Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Geoff, can you just clarify what my 'outrageous claims' are? If you are referring to my comment that as far as I knew there was one instance of a Palestinian child (UN definition not Israeli definition) being set up as a suicide bomber but I had heard of no others. Can you explain why that is outrageous? Can you also post any information you have on any other instances of children, by UN definition, that is under 18, being used as suicide bombers?

As memory serves the 'boy' in question was considered to be set-up and was mentally disabled. It is the only instance I can recall of a child.... UN definition.... being used, and there were doubts expressed later about whether or not he was being used or whether it was a scam by the IDF, but by all means post what you have on any other children.

I am sure anyone here interested in the topic would like to see the evidence that you have for your claim that Palestinian children ..... UN definition, have been used as suicide bombers.

Roslyn Ross: "C Parsons,  I really do not know what you are going on about. The whole point of posting links is that one can see where the quote, comment, opinion or article comes from. There is no secret about that. Logically. From Haaretz to the Iranian news services, who cares where it comes from? "

Uh, huh. Except you didn't post a link to the "Iranian news service" item you were quoting, or even indicate INRA as a source, did you?

And earlier you said...

Roslyn Ross: "The 'article' you linked was from Wikipedia. Hardly a reliable, reputable or substantive source."

You actually failed to mention that the so-called "news story" you quoted alleging Israeli use of "chemical weapons against civilians" was actually from the Iranian government's official propaganda service (INRA).

Hardly a reliable, reputable or substantive source under the circumstances.

Yet, the Wikipedia article detailing the extensive exploitation of children by Hamas, al-Aqsr Martyr's Brigade, etc, as suicide bombing drones was elaborately footnoted and linked to a wide range of authoritative sources.

Yet you dismissed that as unreliable.

By contrast, you provided no link to the Iranian propaganda ministry "report" (actually a transparent lie), failed to indicate it as your source, and even managed to quote it only selectively.

You posted it as "authoritive" - but obviously realised that nobody on earth would imagine that an INRA "report" of that nature could be a "reliable, reputable or substantive source".

So you concealed its origins.

You then attempted to dismiss criticism of this tactic by stating;

 "C. Parsons:  Are you suggesting that all Arab (sic) sites are to be dismissed as propaganda?"

A diversionary step so lame that the average house cat could see through it.

I must congratulate you on your dedication to the cause (whatever it is), but suggest in future you pay more attention to your propaganda technique.

The fact that you seem to think the Iranians are Arabs pretty well ensures you are not on the INRA payroll at any rate. So, that's a relief.

Thank you Michael Coleman. Although your sources do not corroborate Roslyn Ross's obscene and outrageous claims, even if the sources are taken at face value, they do raise issues worth a response. For now, I note that these sources clearly contradict what she has repeatedly claimed. It is a shame of course that you could not have done that. Or perhaps that's what you mean by "debunking"?

In the meantime, given your undoubted concerns for the rights of children, especially it seems Palestinian children, and the material about this that you have at your fingertips, perhaps you might like to comment on her claim that there has only been one Palestinian under the age of eighteen that Hamas/IJ/Al Aqsa Martyrs etc have attempted to use as a suicide murderer and that was an Israeli setup?

Or is this a situation here that leads you into something that, on any "source" and no matter what the context or spin, you can't blame an Israeli for and therefore it is not "pretty" enough for you?

Human Rights Watch reports:

The Israeli military reinstituted Military Order No. 132 in 1999, permitting its forces to arrest Palestinian children as young as twelve. Originally issued during the Intifada, the order had been suspended in 1993. Following the renewed implementation of the order, groups of Palestinian children reported that they were beaten or threatened with physical abuse during interrogation.

But wait! From another source, there's more:

Palestinian children arrested from Israeli military checkpoints are often made to wait for hours at the checkpoint, with their hands cuffed, before they are transferred to detention and interrogation centers. More often than not, Palestinian child detainees are subject to beatings, curses and threats during the transfer. In most cases, their families are not informed of their arrest, with child prisoners additionally being transferred from one prison to another without informing the family. As a result, it often takes some time before a child detainee is located and the family informed of his/her location.

And more:

The children are subsequently placed under detention and interrogated, during which time they are frequently tortured, which includes being beaten and subjected to "position abuse," or shabeh. Prisoners in shabeh are tied up in extremely painful positions, shackled to walls or small chairs that force them to contort their bodies, left in the same position for hours or days. The initial discomfort quickly turns to pain and grows more intense as time passes. In September 6, 1999, the Israeli High Court of Justice issued a decision to ban violent interrogation methods used against Palestinians by members of the Israeli General Security Services (shabak). Despite this ruling, cases of Israeli torture of detainees continue to be regularly reported. Moreover, it is important to note that this ruling addressed only members of the shabak, and did not address torture inflicted by Israeli police or military officials.

By Israeli military order, it is permitted to detain Palestinian children for an initial four days, and then extend the detention another four days. After these eight days, in order to allow time to prepare a case to be raised against the child in military court, the prosecutor can order yet another extension of the child's detention. The prosecutor then requests the judge to arrest - not sentence - the child, and presents a charge sheet. The child can be held in this liminal status without sentence indefinitely, as has been the case with 17 year old Su'ad Ghazal. Though arrested in December 1998, Su'ad has yet to be sentenced.

Amnesty International confirms that:

Conditions in the detention centre at the Huwara military base are very poor, and amount to inhuman and degrading treatment. A lawyer who visited the centre on 5 May 2003 reported that 15 children under the age of 18 were held there, and that, as in other military detention facilities, children are held with adults, in contravention of both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. Military authorities classify it as a temporary detention facility for detainees in transit, but many have been held there for up to three months. The base started to be used as a detention facility in the spring of 2002, but for a year no lawyers were allowed to visit detainees. Since March 2003 some lawyers have been allowed to visit detainees, but they have found it difficult to obtain permits for such visits. No family visits have yet been allowed.

"Do you accept the UN definition of a child as under 18? Yes or No."

What on earth is this ridiculous question all about Roslyn? Which definition? Definition for what purposes?

"If No, do you then accept the Israeli (illegal) definition of a child as under 12?"

From the ridiculous to the patently absurd and dishonest. What Israeli definition? For which purpose? How is it illegal?

"And while in a roundabout way, you sort of answered my question in regard to the imprisonment and torture of children you did not give a clear answer. How about summoning up your courage."

From the absurd and dishonest to outright libel and lies. Again. What imprisonment and torture of children? What is your source? The Iranian official propaganda newsagency? Again? The official mouthpiece of the regime that hangs sixteen year old girls in public by hoisting them on a crane?

"Now, Wikipedia is another thing altogether. Wikipedia is presented as an encyclopedia, cum dictionary, cum research library and those who access it know that articles are contributed and that Wikipedia does not have the stringent regulations which apply to other research sources. Therfore, Wikipedia is the McDonalds of the information world. Useful if one is ‘hungry’ for knowledge but hardly haute cusine when it comes to information."

Are you saying that your totally unsourced piece of nonsense that there has only been one Palestinian suicide bomber under eighteen, and that was an Israeli setup, is true? In the face of the well written and carefully balanced Wikipedia article complete with sources and detailed information? Not to mention all the other sources that can be searched in a few minutes by anybody with even a passing interest in the truth?

Or are you going to summon the courage and honesty to admit that you are clearly, carelessly and obviously wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence? For the first time ever?

Yes or no?

Or are you going to retreat into your usual strategy whenever you are publicly revealed for what you are and whine about how you will not respond to "abuse", or suddenly find a need to go "overseas" for a few months, until your latest self-imposed public humiliation blows over?

Yes or no?

Craig Rowley, thanks for the link. Haaretz always stands as a sign of hope for Israel. The voices of reason and justice may be muted but it is always good to hear them.

