans, to force the vote, was very different to what the Zionists had in mind and what has come to pass.

Let’s say it was discovered that the Gypsies (Romany), another Stateless people, and equally persecuted as Jews were by the Nazis and others, had once had a homeland in say Australia, and the international community decided they should be allowed to create a new one here... Would Australians support it? Should they support it? Could they be criticised for fighting against it if they opposed it and it was done anyway? That is the reality for the Palestinians.

The Italians (Romans) invaded England and established London (Londinium) and yet few would argue that they had a ‘right’ to reclaim any of it. And yet this was the argument put forward for the establishment of Israel where the ancient Hebrews had invaded Canaan (Palestine) and established Jerusalem. How do we know that the Palestinians who were dispossessed by the creation of Israel were not descendants of the original Canaanites and therefore with far greater right to the land? We don’t!

And, as the Palestinians point out, why should their country be divided to create a homeland for Jews because they had suffered at the hands of the Nazis? Surely if justice were done it would have been Germany that was divided?

The ‘war’ to establish the State of Israel was based on lies. Just as the English said Australia was ‘terra nullius’ to justify colonisation, so the Zionist catchcry was: ‘A land without people for a people without a land.’

The Jewish writer, Ahad ha-Am, otherwise known as Asher Ginsberg, who became the central figure in the movement for Cultural or Spiritual Zionism, in 1891, voiced opposition to the political Zionist agenda of settlement in Palestine and said: "From abroad, we are accustomed to believe that Eretz Israel is presently almost totally desolate, an uncultivated desert, and that anyone wishing to buy land there can come and buy all he wants. But in truth this is not so. In the entire land, it is hard to find a tillable land that is not already tilled."

The establishment of the State of Israel involved mass ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, mass transfer resulting in the depopulation of nearly 85 percent of the native indigenous Arab population resident in the territories that came under Israeli control. They were dispossessed of their vast rural and urban real estate and financial properties and some three-quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs (today numbering over four million) were stripped of their right to citizenship in Israel.

Joseph Weitz, "one of the architects of the Zionist settlement’ said: ‘Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no place in the country for both peoples together ... The only solution is Eretz Israel, at least the west part of Eretz Israel, without Arabs ... and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighbouring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain..."

Not surprisingly, the Palestinians, having had their protests and their rights unilaterally dismissed, and had their people dispossessed, if not killed, at the hands of Zionist gangs using the sorts of tactics we now classify as ‘terrorist’ decided, with the help of their allies to fight back. The irony is that people who cannot find justification for the Palestinian fight against occupation and colonisation would give full support to French partisans for instance, in their fight against occupation. Or, one might add, to the British, if Hitler had succeeded in his invasion plan.

During the 1948-49 war and throughout the 1950’s some 500 Arab villages and cities were destroyed and almost all were razed to the ground by the Israeli Army. One of the worst massacres of Arabs took place at Deir Yasin in April 1948 and it is on this land that the official State of Israel holocaust memorial, Yad va-Shem, now stands as well as the City of Jerusalem cemetery. There’s something seriously tasteless, or sublimely arrogant, about building a memorial to the suffering of your own people on land where you have committed a war crime!

Moshe Dayan, the Israeli military leader and politician said in a speech in 1969, "You even do not know the names of these (Arab) villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages no longer exist. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village."

When the Palestinians and their allies lost the war of 67, Israel became the occupier of all of Palestine. Not only has Israel become increasingly brutal as an occupying force over the past decades, it has instituted a colonisation plan which makes a viable Palestinian State impossible, and given the malicious cruelty involved in its application, a plan which, one can only assume, seeks to make life so impossible for any remaining Palestinians that they will leave.

That colonisation ‘plan’ has involved dispossession, demolition of homes and destruction of orchards and vineyards, (many of them ancient although there are now accusations that some of those removed are sold to Israelis.) Israel’s response to the Palestinian fight for freedom has been bombs, bullets, wilful destruction of schools, hospitals and government infrastructure, assassination, imprisonment without trial, torture and collective punishment. Since the latest intifada began more than three times as many Palestinians than Israelis have been killed including large numbers of children.

And all the while Israeli settlers, living illegally on Palestinian land, look down from the well-watered lawns and their neat streets, or travel on their Israeli-only roads which cut through the heart and hearth of Palestine, far removed from the carnage which is carried out in their name. But one thing which the Israelis have overlooked in their colonisation plan is the fact that when people have nothing left to lose but their lives, then they will choose to ‘lose’ their life willingly in the fight for freedom.

I spent time in Israel and Palestine a few years back and was struck by not only how little Israelis know about their neighbours but how racist they are in regard to Palestinians in particular and Arabs in general. It may be a defensive mechanism but it is a dangerous one. So too are the myths or lies which Israelis believe about the founding of their State. Most believe there were no Palestinians when Jewish settlers arrived in the 19th century and that at partition the Palestinians left voluntarily. This is despite more recent evidence presented by historians, many of them Israeli, like Dr Ilan Pappe, to the contrary. They believe that the Palestinians came later, which rather makes the fact that countless Palestinian refugees have keys to homes in Israel, all the more remarkable.

They also believe that a Palestinian and an Arab are the same thing and Palestinians should just go to an Arab country because there are so many of them and they have so much more land than Israel. One doubts that an Italian or German would happily give up their homeland because, after all, they are European and there are lots of European countries in which they can live.

Israel, in so many ways, has become what South Africa was in the worst years of apartheid when denial was the ‘drug’ of the day and ignorance may not have been bliss but it was truly comforting.

But there are Israelis who are prepared to not only seek the truth but to talk about it despite being villified. Dr Pappe is a member of a group called the ‘New Historians,’ which revises and challenges the main Israeli version of 1948 and debunks several of the myths surrounding the foundation of Israel.

One other Israeli who does not do the drug of denial is scholar and author, Uri Davis, who believes that Israel is an apartheid and racist state, but in less visible form than South Africa was.

In South Africa, he says, some 87 percent of the territory was reserved under law for white citizens only. In Israel, some 93 percent of the territory (not including the West Bank and Gaza) is reserved under law for Jewish citizens only. Where the distinction in South Africa was between white and non-white, the apartheid distinction in Israel is between Jew and non-Jew.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he says, is essentially a conflict between a settler-colonial state and an indigenous population dispossessed by the colonial project. Where it differs from South Africa is that visitors to South Africa in the apartheid era would have seen it immediately; benches, toilets, parks and transport divided into white and non-white. In Israel the core apartheid is veiled.

Davis says consistent efforts are also made to ‘remove’ any evidence of non-Jewish inhabitants. The Jewish National Fund, for instance, which appears to be an environmentally friendly organisation concerned with ecology is instrumental in planting forests and establishing recreation facilities.

“Well, it is the case,” says Davis “that JNF forests and facilities are open to all, but it is equally the case that most, almost without exception all, of these forests are planted on the ruins of Palestinian Arab villages ethnically cleansed in the 1948-49 war.

The wall today, he says, represents an attempt by the Government of the State of Israel to cap the expulsion of Palestinians with a Bantustan solution for the rest of the country.

“The question of terrorism and the casualties inflicted by terrorism on an innocent civilian population is a very serious question, but the wall is not there to alleviate this crisis of terrorism – the wall is there in the first instance as an attempt to Bantustanise Palestine and to isolate the indigenous population in what are effectively huge concentrations camps,” said Davis.

The media and political ‘silence’ surrounding the original and ongoing injustice suffered by the Palestinian people is said to be sourced in fear. Fear of being thought anti-Israel, of licensing the expression of anti-Semitism and of legitimizing talk of a Jewish ‘conspiracy’ in terms of the power Israel wields in the United States, the one nation which could, if it chose, bring justice, resolution and peace to this ghastly and potentially internationally catastrophic conflict.

Even if the occupation of Iraq ended tomorrow, if America makes peace with Iran and puts its ‘nukes’ back on the shelf and if Israel builds its apartheid wall all the way around its State, puts a roof on top and concretes the country from one end to the other, the occupation and colonisation of Palestine, if not justly resolved, will remain the one ‘match’ which can ignite the region and make the nuclear nightmare of World War Three a hideous reality.

For that reason, if for no other, this is one fight for justice that involves us all.

left
right
[ category: ]
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Or we could just get some history right for a change

I don’t have Will Howard’s qualms about replying to this extraordinary mish-mash of confusion and parroted misinformation.    Where to start?

First, let me declare my unashamed belief that the State of Israel has an unquestioned right to exist.- as I understand it, there were Jews there after the Diaspora and have been ever since.   That is not to condone everything Israel does or certain of its foreign policy.

Secondly, some history.   Let’s start with recent modern history.   It has been a characteristic of British Colonial foreign policy to partition.   The oldest and most controversial example is Ireland.    India and Pakistan are a more modern example complicated by subsequent events that created Bangladesh.    The British solution to withdrawal from its influence in the Middle East was again partition.

The policy has been a failure exacerbating tension wherever it has been implemented.

As to the point that Iran has not bombed anyone as an aggressor for the last 100 years or so, for most of that time, it was under the control of the Peacock Throne which was an ally of the west and had a formidable modern army and airforce and a small efficient Navy supported by the West.   Please do try to make realistic statements based on facts rather than your emotive assertions which gloss over reality.

Next, a little ancient history combined with international law as she was practiced.   You seem to have a erroneous view of the principle of right by occupation:

“the simple fact remains that to dispossess people in order to set up your own State is morally and legally wrong..”   It is neither a simple fact nor is it wrong to do so.   Accession by conquest (which is not how Israel came into being anyway) has always been recognised.    Some of the dispossessed will always fight back.    Try Angevin history.

You don’t like tribal Jews who colonise Palestine about (let’s say roughly) 7-8,000 years ago, you don’t like the Romans, you probably wouldn’t like mainland aboriginals if you realised they drove out their predecessors.   I don’t suppose you would like the Africans who spread across the world possibly wiping out but certainly dispossessing the Neanderthals (what we might call the Neanderthal Revisionist School of History).    Guess you wouldn’t like the Hyksos and you must really hate Arabs who swept away everything in their path and all but destroyed the Copts in Egypt.    The Zulus must still stick in your craw.    In fact, you must hate any successfully colonising nation or people in the history of the world.

Wouldn’t it be loverly if we could all just love one another and get on (oh, and throw those bastard Israelis out of the legitimate Palestinian territory.)    Well, it doesn’t work like that because we’re human.   One of the adjuncts of being human is that we tend to regard where we’re born as home.   (In the Australian context, a lot of reffos regarded this as their home even though they had adopted it and it had adopted them.)   

Let me ask you this: how would you feel if your home were being invaded by someone next door?   What if, worse still, you’d both been born next door to one another.    Go one step further, your next door neighbour lives in a house that belonged to your grandfather but your current neighbour’s grandfather had acquired it by adverse possession (look it up). 

 

May I suggest the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t much different.    The Israelis are there as a result of bad British foreign policy but have a lawful right to be there.   Many, many of them were born there and it is their home.   For the Palestinians not born there, it is not their home (and I take the very valid point that a lot of Arabs born in Israel don’t mind living there).

Let’s take just a few of your more bizarre ideas:

“Let’s say it was discovered that the Gypsies (Romany), another Stateless people, and equally persecuted as Jews were by the Nazis and others, had once had a homeland in say Australia, and the international community decided they should be allowed to create a new one here... Would Australians support it? Should they support it? Could they be criticised for fighting against it if they opposed it and it was done anyway?”