C Parsons,  I really do not know what you are going on about. The whole point of posting links is that one can see where the quote, comment, opinion or article comes from. There is no secret about that. Logically. From Haaretz to the Iranian news services, who cares where it comes from? The reader, upon accessing the link, may, upon reading the article decide for him or herself if they think it is balanced or biased.

Now, Wikipedia is another thing altogether. Wikipedia is presented as an encyclopedia, cum dictionary, cum research library and those who access it know that articles are contributed and that Wikipedia does not have the stringent regulations which apply to other research sources. Therfore, Wikipedia is the McDonalds of the information world. Useful if one is ‘hungry’ for knowledge but hardly haute cusine when it comes to information.

And while in a roundabout way, you sort of answered my question in regard to the imprisonment and torture of children you did not give a clear answer. How about summoning up your courage.

Do you accept the UN definition of a child as under 18? Yes or No.

If No, do you then accept the Israeli (illegal) definition of a child as under 12?

Do you condemn equally the mistreatment of children whether it is carried out by Palestinians or Israelis? In other words, imprisonment and torture of children is condemned as strongly as encouraging children to become suicide bombers?

Angela Ryan: "C Parsons, thankyou for the wikipedia article reference. The references for the article are indeed interesting. But you did not answer MS Ross question regarding your tacit approval or otherwise of Israeli government apparatus torturing and detaining children. Do you think this is OK?"

It would be utterly morally objectionable if anyone tortured children. Would you consider strapping bomb-belts to intellectually challenged children a form of child torture? Or just murder?

You quote the US Embassy in Tel Aviv and the US Consul General in Jerusalem's review the UNRWA schools and PA’s textbooks, concluding this:

"The overall orientation of the curriculum is peaceful despite the harsh and violent realities on the ground. It does not openly incite against Israel and the Jews. It does not openly incite hatred and violence. Religious and political tolerance is emphasized in a good number of textbooks and in multiple contexts."

That's excellent, isn't it? Just a couple of points, though, Angela:

1) The UNRWA is a United Nations agency and not an agency of either the Palestinian Authority or any other Middle Eastern government, therefore I should bloody well hope their curriculum is not anti-Semitic.

2) The report you cite was compiled before Hamas became the government of the Palestinian Authority.

3) You have simply sidestepped the extensive documentation of the utterly racist culture of the Middle East's state-controlled media, including widespread anti-Semitic media targeting children. Try telling us that they don't "openly incite hatred and violence" against Jews.

4) The use of children as suicide bombers and bomb-drones, and other forms of military exploitation of children by Hamas and other terrorist organisations is a widely documented practice, a fact you acknowledge.

Angela Ryan: "And C Parsons is quite right to draw attention to the close ties now of Iran and Venezuela. Brought together by the appalling Neocon PNAC/Clean Break policies, that may suit Israel-firsters, but are clearly against the best interests of the USA, as such policies have been as Walt and Mearsheimer showed in the Harvard paper. No doubt they were being anti-semitic... surely no-one said that eh?."

The Hugo Chavez - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "shared values" alliance leaves them literally stuck for words, doesn't it?

So, Angela, you agree Chavez's and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "shared values" (opposition to the USA specifically? And anti-Western values generally?) have brought about the political alliance between Venezuela and the racist Iranian theocracy?

Is that what you are trying to say?

If so, would you agree this is indicative of the political failure of the Left in world politics and its new role as a minor partner in the Islamicist and ultra-Right Arab nationalist agenda?

The complete bewilderment of the pseudo-intellectual Left when confronted by the Chavez-Ahmadinejad axis reminds me of an old bloke I met in Barcaldine who could hypnotise chooks by drawing a line on the ground and then holding the chickens upside down over the line a few centimetres from the ground.

For some reason, perhaps due to their sudden disorientation, the poor chooks would become totally perplexed and bewildered, sometimes going silent for hours at a time or otherwise they would stagger about like they were drunk.

Roslyn Ross: "By the way, which definition of child do you support? Israel's of under 12 or the UN of under 18?"

The article I linked you to detailing the exploitation of children as bomb-drones and suicide-murderers by Hamas, the al-Aqsr Martyrs Brigade and other nationalist-fascist and Islamicist movements does expressly define children as persons under 18.

I invite readers to read the article for themselves.

Roslyn Ross: "The 'article' you linked was from Wikipedia. Hardly a reliable, reputable or substantive source."

The Wikipedia article details specific corroborating sources and other supporting documentation including that of Amnesty International, and scores of international media documenting eye-witness and other accounts of the exploitation of children by Hamas, the al-Aqsr Martyrs Brigade and various Islamicist movements as "suicide bombers".

These include widely documented instances of retarded and intellectually or emotionally handicapped children being tricked into carrying bombs for the benefit of the political and military leadership of those movements.

Nobody suggested that the children's parents in any way approved of this.

Roslyn Ross: "C. Parsons,  my reference was to parents."

The reason for that is obvious given what was stated above.

Now, about the quality of documentation and sources....

Readers may recall Roslyn's earlier cross-posting in the Repeal of Israel thread  an Iranian Government News Agency claim that Israeli forces used "chemical weapons on civilians", without indicating that the source of the account was in fact the Iranian government's official propaganda arm.

She attempted to pass this off as an unspecified "news" report and subsequently ignored repeated requests to justify that with sources.

See my comments at Lunatics & Fringe Dwellers of the Left about the matter.

Interesting editorial in Ha'aretz today titled 'The occupation is still occupation':

"Military operations, grand and sophisticated as they may be, do not achieve the results that an agreement accepted by both sides can achieve."

Roslyn Ross: "But, to return to topic, just as Jews don't drink the blood of babies as part of their religious rites neither do Palestinians send out their children with bombs strapped to them. But I suspect you know that already."

It depends what you mean by "the Palestinians".

If you mean the parents of the poor unfortunates who have bombs strapped to them, then clearly not. Nobody in their right mind would suggest that.

But if you mean Hamas, the al-Aqsr Martyrs Brigade, and other such ultra-right nationalist and Islamicist groups, then certainly their systematic exploitation of intellectually disabled, emotionally handicapped, purposefully brainwashed and other gullible children as remote controlled bombing drones is amply documented.

This article provides a summary of such incidents involving persons under the age of 18 years. It gives dozens of such examples in just the last few years.

Apocalyptic rhetoric glorifying martyrdom by suicide, the extremes of racist vilification of Jews as epitomising evil and vermin, and all the other day-to-day Islamist propaganda pumped into the minds of impressionable children by state-controlled media in virtually all Middle Eastern countries helps condition children for their intended role as suicide-dupes.

This is not for the benefit of the children's parents by any stretch of the imagination. It's for the political leadership of the region.

As a rule, the political leadership of Syria, Iran, and of groups like Hamas, don't send their children strapped up with bombs toward Israeli checkpoints, or into senior citizens centres and pizza huts.

They send other people's kids.

Anyway, this next article reports an incident which could constitute child sacrifice:

A 14 year old boy died on Thursday, November 11th, after having received 85 lashes; according to the ruling of the Mullah judge of the public circuit court in the town of Sanandadj he was guilty of breaking his fast during the month of Ramadan.

But that was in Iran and not Palestine.

Anyway, "to return to the topic", France is prepared to send only 200 peace-keepers to the former Hezbollah-occupied zone in Southern Lebanon, it seems.

That's big of them, isn't?

Still, I don't blame them. Seeing French guys on television being beheaded by Hezbolla "peace activists" could put a lot of folks off their aperitifs.

So, the fewer sent the better.

The challenge now for the Left is to somehow rationalise away the outcome in Lebanon which, with US political and Israeli military support, leaves Lebanon in control of its own territory south of the Litani river.

I know, let's ask Seymor Hersh if he can think of something...

"(Seymour) Hersh quotes a "Middle East expert" as saying the White House wanted Hezbollah stripped of its missiles, so it could not retaliate against Israel when the US attacked Iran. He also says that the State Department saw it as "a way to strengthen the Lebanese Government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah".

There. That will be conventional wisdom all over Glebe by the time the fondue sets are out tonight, I'd say.

The legitimate, elected government of Lebanon has sent a nominal occupation force south of the Litani River and occupied southern Lebanon for the first time in 40 years.

That's a direct outcome of the "Zionist agression" and "Western terrorism" of the last month or so.

However, the fascist Hizbolla occupation forces, funded by Syria and Iran, will do everything they can to subvert Lebanese sovreignty over the south of the country, because the border areas is are to launch attacks on Israel on behalf of Hizbolla's sponsors.

"Lebanese cabinet will not force Hezbollah to disarm
The Lebanese cabinet on Wednesday accepted the Lebanese army's plan to deploy in southern Lebanon, and ordered 15,000 troops to depart for the area south of the Litani River after midnight Thursday."

Halutz: IDF will halt pullout if Lebanon army not deployed
The cabinet, which includes two Hezbollah ministers, reached its decision only hours after IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Wednesday that the IDF would halt its withdrawal from southern Lebanon if the Lebanese army did not deploy in the area within days."

Meanwhile, the fascist milita is going underground with its weapons.

"Hezbollah fighters were not expected to resist the (Lebanese)  soldiers, nor to hand over their weapons. Instead, it was thought they would simply hide their weapons and melt away into the civilian population."

The Hezbollah field commander in the south, Sheik Nabil Qaouk, said: "Just like in the past, Hezbollah had no visible military presence and there will not be any presence now." He praised the army's deployment south of the Litani, but said Hezbollah would maintain its presence without publicly displaying its arms."

I told you so.

Now, the French peacekeeping force will become hostage to the Hizbolla thugs almost immediately.

Geoff Pahoff I thought you may have been busy and lacking the time to respond with your view on the 2001 strategic assessment of the Israeli-Iranian relationship written by Shai Feldman when he was at the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.

I posted it with the question to you almost a week ago on 11 August. Seeing your lengthy comments over the past few days suggests you've had the time, but not the will to provide your view on it. Is that the case? If so, why?

G'day mike lyvers - chezPhil don't 'do' TV. Bad for ya. regards.
 

"There is no doubt that Palestinians do grow up suffering such brutal oppression under Israeli occupation that a number consider using themselves as a weapon in the fight to free themselves from occupation but they are hardly 'children' under either  the legal UN or the illegal Israeli definition. One instance involving a boy under 18, I think he was 15,  was later found to be a 'set-up' and he was mentally undeveloped. But then, by the illegal Israeli definition he is not a child anyway."

"Mike:   I and most other people of sound mind no more believe that Jews drink the blood of sacrificed babies as part of their religious rites than I believe Palestinian parents train their children to blow themselves up."

Who has ever said that Palestinian parents train their children to blow themselves up?

They have said things like the following, for example. Including Amnesty International:

 This took all of three seconds to find.  

According to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, in the al-Aqsa Intifada, Palestinian militant groups have used children as "messengers and couriers, and in some cases as fighters and suicide bombers in attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians." ^{[citation needed]} Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) have all been implicated in involving children in this way. The issue was first brought to world attention after a widely televised incident in which a mentally handicapped Palestinian teenager, Hussam Abdo, was disarmed at an Israeli checkpoint.^[3].

And so on." Heros" in the crazy moral world inhabited by some.

Or this:

Military historians classify suicide bombing as a form of armed violence, belonging to the tactics of asymmetric warfare—suicide bombings are only common when one side in a violent conflict lacks the means for effective, conventional attacks. The cost-benefit analysis, expressed here by Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, is simple: "The method of martyrdom operation [is] the most successful way of inflicting damage against the opponent and the least costly to the mujahidin in terms of casualties".^[2] The strategic rationale may be military, political, or both; the target may be military, in which case the bombing is usually classified as an act of war, or civilian, in which case it is usually considered terrorism. Civilians are the favored targets, being easier to attack than fortified installations, armored vehicles, or armed and wary soldiers. The political message of the suicide bomber's ruthlessness and glorification of death is potent, and the difficulty of deterring an attacker who is willing to die sparks greater fear than other forms of terrorism. The fact that the attacker dies in the attack eliminates the need for the attacker to have a plan to escape and avoid capture after he has completed the attack. The regular targeting of civilians, however, often calls into question the moral legitimacy, and often erodes the broader credibility, of the bomber's cause (although in some of the perpetrating group's base population, it may be thought to enhance those qualities).

Those incapable of seeing the difference between an act of sacrifice made by a soldier in the course of a military operation and an attack on a group of people who are distinguished only by their race or nation (eg Jews) are so morally bankrupt they are incapable of seeing the difference between a murderous hate crime and a soldier doing his duty in a war. That's not "pacifism". Quite the opposite. It is something very ugly indeed.

G'day Phil. (Geoff will get me for that.)

I think it may be time that you calmed down, Hamish.

The reason I simply don't get into internet discussions about the Middle East is because they are populated with idealogues on every side, who are sort of just trying to shout at each other. There's independent thinkers, but they have a very hard time of it in this terrain. I miss Will Howard personally, who generally knew how to debate carefully as much as anything. Anyway, I'm going to stick to my policy except for one point.

Will can speak for himself of course. But he is on record explaining why he stopped posting here. For him the turning point was the publication of the "Living in Truth" article. Which in the context of WD's "moderation" policy meant WD had crossed a certain threshhold.

I can certainly see his point. Anyone who now comments here about the Middle East risks being tainted in a pretty malign way. As evidence by your "ideologues on every side" and absence of "independent thinkers" comments.

As it happens I am not an uncritical admirer of Israel and I have been a supporter of an independent Palestinian state since the seventies. There are in fact ideologues here. But as far as I can see they are pretty much all on one side.

People who argue that Israel is entirely responsible for the conflict, harp to the point of lunacy that Israel is the "aggressor", "occupier", "coloniser", compare Israel to Nazi Germany, dispute by reflex the translation of what Ahmedinejad said, raise the matter of the Holocaust in just about every second paragraph, claim there is no difference between newsreports about Hamas and IJ using children as suicide bombers and crude antisemitic blood libels across the Arab world and apparently now can't see the offence in an antisemitic cartoon that depicts the libel are in a category of their own.

I certainly would not enjoy being lumped into that category by anyone. In fact I would regard it as an ignorant slur. If it ever was to happen.   

Is this what you mean, mike lyvers? With all due respect (Oooooh! How that smarts!), probably not. Sooo, could you please explain: "Jews drinking the blood of sacrificial babies as part of their normal religious rites?"

Thanks in advance.

"And are there sites promoting the fear and insecurity and lack of trust from neighbours as discussed in the above link? Look at all the posts C Parsons gives us from MEMRI,and how many of them are about mutual recognition and peaceful co-existance? Own goal there, selective MEMRI, collection of hate speech, specially chosen and translated by MEMRI for those interested, I am not"

Anybody is free to link and translate the voices of "mutual recognition" and "peaceful co-existence", resonating across the Arab and Muslim worlds, Angela. Including you.

Why don't you arrange it? Shouldn't take very long. You won't need to pack lunch.

Memri tells it as it is. For years now the bigots of the "Left" have been able to rely on the fact that what is said in English is often very different to what is said in Arabic or Farsi. Very different indeed.

Now we have Memri to provide some redress. Which explains why the Israel-bashing bigots hate it so much. As we all know, the "left-wing" bigots much prefer the lies.

I'm usually pretty careful about the words I choose, Ian Macdougall. Even when I'm being abusive I normally pay the abusee the respect of putting some thought into it. "One reason the Israel/Palestine conflict has proved so intractable has been the determination of otherwise fair-minded observers to see a "right" where none exists. (My emphasis – IM, and see below)" does not mean "In other words, I, Ian MacDougall, and others see Palestinian ‘rights’ where none exist. Your words. "None exist" . (But my emphasis – IM)." What a difference a little "s" makes. Read the words I used, Ian. The words you substituted are yours. They have nothing to do with me. Especially that little "s" that someone let slip from "exists" to "right". Hyperbole?