NSW did almost precisely that in ceding land for the ACT (both Canberra and Jervis Bay) so there’s a precedent.   Alternatively, it could apply to become a State under the Constitution.

“When the Palestinians and their allies lost the war of 67, Israel became the occupier of all of Palestine.”

So they might have.   War is like that and the Israelis had bloody good teachers: the Germans – that’s where they learnt tank warfare and blitzkrieg.   War is like that.   What exactly do you think would have happened had the result been the reverse?

Appalling things happen in war on all sides and they often make us squeamish but sometimes people just have a right to defend themselves and sometimes offence is the best form of defence.   Iraq is a good example of the misapplication of that doctrine.   You may not agree with what is happening in what my grandfather fought in as Palestine but it is a war nonetheless than WWII.

Continually, you parrot the word “illegal” but, as you use it, it is nothing more than an assertion.    As probative logical argument, it is utterly worthless.

Last, you say that it is a matter of justice for all.   Heavens know what you mean by that.   Justice for all usually means a third party making an adjudication with which at least one if not all parties is dissatisfied.   Part of the rule of law, if it means anything, is accepting the adjudicator’s decision.   The Palestinians don’t seem to want to do that.

Getting away from that particular conflict, people in the Balkans don’t seem to want to do it either, nor do the Hutsis and the Tutus, or significant minorities in Eire and Northern Island, or Fijians, or people in the Solomons.   Why?  Because we are human and it is an human characteristic.   The veneer of “civilisation” that those of us in a comfortable country like this where there is no open armed conflict pride ourselves on is just that.   I’d like to see your response if your neighbour walked into your house with a machete in his hand and a certain glint in his eye.

Reply to Malcolm

Malcolm, you said, "First, let me declare my unashamed belief that the State of Israel has an unquestioned right to exist."

Me too, on the same basis that Australia, the US, New Zealand, Canada and other colonising nations have a right to exist by admitting to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and making redress; and either annexing Palestine and giving full rights to all citizens or returning to original borders and allowing a viable Palestinian State to be established.

You need to be specific about what sort of 'right to exist' you defend. If it is the right to exist as a brutal occupier and coloniser then you have no legal or moral case.

You said, "as I understand it, there were Jews there after the Diaspora and have been ever since."

And your point would be? There have been Buddhists in India for  many thousands of years, before Hinduism, but that does not give them the right to establish their own State in India.

You said, "You seem to have a erroneous view of the principle of right by occupation."

No, I simply make the claim that for the past, probably three hundred years this principle has been rejected. Israel, like other historically recent colonising nations is called to account. The point remains, that, following thousands of years of colonisation by conquest the world entered a more enlightened age and it was considered to be a wrong... here is where Israel is at.

You said, "you don’t like tribal Jews who colonise Palestine about (let’s say roughly) 7-8,000 years ago, you don’t like the Romans, you probably wouldn’t like mainland Aboriginals if you realised they drove out their predecessors. In fact, you must hate any successfully colonising nation or people in the history of the world.

You completely misread what I wrote. It is not about 'like' it is about the principle of enlightened behaviour which considers colonisation by conquest and occupation to be wrong. Every nation on earth exists because of colonisation by conquest. These ancient wrongs cannot be put to right. No-one suggests that. What is suggested is that we live by the values and standards of a more enlightened age and that means the foundation of Israel was wrong. It means that Israel is accountable to modern standards with this wrong in a way that it was not accountable for its first colonisation by conquest of Canaan.

You said, "wouldn’t it be loverly if we could all just love one another and get on (oh, and throw those bastard Israelis out of the legitimate Palestinian territory.)"

Again you misquote. It seems to be a skill you have. I never said we had to love each other, I simply call for justice and adherence to principles of civilized and just behaviour. That's the thing about principles and law, you don't have to love each other, you just have to abide by those principles and those laws.

I disagree with you that people tend to regard where they are born as home and I think your use of the term 'reffo' displays prejudice and a level of bigotry on your part. People call the place that they live home although they will still hold in their hearts a deep love for the place of their birth. It was only the dysfunction of Australian society which had people calling England home until forty years ago.

You said: Let me ask you this: how would you feel if your home were being invaded by someone next door? What if, worse still, you’d both been born next door to one another. Go one step further, your next door neighbour lives in a house that belonged to your grandfather but your current neighbour’s grandfather had acquired it by adverse possession (look it up).

Ah well, I have a somewhat different philosophy to life. If my neighbour invaded my home I would feel upset and angry I am sure but I would want to know why they were doing it. If I discovered that my parents had stolen the home from their parents I would feel obliged to negotiate and pay compensation. This is the reality for Palestinians.

If my neighbour lived in a house that belonged to my grandfather but his grandfather stole it then I would consider that an issue for my neighbour's conscience not mine. What our grandparents did they did. I do not consider myself responsible for what my grandparents did and would not consider him or her responsible for what his did. I would seek to make friends with my neighbour.

The reality for Israelis is that they believe their ancestors had rights to this land when they did not. The reality for Palestinians is that within living memory their homes were stolen by Israelis and continue to be stolen by Israelis.

My question to you is: What would you do if you held the key to your home in Jerusalem in which your family had lived for hundreds of years and in which an Israeli family now lived because their grandparents had forced out your grandparents? This is the reality for Palestinians.

You said, "May I suggest the Israeli/Palestinian conflict isn’t much different."

You may suggest it but that does not make it right.

You said, "The Israelis are there as a result of bad British foreign policy but have a lawful right to be there."

How do you work that out? If Australians are here because of bad British policy why have we been (rightly) called to account in terms of providing justice to the people whom we dispossessed? If there is validity in that, which there is, then why should Israel not be called to account in the same way.

The fact that something comes into being through bad policy means resolution of the wrong is even more necessary.

You said, "Many, many of them were born there and it is their home."

Many, many of them were not born there at the time of partition ... the Jews made up a tiny percentage, less than one percent of the population.

Many, many of them have not been born there now because the population is a largely immigrant one.

Not that any of this matters to me. I don't care if an Israeli has been there for a 100 years or a 100 minutes, they all have a right to be in a State called Israel, but on just terms. I just maintain that they have to make redress for their wrongful foundation and make right the appalling human rights abuse of occupation and continued colonisation.

You said, "For the Palestinians not born there, it is not their home (and I take the very valid point that a lot of Arabs born in Israel don’t mind living there)."

Would you like to back up this point? What Palestinians not born there? There are in fact millions of Palestinians living outside of Palestine because they have been thrown out. If they don't count because they were not 'born there' then the Jews certainly did not count because they were not 'born there,' ... the raison d'etre of partition and the foundation of the Palestinian state being that you did not have to have been born there.

No, the Arabs living in Israel often do not mind living there. What they mind is being second class citizens.

You said, "NSW did almost precisely that in ceding land for the ACT (both Canberra and Jervis Bay) so there’s a precedent. Alternatively, it could apply to become a State under the Constitution."

You've got to be kidding. How on earth does this equate with partitioning a country where the people oppose it and then allowing the creation of a State by followers of a religion which is controversial at best and hated at worst by the people living there? You've lost me. Just tell me who opposed the 'land' being ceded for Canberra and which religious group was given permission to establish a State on it? Or have I missed something in Australia's history?

You said, "War is like that."

War may be like that but under the Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, while the one who wins the war can occupy it can only do so temporarily and it cannot use that occupation to colonise. Neither is it allowed to brutalise those it holds under occupation.

Israel has breached all of these things. That is the point.

You said, "...and the Israelis had bloody good teachers: the Germans – that’s where they learnt tank warfare and blitzkrieg."

Hmmm, did they really? They certainly picked up Nazi tips on concentration camps, assassination, torture and repression of a civilian population. And they obviously went back and took notes on the Berlin Wall. A bit of Russian input there!

You said, "Appalling things happen in war on all sides and they often make us squeamish but sometimes people just have a right to defend themselves and sometimes offence is the best form of defence."

Of course and a position the Palestinians take as I am sure you would agree.

You said, "Last, you say that it is a matter of justice for all."

Justice for all means the laws of justice being applied.

You said, "Justice for all usually means a third party making an adjudication with which at least one if not all parties is dissatisfied."

Yes, but no-one gets it all. Justice is not about everyone getting everything they want. Justice is about providing a fair and reasonable result and ensuring that the principles of human rights and law are applied.

You said, "Part of the rule of law, if it means anything, is accepting the adjudicator’s decision. The Palestinians don’t seem to want to do that."

The Palestinians have not been given any legal or fair decision to accept. Israel as the occupier is the one who has to make the first move to end the occupation. I would add too that the International Court of Justice has ruled Israel's wall to be illegal and the Israelis have rejected that 'adjudicator's' decision. You wouldn't want one rule for the Palestinians and another for Israelis would you?

You said, "I’d like to see your response if your neighbour walked into your house with a machete in his hand and a certain glint in his eye."

Absolute fear I am sure but, I have lived in a war zone and I know fear. I also know that I would rather be killed than kill anyone. I refused to keep a gun in the house when I lived in a war zone for that reason. I am a pacifist. I do not believe in violence. I believe that we die when we are meant to die and that what matters is how we live. I believe that everything which happens does so for a reason and is a lesson.

I believe in peaceful protest. But, I recognise that this is not a common view and only respond as I have because you asked for my response. It is human nature to fight back and that is why Israel cannot win. The US cannot win in Iraq. For the simple reason that a war of occupation cannot be won in the modern age. The only way that they were won in the past was through genocide.

In addition, less people favour violence and the gun as problem solving mechanisms.

It is very simple. The Palestinians in this instance are the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors. When Israel ends the occupation and returns to original borders and accepts the rights of Palestinians to a viable State (or annexes and gives full citizenship rights to all) then it may point a finger if it is attacked. Until then it has no moral ground on which to stand and remains a morally bankrupt pariah State.

I would add, this saddens me. I want justice but I want it for everyone. Israeli society is rotting away; their culture is degraded because they have become what they have for so long condemned in others. Just as Palestinians deserve a better life, so do Israelis. My only wish is that both sides get it. My belief is that they will only do so when, like South Africa it is forced upon them.

I think this sufices to sum

I think this suffices to sum it up: You are a pacifist; I'm not.    You want "justice".   The UN sanctioned the creation of Israel; Israel has a right to defend itself.   If it oversteps the mark, we prosecute other war criminals don't we?

The Palestinians were lawfully dispossessed by the UN's creation of Israel.   That does not give them a right to attack the State or its inhabitants.

The sheep farmers who were dispossessed of the land Duntroon now stands on weren't too impressed either but there wasn't much they could do about it.

I'll say it again, neither the law nor war has anything to do with morality.   Interestingly enough, as to

"I simply call for justice and adherence to principles of civilized and just behaviour. That's the thing about principles and law, you don't have to love each other, you just have to abide by those principles and those laws."

War happens to be within the rules. 

You keep using terms like "illegal" and "wrongful foundation".    Still you persist in this error.   Israel exists by UN sanction.    What more do you want - a Royal Charter?   (Not far wrong actually, since it was the idea of the British in the first place).

"Would you like to back up this point?"   No, Will Howard and Geoff Pahoff have already done so on the Iraq thread.

As for your claptrap about my use of the term "reffos" - it stands for refugees who didn't mind calling themselves reffos and got in and helped build this country.   Grew up with lots of them and regard them as ridgie Australians.    They were still reffos.   If you regard the term as pejorative, the ones I knew didn't - bit like being called you old bastard".   If you can't take the lingo as she is spoke and you are going to get all sensitive about it, try French.

"Justice for all means the laws of justice being applied."   Quite simply this is meaningless.   There are no "laws of justice".    This is naive "Natural Law" bunkum.    See e.g. HLA Hart's The Concept of Law Clarendon Oxford 1961.

The Palestinians have been given an adjudication.   They have the duty  to accept: the adjudication of the UN when Israel was established.    That they wage the informal war they do on an essentially terrorist footing absolves opposition combatants from the Geneva convention in any case.     If the Palestinians really want a proper stoush, let them form an army, declare war on Israel, play Queensberry Rules and get annihilated like they did in 1967.    It would free up a lot of space on Webdiary.

As for Roger Fedyk,  the tenor of my remarks was perfectly clear.   There was no colon to connect the clauses in my first sentence.   As you pointed out yourself, I later made it perfectly clear that continuity of possession was not the justification for Israel's existence.

Still not about whisky

Malcolm, I'm not buying into this because I've already had more than enough of the "your lot are more atrocious than ours" kind of "debate". I also believe in the existence of the state of Israel; note I didn't use the word "right", but one fact is irrefutable. If any other nation behaved as does Israel it would have been wearing sanctions a long time ago. How many UN resolutions has it blithely ignored with impunity?

"They have the duty". Oh and just where does duty fit with amorality. You can't have it both ways.

One other question for you. Please take it on face value; somewhere on one of your posts you wrote that our indigenous dispossessed former inhabitants of this continent. That's the first time I've heard that other race or races were here. Do know of any evidence for this?

Waves of invaders

Scott, Malcolm may have other or additional information, but you may be interested in this article on the Australian pygmies by the controversial historian Keith Windschuttle as posted on his website.

Also, before European settlement Australia had three ethnically distinct types of Aborigines. There is considerable evidence, available in the anthropological literature, that the first inhabitants of Australia were negritos, short-statured people akin to the pygmy tribes of Malaysia and elsewhere in SE Asia. They were broad-nosed and curly-haired like the Melanesians. Later invasions of the Murrayan aborigines drove these people into the valleys behind Cairns and into Tasmania – which they apparently walked to during the last Ice Age when there was a land bridge where Bass Strait is today. The Murrayans in turn were driven south by the arrival of the Carpentarians. (See Manning Clark, A History of Australia, v 1.)

In their technology, the Tasmanians were the least developed of all. The anthropologist Rhys Jones could find evidence of only about 12 different types of artefacts in their possession, and they had apparently lost the ability to make fire from cold kindling materials.

An analogous process apparently operated in South America, where the natives of Terra del Fuego were according to Charles Darwin, the most primitive people he had ever seen. They had descended from early arrivals but had been pushed progressively south by later invaders.

So on one view, the descendants of the Tasmanians are owed an awful lot of back rent by everyone else.

Eating People is wrong

First heard about it from Dad (he keeps up with things I don't and vice-versa) but I seem to recall the best reference I can remember off my own bat is Guns Germs and Steel.

Astounded

I had never heard of this. Until I read the article I thought it was some kind of hoax.

Mind you, any political implications are beyond me.

good stuff

Ian you are a treasure. It took a bit of getting through but I found it fascinating. You have delighted me twice in the space of a few days although credit must be shared in the first instance by your good lady. Promise I'll never mention it again.

Callous, Malcolm

Our Mal says, "The Palestinians have been given an adjudication.   They have the duty  to accept: the adjudication of the UN when Israel was established. That they wage the informal war they do on an essentially terrorist footing absolves opposition combatants from the Geneva convention in any case."

Don't you just love lawyers? They tend to forget that laws are made by humans and that humans are fallible, that there are good laws and unfair laws just as there are a few good lawyers and many unprincipled ones.

Laws to lawyers become an entity in themselves. They worship the often unintelligible collection of words in a statute or leather-covered book (much like the religious worship every word in their Holy Books). It is the source of their power, their ability to charge huge fees, their arrogance.

Well, Palestinians, our Mal, comfortable in his legal ivory tower, has spoken. Too bad for you. Let the Israelis take what they want of your land, don't struggle against the occupation because Mal says if you do you're terrorists, accept your  squalor, your hopelessness, the shooting of your children, the destruction of your houses. In fact, why don't you just disappear?

 

Better still, why don't lawyers disappear and take their callous, unrealistic, inhuman view of the world with them.

 

Callous or dispasionate?

Callous? Who cares? I suspect the reason you articulated that spray is  that you hate the fact that, come what may, you need us.

So why don't you take your bleeding heart compassion for one group of lunatics bent on violence and nurture it until they come for you and you find you need us.

I do get a little tired of lawyer bashing. Pity I can't bash you a bit (unethical old fruit) see we don't just have precedent, we also have ethics: our ethics.

Don't like what I charge? Do what most people do: get me to do the work, produce the result and then don't pay.

Callous? Who Cares?

Callous? Who cares? says our Malcolm. Well I do.

Mal, why don't you get down from your high horse and, in a quiet place, use your fertile imagination for a hour or so and project yourself and your family to the West Bank and imagine living there under the same horrific conditions that the Palestinians do.

The first thing you hear, Mal, is the chopping sound of missile-armed Apaches and the rumble of tanks. The walls shake and no one talks.

Imagine then, taking your children to school, the checkpoints, the squalor, the demolished buildings, all the while wondering whether some IDF sniper is going to use one of your kid's heads for target practice. Then imagine around the tea table, looking at your kid's faces, knowing that they have no future, no freedom, no escape from constant fear.

Imagine later, Mal, sitting in your chair, hearing the tank rounds and/or missiles coming down, hearing your kids crying out as their nightmares possess them, worrying about how you're going to provide food for the table tomorrow, and, putting your head in your hands, sobbing at the terrible injustice which the world continues to ignore.

I'm sure, Mal, that if you were put in that situation, you would sing a very different song. And you might feel a little annoyed if some rich foreigner  who lived in freedom, pontificated to you, 'Just get over it!'

Callous is the right word, Mal. It is particularly common among lawyers.

I'll take the high road

How, Daniel Smythe, some of your recent posts got through the editors I neither know nor care. Nor do I know what makes you think you can play fast and free with my name.

Unlike some people here, I don't give a stuff about what people say about me on this site. I'm a big boy. Say it outside and just remember truth or substantial truth is now a defence. Having a go for the sake of it isn't.

You care. How nice. What are you going to do about it? Puff until the house blows down? May I suggest the bagpipes as a way of increasing lung capacity.

Better still, you could go over there and put yourself in the thick of things and keep posting until it all stops.

Let me make this quite clear: from a purely personal view, unless it has a bearing on Australia's strategic interests, I don't give a stuff what happens in the rest of the world. Everyone, in my view, is welcome to find his own way to hell in a handbasket. Suffer the little children, well that's par for the course historically, most of them live long enough to procreate and produce more children to starve to death anyway. Don't like seeing children starve or be blown up or whatever? Stop the bastards having them. Now there's a solution that will fix things in about a generation.

Invading Iraq had nothing to do with our strategic interests until we joined in. Now we should get out and leave them to their own bloodbath. Same in Ireland: let them slaughter one another and see what's left.

Reserving the possibility that the threat of militant Islam (or fundamentalism in the US)  might have some bearing on our strategic interests in which case we should wipe out both, leave them to it I say.

You don't like that? Well I do.

Now, I'm tired of the pointless breast-beating on this thread. If anyone's got a real solution, tell the UN. There's a warm fuzzy rational group of humanitarians. Strangely, most of the member nations seem to share my form of compassion.

Soft Serve Or Self Serve

Of course they were Malcolm, now that you have gone all musical with your clear tenor. Or is that medical seeing your colon has gotten involved?

How about a bit of dreaming? Prosecuting Israeli war criminals? Not in this century and not while the US dollar prevails.

You keep harping about rights, such as, that the Palestinians have no right to attack Israel. By your own lengthy and convoluted rules of logic you have already admitted that any state can invade another (and have since time immemorial)  and if they succeed that is a fait accompli and all legal rights accrue to the victor. How the British Crown acquired sovereign rights to Australia is laid out clearly in Mabo. You should read it some time.

If the Palestinians are now trying to exercise their inalienable right, based on a million years or more of precedents, to attack Israel and get their land (or somebody's land) back under their control why are they wrong in doing so? Because you say so? Spare me your Olympian waffling!

Your position on the Palestinians can only judged as biased and wrong by the the very rules that you espouse to vouchsafe Israel's existence. Vexatious, bigotted (It would free up a lot of space on Webdiary), xenophobic (..get annihilated like they did in 1967) and muddle-headed (they already have an army, it just does not have the backing of the world's most powerful miltary arsenal) just about covers it.

And the Queensberry rules apply to boxing not war. Look it up in the dictionary.

My pacifism

Malcolm, my pacifism may 'sum' up some things for you but it does not sum up in any way the issue being discussed.

The UN sanctioned the creation of Israel: It had no right to do so. Ergo, the sanction was illegal, not to mention immoral. In addition, if UN sanction means so much why has Israel ignored hundreds of directives from the UN? Clearly, if Israel discounts the UN why should not the Palestinians?

You said Israel has a right to defend itself? It does. What it does not have a right to do is brutalise people under its occupation and use that occupation as a cover for colonisation.

Neither does Israel have any 'right' to its foundation until it admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation, like the rest of us, and makes redress.

And by the way, if Israel has a right to 'defend' itself then why do not the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves from invasion, occupation and colonisation?

Or would that be one rule for Israel and another for the Palestinians game again?

The only 'right' that Israel has is the given right to exist on original borders. Israel is being attacked because it is a brutal occupier and coloniser. Few people believe that those who live under occupation, for whatever reason, do not have a right to fight back.

You said, "If it oversteps the mark, we prosecute other war criminals don't we?"

Israel has been overstepping the mark for half a century and yes, its war criminals will be prosecuted in time as you suggest. It will also be prosecuted for its human rights abuses.

You said, "The Palestinians were lawfully dispossessed by the UN's creation of Israel."

Where is the evidence that this was lawful? It was done against the will of the people living there. Fact is, what the UN proposed and supported, although again, US intimidation was a factor, was not what the Zionists had in mind, nor what the Israelis have brought about.

Go and read what the UN sanctioned. I dispute that they had any right at all to sanction any sort of partition but if we want to 'split the difference' I can point to the fact that what they sanctioned was not the destruction of Palestine and its complete colonisation by Jews but two viable States.

The reality is that if Israelis had not been so greedy, not to mention dysfunctionally paranoid, and had ended the occupation and worked to create a functioning State for the Palestinians most of this bloodshed would have been avoided.

But the other fact is, and you only have to read the statements made by Zionist leaders and Israeli leaders... the plan was ALWAYS to take all of Palestine. Israel is doomed by its own greed.

You said, "That does not give them a right to attack the State or its inhabitants."

Why not? If the Japanese had succeeded in invading Australia and colonising it are you suggesting that Australians had no right to attack them in order to free themselves? Would you also be suggesting that Japanese brought in to colonise the land should be excluded from attack because they are civilians?

As a pacifist my answer would be no, I would not attack but I doubt that would be yours. So, if it would have been okay for us to attack the Japanese, for the Brits to attack the Germans, etc, why not the Palestinians? Could you explain to me the difference?

You said, "The sheep farmers who were dispossessed of the land Duntroon now stands on weren't too impressed either but there wasn't much they could do about it."

Those sheep farmers were not then locked into prisons and brutalised. If they had been they would no doubt have reacted as the Palestinians did don't you think?

You said, "I'll say it again, neither the law nor war has anything to do with morality."