Well I guess when Barenboim said: "I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours." He really did mean that until the world's fourteen million Jews agree on one definition of "Who is a Jew?" (instead of the fourteen million definitions currently extant) there can be no dialogue among Jews or with the Palestinians. Literally.

Given that he was making a speech to an audience at the time, and not staring into the bathroom mirror, I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Want another example of hyperbole? Try this one on for size: "Q.2: When you say “Yep. Barenboim definitely raised an issue for discussion and debate among the people for who his comment was intended,” do you mean that a gentile like me is not entitled to use it in a ‘discussion and debate’ such as the one we are having on this thread? So am I even allowed to read it? Or perhaps allowed to read it, but not comment on it?" Am I to take this question literally? Or am I allowed to detect a note of literal irony?

In either case aren't you being a little presumptous about me? A little quick with the "definition" perhaps? I have never said I am a Jew. Nor denied it. The very question is infra dig.

By the way, sorry about the "concatenated" thing. I'm not sure now whether it was my fault or the editor's. But given I had to check the dictionary to make sure it was a real word, I'll accept full responsibility. "

Here's another insight into the history of people who have been uprooted, abused, hounded from pillar to post, and how they carved out new homes. 

It's borrowed from my personal copy of The New York Review of Books, August 10, 2006. I have underlined a couple of sections.

Redcoat Liberation by George M. Frederickson (page 51)

Epic Journeys of Freedom:
Runaway Slaves of the American Revolution and Their Global Quest for Liberty
by Cassandra Pybus.
Beacon, 281 pp., $26.95
Rough Crossings:
Britain, the Slaves and the American Revolution
by Simon Schama.
Ecco, 478 pp., $29.95
The Forgotten Fifth:
African Americans in the Age of Revolution
by Gary B. Nash.
Harvard University Press, 235 pp., $19.95

...
The three books under review all deal with these events, with differences in emphasis and in the amount of detail devoted to particular episodes. The backgrounds of the authors and their more general concerns as historians influence how they approach the common subject of blacks and the American Revolution. Cassandra Pybus is an Australian based at the University of Tasmania, who specializes in the history of African-Americans and the African Diaspora. Her Epic Journeys of Freedom concentrates on the personal histories of the runaway slaves and provides an unexpected Australian twist to the story. Simon Schama is an Englishman now teaching at Columbia whose historical interests have been remarkably varied, ranging from the history of Dutch art to the French Revolution. He has not previously written about African-Americans. His Rough Crossings is preoccupied with the interaction between some of the leading figures of Britain's humanitarian movement and the runaways as a group. Gary Nash, a professor emeritus at UCLA, is a leading historian of the United States, specializing in the Revolutionary period. His primary concern in The Forgotten Fifth is with the experience of African-Americans in the Revolution itself and immediately afterward; he is less interested than the others in what subsequently happened to those who left with the British in 1782.

Epic Journeys of Freedom is a well-written and engaging narrative history that also happens to be the fruit of prodigious research. To trace the lives of individual runaway slaves (thirty of whom receive particular attention both in the text and in a biographical appendix), Pybus explored archives and manuscript collections in four countries on three continents - the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia. From them she was able to piece together enough biographical information to recover the essential (and often inspiring) life stories of people who would otherwise not be part of the historical record.

We learn, for example, that David George was born a slave in Virginia, and ran away as a boy only to be enslaved by Indians; he was given by them to an Indian agent, fled to the British in 1779, was evacuated' from Charleston to Nova Scotia in 1782, and joined the exodus to Sierra Leone in 1791. Within the community of migrating ex-slaves he was a religious leader. While still a slave he helped found the first black Baptist church in the United States. Later he established and ministered to Baptist churches in Nova Scotia and Sierra Leone. Religious activity in general is a central theme of Pybus's account. More than anything else, it was Methodist and Baptist Christianity of an intensely emotional and evangelical kind that provided a sense of community and solidarity to people who were struggling for self-determination under very trying circumstances.

Of special interest among her cast of characters is one who became a fervent Methodist and also bore a distinguished surname. Harry Washington was born in Africa; became the slave of George Washington in 1763, escaped to the British in 1776, and served during the war as a corporal in one of the black units established by the British military authorities. After the war, he was evacuated first to Nova Scotia and then to Sierra Leone. In 1800, he was a leader in an abortive struggle for "settler independence from the Sierra Leone Company." (Had he succeeded he might have become the George Washington of the republic of Sierra Leone.) As punishment for his seditious activity he was exiled from the colony proper and became the leader of an exile community.

Pybus establishes her Australian connection by uncovering the fact that eleven of the convicts transported in 1787 to the new penal colony at Botany Bay in New South Wales were former slaves who had previously been evacuated from the United States. Since they were only about 2 percent of the initial convict population of the colony they had little chance to develop a collective identity. But Pybus follows the careers of some of them, especially the rebellious convict known only as Caesar. On several occasions, Caesar deserted the colony and tried to survive on his own in the wilderness or among the aborigines. Eventually he was shot and killed by a bounty hunter. Other black convicts fared better. John Randall served out his sentence, acquired a white wife and a land grant, and ended up as a successful farmer who also served as a constable.

Still, the eventual success of Randall and some other convicts should not be allowed to obscure the misery and deprivation of all the convicts, black and white, in the early years of the settlement. British humanitarians in the 1780s could have sympathy with slaves or even with blacks in general, but they ignored the atrocious treatment of those unfortunate enough to be convicted of a crime - often for what today would be considered a minor offense, such as petty-larceny. The long voyage to Australia was more deadly than what Africans typically experienced in the Middle Passage. Pybus notes that "unlike slave cargo, the convicts had no value, so no attention was given to keeping them fit and alive." In the colony itself food was often in short supply, especially during the early years, and mass starvation was narrowly averted.

Pybus does not pay much attention to the question of how Americans could fight for freedom and also own slaves. But one of most prominent spokesmen for the revolutionary cause, Thomas Jefferson, attracts her attention in a way that will not enhance his reputation. Statements Jefferson made after the war about the slaves from his own plantations who ran off to the British were misleading and self-serving. When, for example, he reneged on some debts owed to British creditors in 1786-1787, he excused his incapacity to pay by claiming that the redcoats had taken away thirty of his slaves, "even though he had lost eighteen at most." ...

I'd like to think that David George survived, even succeeded, because he had something to believe in outside of himself. Whether or not that sentiment can be generalised to certain circumstances in the region of Palestine, will have to remain a matter of debate. I should declare my personal bias, though. According to the census form, I am 100% Anglo-Celt and belong to the Optional religion. It may, or may not, help to know that I do not wear rings, gold or otherwise, I do abstain from  pork products, and am circumspect.

Back to the Barenboim controversy. I guess Daniel Barenboim, and the author David Grossman, are passionately attached to Israel as their homeland. Whatever setbacks, personal or otherwise, I don't imagine either of them would quit the country. I think it's fair to say both of them, despite differences they may have with their fellows over politics, regard themselves, and are regarded, as part of the essential fabric of Israel.

Outlook and religious belief are inseparable. Barenboim and Grossman are revered for what they give to humanity, but their personal beliefs are none of my business. In fact, their contributions on the big stage put religion and ethnicity in the shade.

I hope I haven't been misunderstood. So, to be plainer, it's not my intention to rationalise or normalise, or even trivialise, the sufferings of anyone who has been dispossessed and persecuted. That would be a fatal mistake.

Well guys, I watched Ahmedinejad today... here.

As usual, I liked what he said and I liked the way he said it.

Frankly I don't think Bush is fit to tie his shoelaces.

He reminds me of a late night TV carpet salesman.  I don't feel threatened.  He doesn't make me want to vomit.  He doesn't change his tune every five minutes.  Shouldn't we listen a little more carefully to what he has to say? 

David Curry: "Hi Phil Kendall, I often enjoy parts of your posts but I think you're playing right into the hands of those on WD who like to ridicule the left, with your defence of the Iranian regime."

Now that latest Leftist pin-up boy Hugo Chavez has embraced the Iranian regime's psychotic, racist leadership, declaring his and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's "shared values", the bongo-drums-and-sandles-set will follow suit like so many shuffling penguins.

They will "have no choice".

Here's the current line out of Tehran;

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke after US President George W Bush told Iran to stop supporting armed groups trying to derail democracies in Iraq and Lebanon.

"This war showed that any nation, that relies on God and fights for its rights, will surely be victorious," Mr Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the north-western city of Ardebil.

"Britain and America are the main associates of the Zionist regime (Israel) in its offensive to Lebanon and should compensate Lebanon for the damage."

"Those governments should answer for their crimes in Lebanon."

This mantra will be faithfully parroted by Left "intellectuals" around the world now without hesitation or alteration. Just watch.

Meanwhile, the hereditary Fascist dictatorship in Syria is whipping up the Hezbollah "victory" as a triumph for civil rights.

"Their 'New Middle East', based on subjugation and humiliation, and denial of rights and identity, has turned into an illusion," (Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) said in reference to the US's goal of helping to shape what it calls a new, democratic Middle East.

Yup. Assad is now a champion of human rights, something for which he and his father have shown not the slightest regard during their entire 40 year rule of Syria, one of the world's worst human rights abusers.

And remember. This is the father-and-son team whose armies actually occupied Lebanon for decades, ruling it through a combination of threat and murder until the entire nation rose up against them.

So, if Assad is suddenly championing the Lebanese cause it is because he (like our local "anti-Zionists" and "progressives") equate Hizbolla, which he helps fund, with his model of Lebanon.

And if you wonder where people like the Assads get such gibberish, read almost anything on the Middle East by the likes of Noam Chomsky or John Pilger or Arundhati Roy or George Galloway or Michael Moore or other such lickspittles.

The "Arab humiliation" trope, for example, is a virtual Shibboleth amongst the Left pseudo-intelligentsia and also endlessly recycled as a rationale for the excesses of people like Ahmedinejad and Assad and ultra-rightist movements like Hamas and Hizbollah.

See my comment below:

"There will then be ceaseless whingeing by the psuedo-Marxian political Left about the "needless humiliation" inflicted on the Muslim/Arab world."

- Submitted by C Parsons on August 6, 2006 - 11:37am.

The Left, having no role of their own to play in course of current events, now have no choice but to continue acting as side-kicks to Islamo-Fascism.

They "have no choice".

Geoff Pahoff: You attack me in your post entitled A Jew Thing? What can I say, except that it’s definitely not a Jew thing. More like a stew thing. A stew of confusion. On your part.

You begin your post by misquoting a quote from Daniel Barenboim that I took (with due acknowledgement) from an earlier post from Trevor Kerr. The single paragraph quote from Barenboim was followed by a paragraph from me, which you have concatenated into the Barenboim quote. The original in my post was as follows:

Trevor Kerr has given this thread a very valuable post in his Music Lesson. I quote here from the speech he cites from Daniel Barenboim:

"I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours."

Barenboim expresses a real need here. For the Orthodox, the five books of Moses constitute a land title, and the Jews, however defined have a covenant with God and are his chosen people. No more need be said. Barenboim asks in the above how this applies to the secular Jew, non-orthodox or non-believer, and the question is left open. But it is a key to the ‘foundation of existence’ and dialogue within the Jewish community and between it and its Palestinian neighbours.

In your hands this becomes:

Trevor Kerr has given this thread a very valuable post in his Music Lesson. I quote here from the speech he cites from Daniel Barenboim:

"I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours."

Barenboim expresses a real need here. For the Orthodox, the five books of Moses constitute a land title, and the Jews, however defined have a covenant with God and are his chosen people. No more need be said. Barenboim asks in the above how this applies to the secular Jew, non-orthodox or non-believer, and the question is left open. But it is a key to the ‘foundation of existence’ and dialogue within the Jewish community and between it and its Palestinian neighbours.

And you go right on:

What can I say, Ian MacDougall. Yep. Barenboim definitely raised an issue for discussion and debate among the people for who his comment was intended. Not that he was the first to raise this matter. And naturally he used the well known literally device of hyperbole to get his already well-tread message across to people who had already heard it a thousand times before.

What can I tell you Ian MacDougall? You're the expert on Jewish theology. How can I possibly contribute anything more? By quoting other religious people who directly contradict this guy? From a culture where argument, discussion and dissent are not just a rights? But quite literally a religious thing?

So let’s look at the full Barenboim quote again, Geoff. Here it is:

"I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours."

Some questions for you:

Q.1: Where is the hyperbole in it? (Remember Geoff, hyperbole is deliberate exaggeration for effect.)

Q.2: When you say “Yep. Barenboim definitely raised an issue for discussion and debate among the people for who his comment was intended,” do you mean that a gentile like me is not entitled to use it in a ‘discussion and debate’ such as the one we are having on this thread? So am I even allowed to read it? Or perhaps allowed to read it, but not comment on it?

(Barenboim said this at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in the course of an acceptance speech for an honorary doctorate. He has also posted the text of it on the internet on his own website. I doubt he only intended Jews to hear it, or discuss it.)

Q.3: Could you please quote me some other religious people who directly contradict "this guy" Barenboim? That is, who contradict what he actually said?

Actually, as a newly qualified ‘expert on Jewish theology’ from the Geoff Pahoff Institute of Rabbinical Studies (thanks for the degree, Geoff; could come in handy) I can save you the trouble and directly contradict it myself, strictly as an outsider of course. Here I give you a quote direct from me:

I believe that first of all we shouldn’t bother trying to define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is not understood. However, the definition of a secular Jew is simple, and until Jews fail to make this definition, until they are not able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, they will continue to be able to explain to themselves the foundation of their existence. They will also be able to conduct a dialogue between themselves, and between themselves and their Palestinian neighbours.

Make of that what you will.

Q.4: A final question. What could be the purpose behind the following statements and list of points in a post? (Sorry for the length of the following quote from you, Geoff, but let’s get it right):

One reason the Israel/Palestine conflict has proved so intractable has been the determination of otherwise fair-minded observers to see a "right" where none exists. (My emphasis – IM, and see below)

To acknowledge a "greivance" in a pool of racism and carefully nurtured hate. This has been a blast of oxygen to a dying ember.

Ian MacDougall's piece is an example of this.

To arrive at this "everybody is right so therefore you are wrong" conclusion, an awful lot has to be overlooked. Just off the top of my head:

The longstanding and well established Palestinian Jewish community which long pre-dated the British Mandate;

The extent to which Palestinian Arabs were themselves migrants to Palestine;

The near complete absence of Palestinian Arab nationalism prior to the sixties;

The contribution of old and very sinister forces to Arab hostility to Jews, that had, and still has, nothing whatsoever to do with Zionism.

The contribution Palestinian Jews made to the liberation of Palestine during WW1;

The contribution they made, as a fighting force, in the war against the Nazis;

The partition of the British Palestine Mandate so as to carve out most of it into an Arab protectorate west of the river and the Golan Heights into  French Syria, both of which Jews were prohibited by law from living;

The second UN sponsored parition of what was left in 1947, accepted by the Israelis, rejected by the Arab states;

The Jewish refugees from Arab countries that exceeded in number Arab refugees;

That many Arab Palestinians did not become refugees, they stayed in parts of Palestine that did not become Israel or they stayed in Israel and became full Israeli citizens;

Many Jews were expelled from the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem where they had been a large majority for centuries;

Jews expelled from the West Bank, Hebron, Jerusalem and other Arab countries have never been compensated;

The West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were occupied by Egypt and Jordan who could have set up Palestine at any time without even so much as a consultation of Israel up until 1967;

Settlement offers have been made repeatedly since, most recently as brokered by Clinton, and famously rejected by Arafat.