You should have qualified that statement because both the law and war do have something to do with morality. If you read the definition of morality, as in:  

  1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society;
  2. some other group, such as a religion;
  3. accepted by an individual for her own behavior;
  4. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons,

Then clearly, both the law and war are bound by moral codes. This is what the Geneva Convention is about. The fact that these moral codes are flouted is one thing but they certainly exist. It is morality which is behind the Rules of Conduct for the military and which is a foundation of much of our Western law.

I said, "I simply call for justice and adherence to principles of civilised and just behaviour. That's the thing about principles and law, you don't have to love each other, you just have to abide by those principles and those laws."

You said, "War happens to be within the rules."

War can be but it rarely is. Would you like to clarify what you mean and how you think war adheres to principles of civilised and just behaviour?

You said, "You keep using terms like 'illegal' and 'wrongful foundation'."

You clearly did not access the links in my article.

I use the terms illegal and wrongful foundation because as a basic principle no nation or group of nations ever has the right to impose partition on another country and any nation founded through the dispossession of others is founded on wrong.

These principles form the basis of the civilised values which have forced nations like Australia to admit to the wrongs inherent in their foundation and make redress. These principles are why Britain, as an occupier and coloniser, in accepting the wrongs of that, opened its doors to citizens from its former colonies. America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have all had to make redress for their violent foundation ... I repeat, Why not Israel?

These are the principles of the modern world. They are not mine, other than that I accept them as just and sound.

We are not on the Iraq thread. If you can't be bothered backing up your points then those reading can only assume you cannot substantiate your argument. Relying on the posts of others also suggests you cannot back up what you say.

I know what 'reffos' means but it falls into the same category as Abos. It was not necessary for you to use it and belittles them. Refugees is two letters longer. Hardly a typing trial.

You said: "Justice for all means the laws of justice being applied."   Quite simply this is meaningless. There are no "laws of justice".

Most of our legal system is based on justice. Justice is ascertaining what is fair or just and it is underpinned by our legal system. It is about assessing wrong and compensating for wrong; punishing wrongdoing. I'd say all laws are pretty much about justice or at least seeking justice.

You said, "If the Palestinians really want a proper stoush, let them form an army, declare war on Israel, play Queensberry Rules and get annihilated like they did in 1967. It would free up a lot of space on Webdiary."

So, I can assume you have never lived under Occupation then? You are tastelessly glib. The Palestinians do have an army, the only one they are able to form, the army of freedom fighters... partisans they called them in France during Nazi occupation; freedom fighters they called them in America fighting against the English and that wasn't even occupation!

By the way, a little bit of reading of history would also show you that the '67 war was initiated by the Israelis, who really did know the Egyptians were bluffing and were not going to attack, but Israel wanted its war to occupy and colonise Palestine.

They would be your Queensberry Rules then would they?

Re: my pacifism

Roslyn Ross, you say you are a pacifist; I take you at your word. Here are some more of your words which I'll respond to:

The UN sanctioned the creation of Israel: It had no right to do so. Ergo, the sanction was illegal, not to mention immoral. In addition, if UN sanction means so much why has Israel ignored hundreds of directives from the UN? Clearly, if Israel discounts the UN why should not the Palestinians?

It is true that people on all sides of this conflict have tried to "have it both ways" regarding the UN. Roger Fedyk, for example, pointed out, technically correctly, that UNGA Res. 181 was non-binding resolution. But (binding) UN Security Council resolutions 242 through all its supercedents to UNSCR 1515 (endorsing the Road Map) affirm the right of Israel to exist, as well as affirming the right of Palestine to exist. If you reject the Security Council's authority, then where does that leave the "Iraq War* was illegal because the UNSC didn't authorise it" argument? You can't have it both ways.

*Before you start on me on that one, I opposed 2003 invasion,and continue to believe it was a huge strategic blunder. I even voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004. So don't start in on me about being a "warmonger."

The 1947 partition plan created two states in Palestine. For the first time in history, the Arabs would have an independent state in Palestine. They rejected the partition, whereas the Jews accepted it - a thoroughly documented piece of history, which living people still remember. Another falsehood you've unfortunately repeated.

It is a bit odd to see self-styled "progressives" calling for the historical clock to be wound back so the original sins of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1947 UN Partition can be erased. And if we could, where would this leave the Palestinians? I'll tell you - it would leave them without their well-deserved (in my view) state. Because before 1947 there was the British Mandate, and before 1917 there was the Ottoman Empire, and before that - I don't know - and before that there was the Roman Empire. Are you suggesting we have the Italians take over Palestine?

You said Israel has a right to defend itself? It does.

Why? You just said Israel's very foundation was illegal. Come on - where are your vaunted principles all of a sudden? Do you believe in "justice" or not? Come on, Roslyn, take the "Israel is illegal" argument to its logical conclusion. UNGAR 181 should be rescinded - it had no right be enacted in the first place, right? All those Jews should go back where they came from - Poland, Hungary, Yemen, Iraq - presumably all those nations will be willing to make "redress" to the Jews whose homes, lives, and families they took. And if they won't leave they should be forced out, right? What good is international law without enforcement?

Want to talk about refugees? Let's talk about the half million Jews who were expelled from Arab countries, many of which they'd lived for thousands of years. Their homes, businesses confiscated. These people were not Zionists (or at least they didn't think so) and they now make up about half the population of Israel. Were you unaware of this? Is the President of Iran saying he'll take back all the Iranian Jews so that the Palestinians can have "justice"?

Neither does Israel have any 'right' to its foundation until it admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation, like the rest of us, and makes redress.

What do you mean, "like the rest of us?" What redress? (Eg. the offer made to Arafat at Taba in early 2001 included US$30 billion for compensation for dislocated Palestinian refugees). One part of the redress is the Palestinians' own state which has been offered to them repeatedly. The US, Canada, and Australia have not offered their indigenous peoples their own states. (Though indigenous peoples in North America do have a measure of autonomy)

You go on to say:

Where is the evidence that this was lawful? It was done against the will of the people living there. Fact is, what the UN proposed and supported, although again, US intimidation was a factor, was not what the Zionists had in mind, nor what the Israelis have brought about.

US intimidation had nothing to do with it. Indeed the US was decidedly lukewarm to the idea of the partition, and only gave de facto recognition to Israel. And Truman dithered until the last minute even for that. The Soviets pushed for the creation of Israel, and immediately gave it de jure recognition, and arranged for arms to be shipped to it via its client state Czechoslovakia. Whereas the US maintained a nearly complete arms embargo on the whole region. The Russians saw the Brits as their big rivals for the mideast, and reckoned anyone making trouble for the British, as were Palestinian Jews, must be their buddies. THe US didn't get seriously involved with Israel until after 1967, and then it was to counter the Soviets who sponsored Egypt and Syria. The 1967 War was fought by the Israelis mostly without US arms (they had some US tanks and artillery), and the well-known bombing raids on Egyptian air force bases were made with French Mirage jets.

The Israelis actually tried to stay out of the West Bank 1967, and sent repeated messages to King Hussein to persuade him not to engage Israel on that front. Once the Jordanians started shelling Jerusalem around midday on the first day of the war, the Israelis' hand was forced. So you see it's a myth that Israel's premptive strike was aimed at taking over Palestinian territory. Indeed they tried to stay out of both the West Bank and Gaza, because they didn't want to have to be an occupying power over the refugees there. Not only had Defence Minister Dayan ordered his officers to stay out of Gaza, but he ordered to not approach the Suez Canal any closer than - I forget how many kms. They also hesitated to engage Syrian forces who were shelling Northern Israeli towns from the Golan Heights, and didn't take the Heights until literally the final hours of the war.

Go and read what the UN sanctioned. I dispute that they had any right at all to sanction any sort of partition but if we want to 'split the difference' I can point to the fact that what they sanctioned was not the destruction of Palestine and its complete colonisation by Jews but two viable States.

Correct. But the Arabs rejected this. Repeatedly. In 1937 (Peel Commission), in 1947, and again in 2000-2001. (And don't give me that old porky about "Bantustans." That one won't wash with anyone who's seen the maps of the proposed setttlement coming out of the Camp David and Taba negotiations.) Greedy? As another poster pointed out, the Arabs rolled for double or nothing, lost and still expect not only a payout but an apology for their self-imposed humiliation.

But the other fact is, and you only have to read the statements made by Zionist leaders and Israeli leaders... the plan was ALWAYS to take all of Palestine.

Wrong again, Roslyn. There were factions among the Zionists at the time who had a vision of a "greater Israel" that even included present-day Jordan. But the majority view, the one that won the day among the Jews, was that it was better to accept the deal offered by the UN, even if imperfect, and get on with building their state. Trouble was, of course, that as soon as they accepted the UN deal, all the surrounding Arab states declared war.

Finally, regarding the June 1967 War, a whole bunch of Egyptian documents were recently declassified. It turns out they were planning an attack, but the Israelis found out about it, told the Russians, who told their Egyptian clients. The Egyptians then decided to postpone, but the Israelis did not know this at the time.

Roslyn, if you're putting yourself forward as such an expert on this topic, why did you not know all this? Why did you not think to inform yourself about the facts of the history of Israel-Palestine before posting such a strident article. You must have known there would be knowledgable people like myself who would catch the misstatements.

(To see full documentation of all I've said, go back through my previous posts on this topic. You'll find heaps. Primary sources, and everythang. I don't feel like going back and re-inserting all the URLs etc.)

a colonising nation

Will, I am not disputing Israel's right to exist. I have said that more than once. But only on original borders or as one state. I dispute Israel's right to exist as an occupier and coloniser. I dispute Israel's right to exist as a colonising nation which refuses to admit to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and make redress as others have had to do. But I do not dispute the right of a state called Israel to continue to exist.

How is that having it both ways? Unless you simply do not believe in justice.

As to the UN's authority, it is limited. We all know that. It is however an important body in the world and deserves to be heard. Whatever 'rights' the UN supports, it also at times supports 'wrongs' such as the partition of Palestine and one has an obligation to point that out.

If the UN had supported the invasion of Iraq that would have been another wrong.

The irony is that Israel's supporters point to the UN as a source of legitimacy for the foundation of Israel when Israel accords the UN virtually no respect at all by ignoring any demands it makes for Palestinian justice.

No, you can't have it both ways.

You said, "The 1947 partition plan created two states in Palestine."

The plan was just as wrong as the English colonisation of Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand and the plan the European powers drew up to divide up Africa. If those plans are now regarded as wrongs then why not this one?

Of course the Jews accepted the plan. As a tiny minority in Palestine it was a dream come true. The fact that the Jews took advantage of this injustice does not make them right, merely, opportunistic.

I did not reject this part of history. I just maintain that this part of history constituted a wrong in the same way that we now recognise other imposed colonisations as wrongs.

If you read what I said, yes, I know, a novel idea, and really think about it, even more outrageous, what I am saying is that Israel has a right to exist but it must admit to the wrongs of its foundation and make redress. Like the rest of us. And it must end its occupation and colonisation. Hardly unreasonable for anyone of conscience or reason to accept I would have thought.

Or would you like to explain why Australia has an obligation to deal with the wrongs of our foundation and to provide justice to those we dispossessed and Israel does not? I have yet to hear an Israeli supporter deal with this issue.

You said,:" It is a bit odd to see self-styled 'progressives' calling for the historical clock to be wound back so the original sins of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1947 UN Partition can be erased."

Please post links to back this up. I certainly did not say it.

I did not call for the '47 partition plan to be erased, I called for it to be honoured and for Israel to then deal with the wrongs inherent in its foundation like all other historically recent colonising nations and make redress.

For someone who is quick to call liar you are a pretty dab hand at it yourself.

I did not suggest going back in history pre '47 so I do not know what you are going on about.

You said, "You just said Israel's very foundation was illegal."

Yes and immoral and so was ours and so was America's and Canada's and New Zealands but the world accepts those nations as a given just as it accepts Israel and so each has a right to defend itself. But it has no right to defend its occupation and colonisation.

Israel however has not admitted to the wrongs inherent in its foundation and made redress like the others and Israel continues to compound those wrongs by occupation and colonisation.

I would add, the states mentioned have a right to defend themselves from attack but not when those attacks come from people they occupy and brutalise. That's why we supported the French and others occupied by Germany in their fight for freedom and why we would have supported the British in theirs if Hitler had invaded. That's why the Palestinians and Iraqis have just cause to fight and the US and Israel do not.

As a qualifier though, since you seem to have gotten hysterical about my pacifism I would say that in my best of worlds the only attacks would be peaceful ones, but, I accept that my view of life is not the view of others and while I do not condone acts of violence by anyone I can understand why they happen. I defend the right of people to fight back while wishing it could be done without violence.

You said, "take the 'Israel is illegal' argument to its logical conclusion. UNGAR 181 should be rescinded - it had no right be enacted in the first place, right?"

You are not listening or comprehending. I have said more than once that its illegality derives from the circumstances of its foundation. These are circumstances shared by us as a colonising nation. The reason why we and others like us have admitted to the wrongs inherent in our foundation and sought to make redress is to amend as much as one can for those original wrongs and to create a greater 'legitimacy.'

No-one suggested that America should be given back to the Indians nor Australia back to the Aborigines. What was suggested was that we should put to right some of the wrong. Why not Israel?

One huge difference with Israel and something which compounds its wrongs even more is that Israel refuses to annex and give full rights to all citizens as we have done and it also refuses to return to original borders which is the only way that any sort of viable Palestinian state can be created.

No-one but no-one, and certainly not I, has suggested here that the Jews should go back to where they came from. You made this statement. Please provide evidence if you believe it is true.

I said, "Neither does Israel have any 'right' to its foundation until it admits to the wrongs inherent in its foundation, like the rest of us, and makes redress."

You said: What do you mean, "like the rest of us?" What redress?

Re-read above.

I agree that the US approached the partition plan with mixed messages but there is still evidence that diplomatic intimidation was involved in getting it passed. I posted links to this in the article. If you choose not to access them that is your call.

In terms of your 'defence' of Israel as trying to stay out of the West Bank, this does not gel with historical records of things said by Zionist and Israeli leaders at the time. Again, mixed messages. They were saying one thing and doing another as historians are now beginning to show.

I am not putting myself forward as an expert. I have read both sides... the one you present and the other side. It's a mixture of fact and fiction. I drew my position from the history but mostly from the position of what is just.

I don't think the history is what is truly relevant today. There are always two sides to everything and many stories. The victors write the history as we know.

What is relevant are the simple facts and these form the basis of what I wrote:

The partion of Palestine was illegal and immoral and this needs to be addressed by Israel and compensated.

The occupation has become brutal and is both illegal and immoral and this needs to be ended by Israel and compensated.

The colonisation of what remains of Palestine is both illegal and immoral and this needs to be ended and compensated by Israel.

However they got there the facts on the ground are that Israel is a colonising nation founded in violence, like us, and it needs to deal with this truth. Israel is also a brutal occupier and coloniser to this day and this must end.

Justice demands a viable state for the Palestinians and compensation for suffering and loss or annexation and full rights for all citizens of one state.

Will, if you are so knowledgeable then why is it you have little or nothing to substantiate so much of what you say? And, if you cannot condense your points and post them here then that is laziness on your part. Each forum is intrinsic to itself. It does not matter what you said elsewhere. What matters is what you say here and so far it is not much of substance.

OK time for me to weigh in

Roslyn Ross, first of all, what do you have to say for yourself regarding the "Yad Vashem is built on Deir Yassin" furphy? (This is a repeat of something I posted on another thread, but I think it was a mistake for me not to tackle this head-on on this thread immediately, so here goes.)

So, Roslyn, did you not know that the two sites are in different places? Did you not think to inform yourself before putting forward such a statement? Such an important opening statement for your thesis? Not just a throwaway line in the middle of the essay to spice up the invective, but the sub-headline of the whole piece? A claim that turns out to be false - demonstrably so?

If you are presenting yourself as an expert, why open with such a blatant falsehood, which anybody with a map can check? You say you've been to Israel and Palestine; and you didn't know this "fact," which you used as the foundation of your whole piece, was patently false?

Where, for example, did you get this story about Yad Vashem/Deir Yassin? You sure as hell didn't make it up yourself - did you? OK - so someone fed you the story, you swallowed it, then tried to feed it to Webdiary. Unfortunately for you a few people pointed out the truth. Now you've been caught with your pants very much down.

Did you know the story was false but think no one would check? Not a bad assumption, and indeed most people bought it, or at least didn't question it.

Roslyn, I say again, what do you have to say for yourself?

Looking for answers. And yes, truth.

UN and Israel

Phil Kendall "WYSIWYG: The UN, quite simply, is corrupt."

I agree. It needs some major reform, but I think it is still needed.

Roslyn Ross: "The UN sanctioned the creation of Israel: It had no right to do so. Ergo, the sanction was illegal, not to mention immoral." and "Go and read what the UN sanctioned. I dispute that they had any right at all to sanction any sort of partition."

I have read all the relevant UN Resolutions; shall I remind you of where you can read them? Why don't you start by explaining exactly which ones you think Israel has flouted (and see my comments below)?

Why not defend your position that the creation of Israel was illegal and immoral? You seem reluctant to either renounce or defend this position. Do you not realise you've taken it? After all you did say "as the Palestinians point out, why should their country be divided to create a homeland for Jews because they had suffered at the hands of the Nazis? Surely if justice were done it would have been Germany that was divided?"

(Well of course Germany was divided, but not in the way you suggest.)

There were proposals to set up a national homeland for Jews in other places: the Nazis thought of sending them all to Madagascar. Uganda, Alaska, even Tasmania were all put forth. So Roslyn, come on, stick to your guns.

What's your proposal? Where should Israel be moved? And what about the Jews who were expelled from Arab and other Muslim lands in the wake of the 1948 war? Over to Germany as well? Take responsibility for your words, Roslyn.

The other common criticism of Israel, as voiced by Scott Dunmore, is "How many UN resolutions has it blithely ignored with impunity?" Let's address this one for a moment, shall we Scott?

For a start, go to Ariga where you can read the actual text of UN Resolutions relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict and other documents going right back to the Sykes-Picot Agreement. All the resolutions I discuss will be on that site.

The key ones include UN General Assembly 181 which partitioned British Mandatory Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. I suppose we can agree that Israel has at least complied with this one, right? All Arab states at the time rejected this resolution, and only a few have so far recognised it.

UNGA Res. 194, which I have quoted in previous threads, provides for the resolution of the refugee situation (it does not specify only Palestinian refugees) arising from the 1948 War declared by the Arab states surrounding Palestine in 1948.

UN Security Resolutions 242 and 338 were passed in the wakes of the 1967 and 1973 wars respectively, (later superceded by UN SC Res. 1397 and UNSCR 1515).

Here's Res. 242, which:

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity

For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Note this resolution has now been partly complied with by Israel (in withdrawing from the Sinai, Gaza, and northern West Bank) and by Eqypt and Jordan which have terminated their states of belligerency with Israel. The remainder of the West Bank and the Golan Heights remain to be resolved under this set of resolutions.

The other UN Resolution of relevance is UNSCR 425, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. A later UNSC resolution affirms this withdrawal, which occurred in 2000. So Israel has complied with this one.

So exactly which UN resolutions are you talking about?

what is required to challenge one's belief structure?

Will Howard: "There were proposals to set up a national homeland for Jews in other places: the Nazis thought of sending them all to Madagascar. Uganda, Alaska, even Tasmania were all put forth."

Hi Will, actually Uganda, Madagasca, Australia ,and Texas of all places, were proposed at the WZC, I forget which one, I think it was at the turn of last century. An autonomous state was set up in Soviet times. Also David Ben Gurion describes meeting the leader of the Vietnamese resistance in Paris and on discussing their aims the latter offered the former Northern Vietnam for a homeland! Now wouldn't that have been a change of history! (this is discussed in Prof Martin's tome, Descent into Barbarism 1933-1957.

I imagine if the Nazis had not attacked the Soviet Union and been consequently defeated, instead victors in Europe, I imagine there would be no tales of genocide of Jewish Europeans and no publishing houses or historians with the data to support such accusations. Perhaps with UK defeated any remaining Jews would have been transited out to Palestine as seemed to be partly the "cleansing" intention at one point, as some of the camps were described as transit for that. What a dreadful Europe. The rest of the Slavs would have been wiped out and no-one to record that either, nor the Gypsies etc, no-one to make movies or write books about it. Genocides and ethnic cleansing by victors rarely leave more than an echo in time, a legend. How many even now know the details of the Armenian genocide? And the Ukrainians? Etc.

Obviously the point that I wish to make is that maybe this history of what actually happened would be better reported and recorded if there was a Palestinian state and education system and historians to keep their own records, rather than rely upon Israelis who read broadly and question bravely, who have gone back and interviewed and archived. The IDF still refuses to release the photos from the time, documented by the army photographer and in the IDF archives.

Has anyone mentioned the data on Wikipedia about Deir Yasin and the references and what is there now, in the last paragraph, just one Arab building left? The references are detailed and the intra jewish inter-powerplay helps to obfuscate, but when one reads the description from those who have no "axe to grind" it seems fairly consistent that there was an attack upon a village which had a neutrality agreement and it was defended fiecely with deaths amongst the attackers and then angry reprisals by the victors: a massacre. Happens in war all the time. The Jewish congress apologised for it. Apology not accepted at the time. Understandable really.

Geoff, why don't you read the descriptions by the Jewish eyewitnesses to understand what the population that lived there went through to make present day Israel? What crime had they committed?

Here is a little describing what is there now.

And for the record, I don't quite see what all this aggression is all about and rather vitriolic language. You have shown yourself quite capable of holding a discussion based upon available data or a civilised opinion before. Data plenty here.

It reminds me of a dinner party with our South African friends, who of course had been in the military, and when the US airforce and marines were discussed it was noted that many used amphetamine like substances to maintain alertness on long hauls and repeat flights and how that can affect judgement and even produce anger and overt aggression. Boy did he flip out! Impossible, how dare anyone impune the honest soldiers like that, over the top reaction. Turns out, he had actually had to use it himself in battle and...

Just don't talk about the war, as they say. But the myths of battle excite the young to march and hide the nightmare experience of those fought across.

Withdrawal from Lebanon, ah Will, more history, more crimes with no accountability. How could such a man ever be voted Prime Minister? Clearly the use of insecurity encourages ruthless protective voting.

Your question, 'should Israel be included in NATO?' Why? To whose benefit? If Iran as well then how does that stop an attack from either? Both would have official placement of nuclear weapons as Turkey has at present, how would that diffuse?

Certainly ,the formation of a military pact including NATO/Israel/Australia/Japan/Sth Korea has been bandied about by neocon stooges like Alvara the loser of Spain. Shows the hand a bit.