I could go on. I believe I am a fair-minded and liberal person. I do not for a second overlook the suffering of the Palestinian people and what the Lebanese have just been through sickens me to the core.

But being fair-minded surely means that when there is blame for human tragedy, as I most certainly think there is in this case, then the blame should be layed at the feet of those who own it.

In other words, I, Ian MacDougall, and others see Palestinian ‘rights’ where none exist. Your words. "None exist" . (But my emphasis – IM).

But wait. There’s more!

You quote from my last post my evaluation of what you said (above). It was:

"You then go on to set out in some detail, and off the top of your head, the reasons why the native (Palestinian) inhabitants of the land of Israel have no rights there, and why the Jews, no matter how recently arrived, have every right. Principally, the right to be there, and to enjoy the property of (now dispossessed) Palestinians."

And then you add:

I did no such thing. As it happens the words you have decided to put in my mouth would choke me if they actually came from me.

This is sad Ian MacDougall. Is there anyone else whose words you have to twist, bend or ignore to make your case? Or is this just a Jew thing?

Are you there, Geoff? Are you there?

Quick! Somebody do sometthing!

I think poor Geoff’s choking!

Ian McDougall said:

And so Israel, the safe Jewish homeland of Zionist longing, remains an Orwellian state perpetually at war with its neighbours.

Yitzhak Laor expands on this idea in his recent essay in LRB where he postulates that the Israeli Defence Force has become the Big Brother (my words) of Israel. He even goes so far as to claim that:

"There is no institution in Israel that can approach the army’s ability to disseminate images and news or to shape a national political class and an academic elite or to produce memory, history, value, wealth, desire."

Despite that clumsy sentence, the essay is an excellent read and I would recommend it to anyone who gets nervous when "Military Spokespeople" are given the job of keeping the public informed.

Disclaimer: No Goys Allowed! Before reading the linked essay by Yitzhak Loar it is advisable to ascertain whether the reader can be reasonably considered to be one of "the people for who his comment was intended".

Angela Ryan: "C Parsons, who now understands the Israeli "intelligence" (oxymoron that one after the debacle in Lebanon) is behind the plaything known as MEMRI, which transates selectively items for consumption. With such a known apparatus using it for propaganda, one has to ask for what reason the Hate articles are so fastidiously translated, is it to sew the seeds of "difference" of "threat" of "they hate us because of who we are"?

So the targets of such despicable racist propaganda are its cause?

We have heard that one before, Angela.

What you have to ask is how the government-controlled media of Middle Eastern states which produce, publish and broadcast such "hate" articles can justify it?

And why you give them your support?

As I understand it, the typical Left rationale for supporting the objectives and even the methods of such movements as Hamas, Hizbolla, the so-called Iraqi "resistance", the likes of such thuggish regimes as Hassad's Syria and the psychotic Iranian junta (so recently embraced by Huog Chavez) is that they too oppose "Zionism".

Indeed, they do.

But only the most utterly deluded imagine such regimes intend to replace Israel with the "secular, multicultural, democratic republic" of Left wing propaganda.

After the next Holocaust, the smoking remains of Israel will be replaced by a "secular, multicultural, democratic republic"  along Iranian or Hamas lines, won't it?

The actual role of the Left, since the USSR changed sides on the Israel question in the '60s, has been to cheer on this outcome because, in their simplistic view, Israel is a "western colony" amid "masses struggling to be free".

They fact they find common cause with the regimes that constantly pump the kind of anti-Jewish racist gibberish documented by MEMRI (to your obvious discomfiture) merely helps clarify the battle lines.

You support such regimes and their agenda. Others don't.

As for the "debacle" in Lebanon, if Hezbolla have any more "victories" like that, we'll next be debating how to limit and control the new Jewish settlements in Beirut.

"Trevor Kerr has given this thread a very valuable post in his Music Lesson. I quote here from the speech he cites from Daniel Barenboim:

I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours.Barenboim expresses a real need here. For the Orthodox, the five books of Moses constitute a land title, and the Jews, however defined have a covenant with God and are his chosen people. No more need be said. Barenboim asks in the above how this applies to the secular Jew, non-orthodox or non-believer, and the question is left open. But it is a key to the ‘foundation of existence’ and dialogue within the Jewish community and between it and its Palestinian neighbours."

What can I say, Ian MacDougall?

Yep. Barenboim definitely raised an issue for discussion and debate among the people for who his comment was intended. Not that he was the first to raise this matter. And naturally he used the well known literally device of hyperbole to get his already well-tread message across to people who had already heard it a thousand times before.

What can I tell you Ian MacDougall? You're the expert on Jewish theology. How can I possibly contribute anything more? By quoting other religious people who directly contradict this guy? From a culture where argument, discussion and dissent are not just a rights? But quite literally a religious thing?

"You then go on to set out in some detail, and off the top of your head, the reasons why the native (Palestinian) inhabitants of the land of Israel have no rights there, and why the Jews, no matter how recently arrived, have every right. Principally, the right to be there, and to enjoy the property of (now dispossessed) Palestinians."

I did no such thing. As it happens the words you have decided to put in my mouth would choke me if they actually came from me.

This is sad Ian MacDougall. Is there anyone else whose words you have to twist, bend or ignore to make your case? Or is this just a Jew thing?

Geoff Pahoff: “One reason the Israel/Palestine conflict has proved so intractable has been the determination of otherwise fair-minded observers to see a "right" where none exists.” You include me amongst such ‘determined fair minded observers.’

You then go on to set out in some detail, and off the top of your head, the reasons why the native (Palestinian) inhabitants of the land of Israel have no rights there, and why the Jews, no matter how recently arrived, have every right. Principally, the right to be there, and to enjoy the property of (now dispossessed) Palestinians.

Further, because I and others “overlook” the material in your list of points, I am somehow saying to you “everybody is right so therefore you are wrong.”

How you manage to arrive at this extraordinary conclusion is beyond me, since what you have been saying is that Israel alone is right, and what I have been saying is both sides are right. Both Israel and the Palestinians.

Lawrence Auster, of FrontPageMagazine.com, has an interesting argument on that link entitled, ‘How Strong is the Arab Claim to Palestine?’ In a prize example of the intransigent Zionist attitude I have been talking about, he gives a detailed catechism such as you have just given, with ample argument against any such claim.

The trouble is that no matter how well it is argued, the Palestinians, the Arabs, and the rest of the Muslim world refuses to buy it. Likewise, a large and growing part of the western public. And so Israel, the safe Jewish homeland of Zionist longing, remains an Orwellian state perpetually at war with its neighbours. The cycle of war, uneasy truce, outrage, resumption of war has not been broken in 60 years, and I suggest that a major part of it is the refusal of each side to acknowledge that the other side has any shred of justice to its claim.

Trevor Kerr has given this thread a very valuable post in his Music Lesson. I quote here from the speech he cites from Daniel Barenboim:

I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours.

Barenboim expresses a real need here. For the Orthodox, the five books of Moses constitute a land title, and the Jews, however defined have a covenant with God and are his chosen people. No more need be said. Barenboim asks in the above how this applies to the secular Jew, non-orthodox or non-believer, and the question is left open. But it is a key to the ‘foundation of existence’ and dialogue within the Jewish community and between it and its Palestinian neighbours.