I wonder what it would take for someone like Geoff to reconsider whether history is a little different from what he wants it to be. What speck of data, testment, forensic evidence, first person document, what might help him consider an alternative? Sometimes we cannot, no matter what. It is too close. I felt this recently.

Such is the fate of the Palestinians. May it never be ours, though we may deserve it.

Sadly cheers.

Will:  I did not see

Will:  I did not see your post on another site. The 'facts of the furphy' came from Uri Davis which I then researched and found on other sites. You may like to look at this link.

http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/8402635.html

Deir Yassin Now


Although the village is still standing, the name Deir Yassin is on no map. The central part of the village is a mental hospital. To the east is the industrial area of Givat Shaul. To the north lies Har Hamenuchot, an orthodox Jewish cemetery, and to the west is Har Nof an orthodox Jewish settlement. But, to the south is a valley, and on the other side of that valley is the Jewish Holocaust memorial of Yad Vashem.

You can find Deir Yassin but it's not easy to visit. There are no signs, no plaques, no memorials of any kind. The cemetery is largely gone; the ruins of the deir (monastery) are unmarked; and the quarry from which the residents made a living and in which the bodies of those who were massacred were piled up and burned is likely buried under a fuel storage depot on the south side of the mountain. But Deir Yassin is still there and still in clear sight of Yad Vashem

http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/images/Image/Haaretz%20-%20Right%20of%20remembrance.htm

http://www.nakbainhebrew.org/index.php?lang=english

I said the Holocaust memorial was built on Deir Yassin land  (not the destroyed village as you seem to infer) which it was. Would you like to demonstrate how it is not? Or would you just like to pull your pants up and leave?

Two other links regarding the creation of Israel upon the bones of Palestinian life are:

My pants are up

Roslyn says: "I said the Holocaust memorial was built on Deir Yassin land (not the destroyed village as you seem to infer) which it was. Would you like to demonstrate how it is not? Or would you just like to pull your pants up and leave?"

No need for me to pull anything up. I haven't been caught in a porky. I'm not going anywhere until you retract the Yad Vashem/Deir Yassin libel, or Webdiary bans me. I already did. But here is is again. Look at the two maps. I wrote "the site of Deir Yassin is not at the same location as...

Hamish: the trail off at the end is how I found this (I added the dots). While I'm here, I can't see any reason why anyone might be banned here.

Left off part of that posting

Here's what I meant to get out there:

The site of Deir Yassin is not at the same location as Yad Vashem. The two sites are a few kilometers* away from each other, as a look at the two maps will establish.

The Deir Yassin massacre did happen, though many of the facts remain uncertain. A sober account of what is known about Deir Yassin and the events surrounding the massacre is given by commentator Ami Isseroff at Deir Yassin - the Evidence.

This is what Roslyn Ross wrote:

One of the worst massacres of Arabs took place at Deir Yasin in April 1948 and it is on this land that the official State of Israel holocaust memorial, Yad va-Shem, now stands as well as the City of Jerusalem cemetery. There’s something seriously tasteless, or sublimely arrogant, about building a memorial to the suffering of your own people on land where you have committed a war crime!

Roslyn, care to clarify? Is what you're saying that the Deir Yassin took place on the land now occupied by Yad Vashem. Or perhaps, to be charitable, let's just assume that perhaps you mean Yad Vashem is on blood-stained land in general? It probably is. There was a war, and a lot of fighting in and around Jerusalem. So it's enitirely possible that blood, probably both Jewish and Arab, was spilled where the memorial now stands. Is this what you meant?

Here's what your own source says: "the name Deir Yassin is on no map. The central part of the village is a mental hospital. To the east is the industrial area of Givat Shaul. To the north lies Har Hamenuchot, an orthodox Jewish cemetery, and to the west is Har Nof an orthodox Jewish settlement. But, to the south is a valley, and on the other side of that valley is the Jewish Holocaust memorial of Yad Vashem."

This is a geographically correct statement.

Though Deir Yassin is on no map, neither is Gush Etzion. Look it up, Roslyn.

* For Phil Kendall: I'm US-born and Aussie-based. Sometimes I forget where I'm writing and lapse into American spelling.

Nitpicking

Will, this has reached the point of nitpicking. I have clarified the use of the word 'land.' The Holocaust Memorial was built on Deir Yassin land, that is historical fact ... that is what I said. That is to my mind as tasteless as a German memorial being built on Auschwitz land.

But let's split the difference. You seem to have a problem because you think I was saying that the Holocaust Memorial was built exactly where the massacre took place (maybe it was because I am sure that people ran away and were massacred in all sorts of places) ... okay, let's agree that the Memorial was built somewhere that a massacre did not take place... right ... but it is still built on Deir Yassin land.

My point was that Deir Yassin stands symbolically to the Palestinians as the site of their worst massacre ... symbolically it holds for them something akin to the Jewish response to Auschwitz!

So, whatever the absolute accuracy of who got massacred where and how many, the fact remains, that because the Memorial is built on land that once belonged to the people of Deir Yassin it is an affront and tasteless!

The reason that Deir Yassin and hundreds of other Palestinian villages are on no maps is because the Israelis draw the maps and have purposefully left them off having tried to erase all evidence and memory of their existence.

And the facts of Deir Yassin are clearer than you would like to believe.  Even Israeli historians now admit to that.

[Hamish: which ones? Source? Roslyn, with respect, this debate is at a point where you really should source all of your claims. Nothing is self-evident. The purposeful and malicious map-alterations are another good example. Do you have a source for that or is it something you suspect independently? If it's true it's an extemely serious charge which is why it's crucial you make your evidence known.]

Hamish: I did not use the

Hamish: I did not use the word 'malicious' in regard to map making. It seems to me you are 'interpreting' the post this way.

I said Palestinian villages had been left off on purpose. I said this because it is a fact that Jewish villages and towns were built on top of them and they were the names which went on to the maps.

Israel has not drawn maps showing destroyed Arab villages although of course, such maps can still be found from before the foundation of Israel.

Moshe Dayan said, "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist!"

Now, running with a ball which has been clearly 'thrown' and I have posted other relevant links in other recent posts, it seems reasonable to me to then say what I said. Destroyed Palestinian villages have been left off on purpose and logically so one would say. There's another debate and I am sure a long one as to how much effort Israel puts in to erasing evidence of Palestinian habitation.

One example of the policy to 'erase'.

Hamish...

Hamish: I am about to respond to your previous call for source. I have been wading through the replies and trying to respond where necessary.

I did in fact in a previous post include links to sources but I am beginning to think that people do not access them, or, if they do, they ignore them.

I will go back and re-post. I said in that post the original claim that the Holocaust Memorial was built on Deir Yassin land came from Uri Davis and I then found other sources saying the same.

Now, beyond all this, it also seems to me that in debates regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the 'supporters' always seem to work very hard to bog down the debate on one issue ... like a dog with a bone. It does rather keep the level of debate controlled to technicalities and semantics.

And, as I said in the post replying to Jenny, I think you should make it clear that I did not select the introductory quote which seems to have so inflamed and offended. I had assumed, that in selecting that particular quote you would have accessed the links and confirmed for yourself that what I was saying was reasonable. You had asked me to be careful about sourcing what I was saying and it was therefore reasonable for me to assume that you would check anything you considered controversial.

Hamish: I selected the introductory quote. I didn't write it though and I didn't check it. You're right - if I had been more careful I would have noticed that it was one claim that wasn't actually sourced (at least originally). My apologies all round.

Will, Will, Will

Will, the two sites are approximately a kilometer apart. Time to bend over for a paddling because you are being just a little too cute.

Perhaps you can tell us why the Holocaust memorial was placed where it was. Did the organiser just inconveniently forget where Deir Yassin was?

What sort of an outcry would there be if Germany asked to build a memorial to its war dead about a kilometer from the gates of Auschwitz. Disingenuous is the kindliest interpretation of your outrage.

Put up or retract

Roger, this was the statement:

One of the worst massacres of Arabs took place at Deir Yasin in April 1948 and it is on this land that the official State of Israel holocaust memorial, Yad va-Shem, now stands as well as the City of Jerusalem cemetery. There’s something seriously tasteless, or sublimely arrogant, about building a memorial to the suffering of your own people on land where you have committed a war crime!

A demonstrably, and patently false, statement. Now Webdiary is supposed to be "Accountable" right? Who's "accountable" for retracting this libel? Apparently not Webdiary editors. They just publish what's posted. Okaaay.

How about the author? Not so far.

"Accountable" for what? The truth? Factual veracity? There was little of that in the article either, as my previous post demonstrated. And I had hardly scratched the surface.

I challenge you, or Roslyn, or anyone else, to do the right, honest thing and correct just this one misstatement. I will keep insisting on this one act of honesty until Webdiary either does the honourable thing or bans me. Come on, guys. I'm waiting.

Unless - unless by "on this land" she means in Israel in general? Well of course there is no Israel, just Zionist-occupied Palestine, right? Is that what you meant, Roslyn? That all of Israel is a war-crime site? That would make sense, given your view that the very founding of Israel was illegal. Thus a crime. A war crime.

Now in that context the statement makes perfect sense. Is that what you meant, Roslyn? I want to see anyone - anyone - have the balls (I mean that in the non-gender-specific sense of course) to quit pussyfooting around and come on out say what you really mean. No more hiding behind "pacifism." "We want to see Israel eliminated. In a peaceful way. Just don't hurt anybody. We're 'pacifists."

Accuracy and accountability all round

Will, as an example of how muddled all this "outrage" can get, you refer to "retracting this libel". Is this what you really meant?

Who has been libelled? Certainly not you. You can't libel the people or the state of Israel, only an individual. So in the interest of accuracy and to remove your totally unrealistic requirement that the WD editors, who are mostly volunteers, should spend their time researching the writings of every poster, you should withdraw your legally incorrect assertion that a libel has been committed.

As for the rest of your allegations, and your challenge, I see that Roslyn has responded in detail to what you have written. Still, I can't help thinking that there is more hyperbole than fact in some of what you write. Here's an example:

"Accountable" for what? The truth? Factual veracity? There was little of that in the article either, as my previous post demonstrated. And I had hardly scratched the surface.

Pure hyperbole!

OK "libel" was not the right word

Roger Fedyk writes "you should withdraw your legally incorrect assertion that a libel has been committed."

Fair enough, and I stand corrected on that point. I withdraw it.

How's "pernicious, even if inadvertant, falsehood?"

What Makes A Village

Will, I am not sure about "pernicious" but as you feel it is appropriate, so be it.

However, I had another idea in the shower (good place for ideas) that you can use to mollify your indignation that something is being made out the location of Holocaust memorial that is not there.

I lived in a village in England called Berkhamstead. The outskirts of the village, where the signposts were located, were at least a mile from the village centre. Any good Berkhamsteader would tell you that anywhere inside the signposts was "their village" not just the buildings at the centre. Ditto for when I lived in Almengingen bei Thun in Switzerland, the signposts for the village were at least half a kilometer from where the houses and the shops were located.

As a boy, I lived in Hamilton in the Western District of Victoria. I rode my bike two miles to school at Monivae College  which was on the outskirts of Hamilton in the middle of cow paddocks.

My point, which should be obvious, is that in each place, the residents have a well-formed idea of the extent of their home base which in every case includes a certain amount of surrounding area apart from the dwellings.

You cannot deny that the residents of any place have a sense of ownership of the village surrounds. It is essential to their life's endeavours, being the place where they cultivate food, bury their waste and their dead, play sport and so on.