Should any such dialogue begin with the statement: “you have no rights here, or any right to be here” made by either side to the other, it will not progress much further. If you think the recent fate of Lebanon is sickening, just stand by and watch what happens over the next 500 years. As Al Jolson was fond of saying, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

G'day Hamish. Before anything else, let's have the whole context:

Hamish:

You guys can continue as much as you want (on another thread please). But just so you know Geoff, and never make such an ignorant slur again against me, I will NEVER be seen, even by implication, to support Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime, or any other representative of what I see as the most frightening threat to decency in the world since Hitler. I don't want to hear more about it Geoff. And beyond this statement of my view, I will not respond on the subject.

Phil:

Hamish drags Hitler in, one is not supposed to do that (unless the comparison is a) apt and b) non-controversial, shall we say?), and if ever 'lefties' do it, all Hell tends to break loose. But not 'just' that. Bundling "Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime" together is (IMHO!) nothing other than a purely racist slur aimed at the entire Arab or Muslim or both blocs. Which is exactly the GWBush&Co line. Or am I wrong? Too sensitive?

Selected phrase: "Bundling 'Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime' together is (IMHO!) nothing other than a purely racist slur aimed at the entire Arab or Muslim or both blocs."

In the first instance, I freely admit to polemic[2]; it's my style as I intimated (with Braille copy available) with my title 'purple-prose polemics'_1525 on June 27, 2006 - 10:21pm.

In the second instance, my context is 'murder for oil' - as always, my chosen theme since my analysis following first hearing of the ghastly "Shock and Awe", aka Blitzkrieg.

In a few more instances, the contexts are a) loss of truth (may not be new), loss of accountability, loss of representation (if it ever existed), loss of democracy (ditto), loss of sovereignty/resources/dough (resource-rent rip-offs etc), and the 'biggie', the impending world-wide loss of an habitable environment. All of these (more or less) were mentioned in 'AngloCon'.

In your context, Hamish, you went on to associate the groups: "Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime, or any other representative of what I see as the most frightening threat to decency in the world since Hitler."

Hitler wasn't just a 'threat to decency', he was in fact such a threat that pretty-much the entire world united against him.

I don't really care a fig for whatever politics 'Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime' might have (I could and do seriously query why al Qaeda and the Iranian regime should be so 'bundled' (sounds like the propaganda we're getting from the MSM), and the more I think about it the more disparate this grouping seems, coming back to just what is the common theme if not outright, naked anti-ME); I interpret the juxtaposition of that bundling with Hitler as a call that pretty-much the entire world should now unite with the US against that bundling, and all who stand behind the bundling, namely the entire Arab or Muslim or both blocs.

Which is exactly the GWBush&Co line; see what trouble that's caused/causing/will continue to cause, a looong way down the track.

Perhaps my 'purely racist slur' was not a good choice - I did, after all, have my dander up - perhaps 'call for Bush-type Jihad' would'a been more apropos?

Look, Hamish. I thought we were on the same side? How about we just work for peace, each in his own way? And give the Arab/Muslim blocs a bit'a space; it's their oil and their homelands; we ort'a just queue up and pay, like everyone else. And if Israel won't give the stolen bits back, at least they could make a truly fair offer of recompense? - Although y'can't ever recompense any loss of life ('kill ratio' .ge. 10/1).

-=*end*=-

PS Hamish, can you please explain the construction 'hey Phil?'

Refs:

[1] dialectic Philosophy noun [mass noun] (also dialectics) [usu. treated as sing.] 1 the art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions. 2 enquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions.n the existence or action of opposing social forces, concepts, etc.
The ancient Greeks used the term dialectic to refer to various methods of reasoning and discussion in order to discover the truth. More recently, Kant applied the term to the criticism of the contradictions which arise from supposing knowledge of objects beyond the limits of experience, e.g. the soul. Hegel applied the term to the process of thought by which apparent contradictions (which he termed thesis and antithesis) are seen to be part of a higher truth (synthesis). adjective of or relating to dialectic or dialectics; dialectical. ORIGIN late Middle English: from Old French dialectique or Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikē (tekhnē) ‘(art) of debate’, from dialegesthai ‘converse with’ (see dialogue).

[2] polemic —n. 1 forceful verbal or written controversy or argument. 2 (in pl.) art or practice of controversial discussion. —adj. (also polemical) involving dispute; controversial.  polemicist n. [Greek polemos war] [Oxford Pop-up]

Clarity, not noughts and crosses.

What are we doing here? First we draw lines down the page and put people into columns according to race, creed, geography, genealogy.

Then we draw lines across and sort people into rows according to their inclination, be they fascists, pacifists, left, right, rich, poor - whatever.

Then we shove the facts around as though they were pieces on this loony draughts board, because winning the game is what it's all about. It's happening in the Middle East. It's happening right here in Webdiary.

I'm for rubbing out the vertical divisions.

A pacifist is my brother, regardless. A child is my child, regardless. A socialist is my mate, regardless.

A fascist is a fascist is a fascist. Even when they are at war, the fascists enrich each other, no matter their origins, race or creed. Here is your nemesis!

Can we knock the board onto the floor and start again please?

Richard:  Chris, would you settle for both sides taking back a couple of moves?   Then maybe everyone having a cuppa tea, a Bex and a good lie down?  Even this much would do a power of good. 

Daniel Barenboim, in the first of his Reith Lectures, said something like this: "In Jerusalem, I will talk about the difference between power and strength. If you attack a chord with more power than you are going to sustain it, it has no strength."

I guess Barenboim and the writer David Grossman (War claims Israeli author's son) were acquainted.

Juan Cole has a tribute, On the Occasion of Uri Grossman's Death. 

Barenboim also quoted Nietzsche:"Without music, life would be a mistake".

From Speech upon receiving an honorary Doctor of Philosophy from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: 

... In this time, which is not an easy one in terms of political tension between various factions among our people and difficult conflicts between the Orthodox and the secular, I believe that first of all we must try and define who is a Jew. The definition of an Orthodox Jew is understood; however, the definition of a secular Jew is complex, and until we can make this definition, until we are able to explain what brings a person to be and to feel himself a Jew, we will not be able to explain to ourselves the foundation of our existence.; we will also not be able to conduct a dialogue between ourselves, and between ourselves and our Palestinian neighbours.

This is our fundamental problem. And until we understand this problem and are intelligent enough to define it, the State of Israel is likely to reach the situation of a theocratic state, as the Arab states are likely to develop along fundamentalist lines. A person who is unable to achieve self-definition and self-satisfaction will not be able to conduct a dialogue with others, and so we also will not be able to develop normal, reasonable relations with our Palestinian neighbours. Then, to my sorrow, the vision of the State of Israel and Zionism would become a passing, historic episode.

The greatest struggle of every mortal being is to try and halt the passing of time, and this of course we cannot do. Therefore, in my opinion, the concept of Zionism also must develop and find the golden mean that will lead to harmonious internal and external relations. This harmony, as in music, can be achieved even if it is made up of conflicting elements, albeit of the strongest and most radical nature, as long as each element can develop itself to its fullest. ...

• Politics
• Business
• MSM
• Hollywood
• Madison Ave.
• Israeli lobby"

- Phil Kendall on August 15, 2006 - 11:02am.

Mutatis mutandis, paranoid lists like Phil's have hardly changed a bit since the heady days of the Dreyfus Affair or Joseph McCarthy.

Not a film, certainly no comedy, but a 'real-life' drama - and very sad, to boot.

Dramatis personae: Hamish Alcorn (the man with two hats).
The band of hysterical pro-war, pro-Israeli jingoists (formerly pro-murder apologist/agitators), a vicious bunch with crime on their minds (you know who you are).

A presumed sincere defender of what might be considered 'right' in an honest world - except she's derogated if not literally then metaphorically as a fascist lefty, and other foul slurs.