If you want to place such a narrow interpretation on the location of Deir Yassin then you deny where Melbourne or Sydney or any other habitated place on earth actually is.

Roger: Well argued.

Roger, well argued.

I think what I find bizarre is that it appears to be beyond the comprehension ability of some that we are talking 'land', the  extended area belonging to the villagers and not the village itself. That has been clarified so many times and it just seems to sink into a black hole. Denial is impressive.

Hamish: Roslyn, it was very clear to me when I read your article that you were saying the "land" of "one of the worst massacres of Arabs" that the museum was built upon. Though I can see that it's possible you merely meant the 'general area of Deir Yasin' I think without annotation it would be almost impossible for a reader to glean that meaning. Can you at least apologise for clumsy expression rather than just counter-attack? Meanwhile, as I asked before, what is your source for the claim and are there Palestinians making it?

Re: What makes a Village

Roger Fedyk writes: "You cannot deny that the residents of any place have a sense of ownership of the village surrounds. It is essential to their life's endeavours, being the place where they cultivate food, bury their waste and their dead, play sport and so on."

I don't deny that, nor do I mean to minimise the suffering of the people of Deir Yassin or any other Palestinians who have suffered under the also-pernicious Israeli occupation. But to my knowledge no Arab villagers have complained about the location of Yad Vashem being too close to Deir Yassin - have they? Maybe they have, and if so, I'll stand corrected. Let me know.

Look, there's plenty to criticise about the heavy-handed Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and many misdeeds on both sides dating back to and before the 1948 war. Acknowledging and coming to terms with all these - Deir Yassin, Gush Etzion - have a place in moving towards peace and reconciliation between Jews and Arabs in Israel-Palestine.

There's no need to invent a piece of history. It's the dishonesty I object to.

Perspective

Your problem Roger Fedyk, or at least one of your problems, is that you have no remote idea at all about the land we are talking about. This is not Berkhamstead, for chrissake. You are not peacefully riding your bike around the rolling vast plains of the Western District.

The memorial is in Jerusalem and Deir Yasin is on the approaches to Jerusalem. Go a few miles more and you will be in Tel Aviv.

Take a step back and admit what has happened here. Roslyn Ross has surveyed the area around Deir Yasin for miles for something of significance. Bingo! Yad Vashem! The Holocaust Memorial itself. She then asserted as fact that the memorial was on that land. The rest of what she had to say has already been quoted here too many times. Read it again for yourself.

This is hardly her only porkie of course but boy is it a humdinger. Even by the standards of the Israel-haters she quotes as authority. Not even the worst of the hatemongers had the imagination to come up with that one. But I will wager it will be all over the hate sites within three months. With her being quoted with warm approval. There is an insatiable appetite for this kind of thing. As some of you might have seen on SBS the other night.

Perhaps she thought she would get away with it. No one here would know any better. You will have noticed a certain arrogance, even superciliousness in her tone.

And as I predicted she has not had the dignity to just say she made an error. Not only has she refused to withdraw now that she has been exposed, she is down right abusive in defending what she said. The word plays, language shifts, redefinitions, and semantics she deploys are almost puerile. It would be amusing if the subject matter was not so terribly serious.

Roslyn does not seem to understand that there are people being killed, language inflames and this sort of thing is dangerous even here. And that is by no means "over the top". 

Or maybe she does understand that.

hardly debate

Geoff, there is really no point to this if you dismiss sources I post as Israeli haters. I did not make this up and I posted links to show that fact. You either accessed them and dismissed them as Israeli haters or did not access them and did the same.

That is hardly debate and certainly does not amount to rebuttal on your part. If you are going to continue to call me a liar, then prove it! Prove that Yad Vashem is NOT on land that once belonged to the people of Deir Yassin. I have posted sources saying it is. You post sources saying it is not.

You completely misinterpreted and distorted what Roger was saying. Can you truly not comprehend the point he was making? That inhabitants of a village or town include more than their village boundaries as their land?

My Problem?

Geoff, when you go for literary excess and emotion to bolster an argument then any idea that something useful can be debated is lost.

Now you are bending geography to suit your own agenda. Yad Vashem is within the new city boundary of Jerusalem and so is Deir Yassin. What does this tell us? Not much except what we already know which is that the two sites are close together.

The fact that you and others are aggressively zealous in prosecuting your point of view shows us something else that we already know which is that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is currently intractable, everywhere.

I am not Jewish, however I was born in a Nazi slave labour camp and from that connection I have always maintained my interest in WWI/WWII history and with that the development of the Jewish State. Except for those with sociopathic tendencies, no one could fail to be moved by the horrors of the Holocaust and that is not the purpose of the current forum.

I believe that Roslyn has expressed that sentiment quite fully. Personally, I believe that World Jewry has a right to exist as any religion has. Whether Israel as a state has a right to exist is a different argument entirely. It exists because of favourable historical events and because of American armed might. Without the American weapons, Israel may have failed some time ago. So Israel's right is based solely on military muscle. If the Palestinians ever gain an arsenal bigger and better than the Israelis then Israel will cease to exist and the world will shrug, as it does now, and move onto other problems.

As the lawyer Malcolm Duncan has outlined in one of his earlier posts, the history of mankind is a continuing history of dispossession. He also puts the argument that the prevailing side in armed conflict accrues all the legal rights by dint of its military victory. Should the Palestinians manage to defeat the Israelis and repossess that land then it will be the Palestinians defending their homeland while the Israelis take on the role of the aggrieved dispossessed.

Now as to your opening remark, "Your problem Roger Fedyk, or at least one of your problems", it is a stupid impertinence. You have not the slightest idea about any of my problems and any that I do have I do not discuss in WD. The rest of your opening paragraph is similarly irrelevant.

Whatever issues you have with Roslyn are best addressed to her as I cannot comment specifically on her behalf. She may have had a "bingo" moment as you accuse her of but personally I doubt it.

I should not have to remind you of it but I am obliged to because you are guilty of the same things that you accuse her of -  "she is down right abusive in defending what she said. The word plays, language shifts, redefinitions, and semantics she deploys are almost puerile."

If you cannot see your own rhetorical excess we will have to live with the dichotomy. Roslyn may in fact be in error with some of the things she has written but then so are you unless you are claiming that everything you have written is error free.

As to your claim that...

Roslyn does not seem to understand that there are people being killed, language inflames and this sort of thing is dangerous even here. And that is by no means "over the top".

...with its inflammatory closing...

Or maybe she does understand that.

...is a very good example of the type of exaggeration that you engage in. Just exactly who is going to get inflamed by this "language" in this country? Certainly not me. Perhaps some neo-Nazi lowbrows?

Problems? Not My Fault

Roger, it is you who sought to support this libel with some spurious comparison with an English village and a small town in the Western District. It is you who was determined to have a debate over whether libel was libel. And lost. It is you who has now moved from the "grazing land" theory, or whatever, piece of nonsense to "they are now close", or whatever rubbish is coming next. And now it is you who is attempting to muddy the waters still further by introducing some kind of comparative timeless map of Jerusalem and its environs that somehow binds 1948 and the years of construction of the memorial with yesterday.

If you are as moved by the horrors of the Holocaust as you say you are then you will have no difficulty understanding how offensive this lie is. Especially in the context of the rest of the essay. Not that it is the only lie. For what it is worth I am as white hot livid about this now as I was three days ago. In a sense it is worse. Then I assumed that Roslyn was merely retailing something she picked up in one of those Israel bashing sites she frequents doing "research", along with the rest of her essay. Probably she didn't know it wasn't true. Just reckless. Now it seems clear it was entirely a product of her mind.

Yes I make errors including on Webdiary. But when they are brought to my attention or, I otherwise notice them, I acknowledge them and if the circumstance warrant it, I apologise. If I realise I was wrong about something then I change my mind about it. We know what Roslyn does. What do you do?

You do not of course expect  me to be grateful for your affirmation that World Jewry has a right to exist "as a religion", or in any other form for that matter. Frankly it says a lot that you felt the need to say that. I hadn't realised it was an issue around here. Mind you it can often be a shock to see what does suddenly become an issue around here. Where Yad Vashen is situated and why, for instance.

Of course this stuff is potentially dangerous. It is precisely the highly symbolic nature of this thing, combining as it does the Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, Deir Yasin, the best known and most significant Holocaust memorial in the world and, can you believe it, alleged Jewish "serious tastelessness" and "sublime arrogance". Can you think of a more explosive mix? It is precisely that which would make this ugly little story irresistible to every hate group going. Why feed them? You have seen for yourself what a run this thing has had here. Even educated and informed people are inclined to believe all sorts of things if it is presented to them undisputed. It is not a bunch of local nazis that worry me and surely I do not have to explain to you the nature of the internet.

You can accuse me of rhetorical excess if you like. Frankly if it is "excess" you are looking for you will find a much better example at the top of the page. I do not know what your problems are and I do not care. But some of them are on display here. I have a problem with Roslyn's professed "pacificism". A serious problem.

A Longer Reply Is Warranted

Geoff, I read you last post and want to give it some thought as you have taken the trouble to delve deeper into some of the issues exposed here.

I note your concerns and will do my best to put my own perspective on those concerns.

Correction

Solomon, I refered to Poland and Czechoslovakia in my last post to you. I meant to write Austria and Czechoslovakia. My apologies.

Would you have been offended

Malcolm, would you also be offended by the use of 'serious tastelessness' and 'sublime arrogance' if they were used in regard to German plans to build a memorial to the dead of Dresden barely a kilometre from Auschwitz? If you would be then good on you, at least you are consistent. If not, then why not?

The reality is that Deir Yassin is only re-entering consciousness now in many respects. Many Israelis are completely ignorant to its reality and would not be struck by the fact that as they walk out of Yad Vashem they can look toward it. Palestinians, one assumes, don't go to Yad Vashem but if they did, they would no doubt be struck by the inappropriateness of its positioning.

Could it have happened by chance? Certainly. Is it likely? Probably not. However it happened the reality is that Yad Vashem 'faces' the site of a Palestinian 'Auschwitz' and has been built on land which can be strongly argued, once belonged to the people of Deir Yassin.

You are outraged because I have claimed that Yad Vashem is built on Deir Yassin land... well, what upsets me is the fact that the Palestinians have been dispossessed through violence and dropped into a black hole of ignorance where they suffer and die in misery.

I actually feel that the daily death and suffering of people is more important than any accusation of tastelessness or arrogance. It's about priorities.

You seek to 'defend' what, Israeli image, face, integrity? I seek to defend justice and human rights. There's the difference.

Libel

I disagree. I reinstate the allegation.

This is a libel in every sense including the legal sense.

It is a libel even in the worst sense.

It is a blood libel.

Disagree Away

Geoff, your interpretation may have some applicablility in an alternate universe, not this one. I don't want to get sidetracked by semantics but what you say makes no sense.

Who is being libelled and which court has widened the accepted definition of a libel? So far you have mentioned "every sense", "legal sense" and "worst sense". This may be good theatrics but it is not an argument.

The Law According to Fedyk

Roger Fedyk, I've remained silent long enough while I read your breathtaking elucidations of libel. Now they come to this: "which court has widened the accepted definition of a libel?"

Well, none, recently (the US Supreme Court toys with the concept from time to time).

Just to put you on the straight and narrow, at Common Law, defamation is divided into two broad classes: spoken defamation (slander) and written defamation (libel). Both are said to be published although libel may include pictorial representations and slander may include gestures.

The distinction has now been abolished by the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and cognate legislation has, I understand, now come into force in all other Australian jurisdictions. Defamation is "The general legal term for the wrong of damaging another's reputation by falsely communicating to a third party matters bringing the complainant into unjustifiable disrepute." Walker DM, Oxford Companion to Law Clarendon Press Oxford.

The Ross allegations, to the extent that they reflected on anyone living in NSW who had had any role in the events cited by her and corrected by Geoff Pahoff, are capable of being defamatory and would have constituted a libel under the old law. Unless true or substatinally true, they would still be defamatory in NSW.

In my view, if they were not capable of substatiation as truthful, it would be a very serious defamation indeed even under the current law.

As someone said to Clive Evatt Snr from the bench once: "Mr Evatt, I'm none the wiser for that submission."

To which Evatt replied: "But Your Honour is much better informed."

Welcome to the information age, Roger Fedyk.

Now, I'm off to lunch to spend what Daniel Smythe no doubt considers some of my filthy (if hard-earned) lucre.

Thankful And Maybe Wiser

Malcolm, I am sure that I and others will take on board your remarks on libel as a matter of interest and fact.

I thank you for embellishing my reputation with your honorific but it is not necessary even if it has a certain ring to it, "The Law According To Fedyk". In all modesty, I ask you to note that I only presented a rather limited comment regarding the applicability of the laws on libel so to have you state that I made "breathtaking elucidations of libel" is a singular honour and, of course, confirms the fact that I was 100% accurate including the underlying assumption that no court has widened the definition of libel.

In response to Geoff Pahoff's assertions that a libel had been committed, I did exactly what you would have done and told him that the libel laws are available to individuals. No wonder you are proud of me. You just have your own unique way of showing it.

Now a really interesting question is whether there is any one living in New South Wales whose reputation could possibly be damaged by what Roslyn wrote. Seeing she named no one living in that state and seeing that it is doubtful, short of a judgment to the contrary, that she has actually written anything that could be construed as being defamatory, anyway, would I be correct in assuming that you are actually just being hypothetical in an attempt to alert us all to what sort of trap we could stumble into.

That is rather good of you Malcolm and is the main reason why we value your input so much. Keep up the great work that defines yourself and your profession.

Roger Fedyk? Sense? What Aternate Universe?

I will happy to give you an opinion. How detailed would you like it? For you, I will charge the special rate of $1250 per hour. I will be requiring a substantial deposit.

Let me know when to start the clock.

Knock Yourself Out

Geoff, seeing that Malcolm has given us the benefit of his knowledge of libel law and it coincides with my own, you can now please yourself as to how you want to deal with it. Just don't be a holdout for money, your integrity cannot be bought, can it? What's the world coming to with people selling their opinions for money (hmm.. Andrew Bolt? Michael Moore?).

I'm listening.

Crossroads

Roger Fedyk, I don't do "disingenuous." And I definitely don't do "cute."

This post will be neither. It's about what Webdiary is, and is going to become. Webdiary seems not to want to be a "let it all hang out" forum. It has rules. Ethics. It has banned, or threatened to ban, members for their violations of these ethics. In my memory Jay White for allegedly posting as more than one person (a truly bizarre incident). [Hamish: no, he was not banned for that, and I'd love to see him back, but never mind.] Sid Walker for posting Holocaust denial. It has also declined to publish individual posts deemed inappropriate for one breach or another of Webdiary rules and ethics.

Yet the piece "We Can Live in Truth" was published, and is just as much an assault on truth and memory as anything David Irving ever published. Like claiming "the world isn't an oblate spheroid, it's a cube. And oh by the way, it's Israel's fault it's like that."

Webdiary might as well let Sid Walker back in. I think he's actually quite harmless, and at least lives by the Webdiary ethic of "Transparency." You know exactly where he's coming from. No pretense.

Of course you also have some Webdiarists in self-imposed exile. Like Damian Lataan, who now takes indirect pot-shots at me and others from his own blog, in what what must be the most bizarre and oblique ritual I've ever seen. Brave New World.

Do you want Webdiary to truly be a "citizens media?" Many posters have criticised, rightly, the "Mainstream Media" for its biases and inaccuracies. Its sins of omission and commission. If Webdiary wants to be a credible alternative it has to strive to adopt and live by, at least the ethical and journalistic standards the "MSM" so often honour in the breach. Getting the facts, to the extent they are cited, straight. Separating fact from opinion. Acknowledging error. You know - journalism.

Here's an excerpt from "Webddiary Ethics:"

Margo Kingston writes:

"My obligations

"1. I will strive to comply with the Media Alliance codes of ethics, which will be in a prominent position on this site at all times.

2. In particular, I will correct errors of fact [my emphasis] on Webdiary as soon as possible after they are brought to my attention and will disclose and explain any inadvertent breach of my ethical duties on Webdiary at the first available opportunity."

I suggest we all have this responsibility.

Look, any moron with a keyboard and modem can have a blog these days. There are so many of them now, - unmoderated, uncensored, unedited. Many of them publishing rubbish. The ravings of lunatics. Run mostly by people in their spare time. If the intention is to make it a free-for-all, then there's plenty of automated software that will just pass comments straight through to the web site. No need for editors or moderators.

Webdiary has bigger ambitions, though, doesn't it? It's trying to run as a viable business. And make a mark as something more than just another blog. To succeed, I suggest, it has to distinguish itself from other blogs, and make itself heard above the global electronic cacaphony. It wants to be credible, and build upon the journalistic credibility Margo Kingston brought from the Sydney Morning Herald. It rightly doesn't want to be seen as just another raving loony site like Counterpunch or antiwar.com, the virtual equivalent of someone standing on a milk carton yelling "the end is nigh!" to passersby.

So, I suggest, Webdiary has a decision to make. Either drop the rules and the "no-go" topics and let it be a free-for-all, or truly strive to make it a real alternative, and rival to the "MSM." Make "Accountable" mean something.

Hamish: the most important force for accountability on Webdiary is you Will, along with other Webdiarists. I did however ask Roslyn to provide sources for her claims, which she mostly did. But Roslyn, you have been asked, and I will ask from my chair, what is your source for your claim that the holocaust memorial was built on 'the land' of the Deir Yasin massacre? Are there, as you've also been asked, Palestinians who make this claim? If you have a source people can move on to scrutinising that. If not, the right thing to do is withdraw the claim.

Acceptance Guaranteed

Will, I note your statement regarding 'disingenuous' and 'cute' and accept that as a matter of record.

Intractability

Hamish, this piece and the various posts have all been very enlightening as to the depth of feeling people have over this issue. But I don't think the personal vitriol really does anything to advance the cause of peace, from either side. It simply replicates the intractability of the two sides to the whole sad business.

Maybe some people could take a cold shower before they respond and try to keep their posts a bit more objective and less personal? Just a hope. I've found in life, getting one's plasma up really does nothing to change peoples' opinions and when people write posts, that are more personal attack than reasoning, then I for one just switch off.   

Does anyone actually have any idea how peace might be achieved? If Hamas continues to hold the line that Israel should not be allowed to exist, then can any progress ever be made? I am sure the general population on both sides genuinely want peace, but while the intractable on both sides hold the agenda then I suspect the whole business will outlast all of us. Northern Ireland has been going on for my entire lifetime. This issue has also for the best part of it to date.

What a terrible legacy Hitler left the world. In the aftermath of the Final Solution and WW2 there were so many displaced people in Europe and the collective guilt of Europe over the Jews played a prominent role in the founding of Israel. The world rushed in to grant them their a homeland, but in restrospect, it was probably one of the worst decisions of the 20th Century. The legacy of WW2 has come back to haunt the world not just in Palestine. The Balkan conflict was fuelled by underlying tensions and hatreds between Croats and Serbs, and we only have to look to WW2 to find part of the cause. What a mess one maniac can lead the world into.

I thought Will Howard made some good points about the position of the Americans at the time Israel was born, and concerning the '67 war. That was always my reading of history at the time.

Roslyn, I do not think the opening paragraph served any purpose. If not deliberately designed to, nonetheless it did inflame opinion, and on such a sensitive issue the facts would need to be spot on. There seems to be some debate over that. When opinion is inflamed, then you can see objective debate over the issue gets buried under meaningless point scoring.

While I read your article with interest, and I deplore the suffering the Palestinians go through, and of course not just them, I did not agree with all of it, nor the tone in which it was written. But I am able to read it without getting too worked up as I agree the Palestinians are currently in a dreadful position, and the Hamas/Fatah tensions are going to make it worse.

People are a lot better informed on the issues as they affect the Palestinians than I think you give them credit for. The Press has kept the public well informed of the true and brutal nature of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, not just the carnage caused by suicide bombers in Israel.  I for one was acutely aware of it, from the Press over many years.The deaths of Palestinains, particularly children are graphically reported, as have been the various incursions into towns and cities to destroy buildings and homes of Palestinians. I have been made aware via the Press of the issues of the Wall, and seen interviews with Palestinians affected by it, and been troubled myself by those reports.  And whenever I saw Sharon on the news, I was acutely aware of his alleged role in the earlier massacres in Lebanon. Hence I think all up, the Australian public has been kept fully and objectively informed by the Press on the issue as it affects both sides over some considerable timeframe. So I do not really feel the piece helped understanding all that much.

I think most thinking people are aware of the nature of the conflict and the crimes committed on both sides. I for one am not afraid to speak out about it against Israel, and I have not met anyone who was labelled anti-semitic for having done so. However, I am very sympathetic with those Jewish people who also live in fear of their lives from suicide bombers.

Both sides are filled with a terrible resolve to hold onto what they have, or to gain what they have lost.  Until one side or the other shifts its hardline position, then nothing will change, sad but true.

Hamish and editors, I think Webdiary will have some hiccups like this but I do not see them as life threatening. By the way, did those skeptics see how much the Fairtrade business has grown. 300M now in the UK and getting going here too. Have yet to try the coffee on the other half. Keeping a low profile there at the moment and certainly not the time to offer to buy him a kilt for his birthday. You might pass that on to Scott Dunmore just in case he has any bright ideas on that score.

Hamish: thankyou for your voice of moderation Jenny. It is an impossibly volatile issue, and from my seat both sides could indeed calm down and look at the other's arguments with a bit more charity. On the other hand, since the beginning of this particular argument, I think it has calmed a bit. Your comments can only help.

Jenny: I think it only

Jenny, I think it only fair for Hamish to verify that I did not choose the 'promo' excerpt which introduces this article to Webdiary. I agree it is inflammatory and probably the most inflammatory comment made in the article. But I repeat, I did not choose to introduce my article with this.

If you read the article you can see this is not the first paragraph.

Now, it seems to have become the focus for the debate and whether this is because it was 'lifted' to prominence or because it would have been anyway is a question.

But, here is where we are at.

The term on theland means just that

Will:  the term 'on the land' of Deir Yassin means exactly what it says. This 'land' belonged to the people of Deir Yassin and was no doubt worked by the people of Deir Yassin. The people of Deir Yassin were massacred and their land was taken. One of the things which was built on this stolen land was the Holocaust Memorial.

The Holocaust Memorial could have been built in many places but it was built on land which had once belonged to the people of a village and area who suffered one of Israel's worst war crimes in its war of foundation. I consider this to be tasteless even if you do not.

As someone else said, it's like the Germans building a memorial to the dead of Dresden (another war crime but perpetrated by the Allies) outside the gates of Auschwitz. Which bit of this do you not understand?

And if you are going to paraphrase and distort the gist of what I am saying, please be good enough to mark it as your paraphrase and distortion or paste in links to any quote you are suggesting I have made.  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.

Margo Kingston

Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Advertisements