Re: tiff between Geoff Pahoff and Hamish Alcorn on the WD_1594 thread "Obituary Murray Bookchin", with assist from the likes of Jacob A Stam (and unmentioned others presumably just itching at their syphilitic keyboards), largely in alliance 'against' Roslyn Ross (g'day Roslyn).

Keywords: "the (fascist[1]) left", "Islamofascism", Holocaust, Hitler - need any more spits?

Geoff: "I still think you need to be aware of and careful about the determination of fascists and fascism to infilitrate [sic] everything going."

-=*=-

Lay-dees, an' Gennel-men®!

Geoff: "Something about a desperate psychological need to demonstrate some remaining tenuous connection with morality and intellectualism despite your embrace of raging fascism and fascists like 'the above.'" ('The above' presumed to refer to or about Roslyn, or both 'to' and 'about', but whaddo I know?)

Have you no shame, boys?

-=*=-

On or about March 29, 2006 - 11:11am, I submitted the words: "Most of the neoCon cabal are either actual Israelis (i.e. Jewish, but we try not to use such words) or sympathisers."

To which Hamish responded, "I'm looking carefully at the [above quoted] line ... You might be uncomfortable about it, but you have a race-based theory of domination, and to me it appears not just as a conspiracy theory, but a really silly one that you can not possibly demonstrate no matter which sources you use."

Now from Hamish:

You guys can continue as much as you want (on another thread please). But just so you know Geoff, and never make such an ignorant slur again against me, I will NEVER be seen, even by implication, to support Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime, or any other representative of what I see as the most frightening threat to decency in the world since Hitler. I don't want to hear more about it Geoff. And beyond this statement of my view, I will not respond on the subject.

(Normally, I would have an instant allergy attack at "You guys" as un-Aussie; but that battle is long-lost: now it's (US)TV-talk ('stead'a Strine), just about all over our once-proud wide-brown. Too bad.)

Hamish drags Hitler in, one is not supposed to do that (unless the comparison is a) apt and b) non-controversial, shall we say?), and if ever 'lefties' do it, all Hell tends to break loose. But not 'just' that. Bundling "Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, the Iranian regime" together is (IMHO!) nothing other than a purely racist slur aimed at the entire Arab or Muslim or both blocs. Which is exactly the GWBush&Co line. Or am I wrong? Too sensitive? Also keep in mind, please, that Hamish is the man with two hats.

-=*=-

Now, I have a little list here:

Politics
Business
MSM
Hollywood
Madison Ave.
Israeli lobby

Q: Need I go on? A: Yes. For my own sanity, and trying to do better. The following apply generally in the Anglo-sphere, possibly other-where as well, but then perhaps as a necessary evil in order to 'compete' with the ugly prototype-setting crooks.

Politics: a) we have no choice; both sides (US, Aus; who cares about UK - except that Blair was supposedly 'of the good guys' - Haw!)

Politics: b) B, B & H (the AngloCons) were responsible for the most aggressive war since... Oh, well: Hitler?

Politics: c) the AngloCons all 'support' Israel, which can be described as illegal (by birth, i.e. in name) and illegal (in operation, ie. in value).

Now go and read all the definitions, etc of fascism.

Business: in summary; aggressive thieving sharks: not cost-plus, but what the market will bear. See the resource-rent rip-offs, the hideous mark-ups between produces and consumers, see depressing wages, see reducing benefits like medical, time-off, retirement etc, see shipping jobs o/s, see importing coolies - Oh you might agree? No, then how about the oily-rip-offs? Hmmm? The (mainly US) oil majors with truly obscene profits, while we 'get nose-bleeds' paying for petrol? ('get nose-bleeds' is a (spit, spit!) US joke; prices so high-in-the-sky that the pressure drops, geddit? Some joke.) As for oil, we produce it (about 2/3rds?) But we pay WPP (world parity price) - but that's to the (mainly foreign!) oil producers' benefit, not to ours' or Aus'. Costello actually said WPP the other day; Howard says there's nothing he can do. That last is either a simple lie, or he is bound to big-oil and cannot reduce their 'take' - or perhaps some other, but pay through-the-nose we must. Bah!

MSM: corrupt! - and big bits'a the AusBC with it. (Just how, please (we know why), and with our dough!) We get propaganda with (or instead of!) news.

Hollywood: over time can portray all possible perversions, leading directly to corruption of the sheople's morals - and other horrors.

Madison Ave: to sell the dream (i.e. marketing all the junk we just don't need) - and the filthy lies for the prostitute politicians representing 'the big end of town' instead of us, we the sheople.

Israeli lobby: see previous discussions; thought (with perfect reason) to be perverting US policies to the detriment of the US (Its sheople, no detriment to the Military/Industrial Complex, or to the kleptocracy). Use your own eyes.

-=*=-

Finally, the US (as 'leader') is now furthering the repression of the ME which was already under way; see Churchill wanting to gas the Kurds after WW1, etc - but do your own research.

-=*=-

But I don't think its a good idea, to start a race-based WW3 - to steal oil or land. Business may well be business - but how about paying a fair price (Israel for land, US for oil?) Instead of mass-murdering for them? How about a bit of fairness, all round? A bit of truth, say, instead of the filthy lies? A bit less cheating, no more theft? The restoration of democracy, the hauling forth of true choice, including a 'side' who is pro-sheople? Stop the killings, aka murder for spoils, NO WAR!

And as all that wasn't enough, the greenhouse gets ever closer with not even the tiniest effective action anywhere in sight.

-=*end*=-

PS I note Ian MacDougall's positive contribution.

PPS There's a war on, alright, actually two. One is by the AngloCons against the world, to steal resources; murder for spoils. The other is also by the AngloCons against us, we the sheople. But to all of you I say "Do what you want (I know you will anyway.)" Roger Fedyk (g'day) mentioned evolution; what we stand to get is 'survival of the fittest - criminals'. Your choice, sheople.

Ref(s):

[1] In the pursuit of a) completeness and b) pedantic accuracy;

fascism noun [mass noun] an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.n (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also Fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.
DERIVATIVES
fascist noun & adjective
fascistic adjective
.
ORIGIN from Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis (see fasces).
[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary]

fascism
Ønoun
authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporativism, corporatism; German historical Hitlerism; Spanish historical Francoism, Falangism.
-opposite(s): democracy; liberalism.
[The NEW OXFORD Thesaurus]

fascism A political ideology of the first half of the 20th century, whose central belief was that the individual should be subjugated to the needs of the state, which in turn should be directed by a strong leader embodying the will of the nation. It arose in opposition to communism but adopted communist styles of propaganda, organization, and violence. The word (from the Roman fasces) was first used by the Fascio di Combattimento in Italy in 1919. Mussolini shaped fascism into a potent political force in Italy and Hitler developed a more racialist brand of it in Germany. Similar movements, which adopted a paramilitary structure, sprang up in Spain (the Falange), Portugal, Austria, the Balkan states, France, and South America. In Britain the National Union of Fascists under Mosley was founded in 1932, and between 1934 and 1936 adopted a strongly anti-Semitic character. Once in power (in 1922 in Italy) fascists attempted to impose a military discipline on the whole of society at the expense of individual freedom (though, despite the socialist elements in fascist ideology, there was little interference with private ownership). Democratic institutions were replaced by the cult of the single leader, whose pronouncements were unchallengeable. Fascism was thus a form of totalitarianism and was finally defeated only by military means in the course of World War II. Since then various extreme right-wing parties based on fascist principles have emerged in Europe and elsewhere, but are generally supported only by a `lunatic fringe' element in the population.
[The OXFORD World ENCYCLOPEDIA]

[2] hysterical adj. 1 of or affected with hysteria. 2 uncontrollably emotional. 3 colloq. extremely funny.  hysterically adv.
[The NEW OXFORD Dictionary]

[3] jingo n. (pl. -es) supporter of war; blustering patriot.  by jingo! mild oath.  jingoism n. jingoist n. jingoistic adj. [conjuror's word] [ibid.]