Friday, February 09, 2007

Israel - God's elect or Satan's spawn?

Since Israel was established in 1948, the land has become a vibrantly civil society. Homes have all the necessary basics, all children receive a quality, free education, and the elderly receive pensions. All have access to quality health care, irrespective of age, religion, or employment status. The land of Israel is fulfilling in this age what God exhorted it to do throughout the Old Testament - to pursue justice, to care for widows and orphans, to welcome strangers – and its strength and compassion are a beacon in a region of darkness,

If one were to believe much of the media reporting on Israel, it is a land obsessed with its wealth and military prowess, by a conceit that it is God’s ‘chosen people’, and an arrogance that the land is theirs in perpetuity. Jews flout international law, they alienate, build fences, persecute Muslims, and arbitrarily kill women and children.

This is the Arab-Muslim complaint, and the one largely swallowed by the world’s intelligentsia. The Muslim mantra is really no different to that propagated by the Nazis, and the end result is a global increase in anti-semitism, which goes largely unreported in the media – the Jews have ‘brought it on themselves’ and somehow ‘deserve it’.

Cranmer would like it known that Israel is a land of compassion, of generosity, and hospitality. Arab-Israelis have a standard of living higher than any of their brethren living in the region, and they have full citizenship which permits them to be elected to public office. Muslims are able to pursue successful careers in law, medicine, business and diplomacy. They have the freedom to worship, associate and assemble, and to speak freely without fear of intimidation or oppression. It is an undeniable fact that the freest Arabs in the Middle East are those in the Jewish state of Israel.

So the next time you hear sympathies for the plight of Palestinians, support for Hamas or Hizbullah, or expressions of understanding for the frustrations of Tehran and Damascus, please remember the nation with whom the Western world shares most. The next time some ill-informed Bishop in the Church of England demands action against Israel, or a boycott of Israeli goods, or conveys the impression that its supporters are supping with the Devil, consider those with whom God might just well be pleased. While the extremists launch missiles upon Israeli villages, or send suicide bombers into buses, bars, and markets, consider that Israel may be imperfect, but like all democracies, it is a land of tolerance, liberty, and justice. It is why many Arabs choose to live there, and they do, peacefully alongside their Semitic cousins.

Its borders are therefore worth protecting, militarily, if necessary.

117 Comments:

Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

I just wondered if Your Grace was aware of these people?

http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/

9 February 2007 at 10:52  
Blogger Gerv said...

Sir Henry: I believe they are linked from the sidebar on the right...

9 February 2007 at 11:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erm... I think you may have ignored the fact that Israel effectively 'invaded' Palestine (a country they had no real right to return to) and through actions such as Plan Dalet, caused hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes and become refugees on their own borders and in neighboring nations - living in abject poverty.. People who still don't have the right to return to their homes they left and still have the keys to. Palestinians in Israel had to struggle through years of intense social, economic and political discrimination which led to two intifadas... Both sides have killed and maimed, the Israeli military have murdered many palestinians as have the Palestinians murdered many Israelis.

Israelis don't tolerate Palestinians very well at all actually, I really don't know where you have got your information here, but I can tell you that you are misinformed. It is certainly not correct to side with Israelis because we have more in common with them or somehow are closer to them, this is a moral issue to which both have blood on their hands. You would do better to actually know what you are talking about before you comment on such an issue.

M.D

9 February 2007 at 12:23  
Anonymous Colin said...

Anonym,

"Israel effectively 'invaded' Palestine (a country they had no real right to return to)"

Wasn't the creation of the state of Israel an UN-decision of 1947?

"People who still don't have the right to return to their homes they left and still have the keys to."

The same is true for millions of refugees around the world, e.g. for German-speaking refugees from the former Austrian-Hungarian empire or for Polnish refugees from land occupied by the Soviet Union. Are you suggesting that all these refugees should behave like the Palestians and blow up restaurants in their former home land?

"become refugees on their own borders and in neighboring nations - living in abject poverty"

The same is true for the other refugees. However, they don't live in abject poverty but started to build a new life in a new country and their children became citizens of their new countries. What prevented Palestenian refugees to do the same? Could it be that their leaders gained more by an endless war than by building a free economy?

"It is certainly not correct to side with Israelis"

No? Is it better to side with an offspring of Nazi ideology?

The left journalist Matthias Kuentzel has written a number of articles showing the historical facts about the origins of Fatah and Hamas:

National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World: "Anti-Semitism based on the notion of a Jewish world conspiracy is not rooted in Islamic tradition but, rather, in European ideological models. The decisive transfer of this ideology to the Muslim world took place between 1937 and 1945 under the impact of Nazi propaganda. Important to this process were the Arabic-language service broadcast by the German shortwave transmitter in Zeesen between 1939 and 1945, and the role of Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who was the first to translate European anti-Semitism into an Islamic context. Although Islamism is an independent, anti-Semitic, antimodern mass movement, its main early promoters – the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Mufti and the Qassamites in Palestine – were supported financially and ideologically by agencies of the German National Socialist government."

Islamic Antisemitism And Its Nazi Roots: "Klaus Gensicke writes in his dissertation on the Mufti’s collaboration with the Nazis: “The Mufti himself admitted that it was entirely due to the money contributed by the Germans that allowed him at that time to carry out the uprising in Palestine.” [12] Thus, Hitler’s agents incited the anti-Jewish hatred of the Islamists in Palestine with slogans, weapons and money thereby encouraging the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

It was not until May 8, 1945, however, that the ideological approach between the Mufti, the Muslim Brothers and the Nazis reached its peak. This became obvious as early as November 1945. During this very month, the Muslim Brothers committed the worst anti-Jewish pogroms in all of Egypt´s history: The core of antisemitism had thus begun to shift from Germany to the Arab world...

The new impact of the Nazi-like conspiracy theories becomes particularly obvious if we take a look at the Charta of the Muslim Brotherhood of Palestine which calls itself Hamas. This Charta, created in 1988, represents one of the most important Islamist programs of today. Here, Hamas pointedly makes use of the antisemitic rhetoric of the Mufti of Jerusalem which he in turn had adopted from the Nazis. The Brotherhood of Palestine defines itself as a “universal movement” whose jihad was “the spearhead and the avant-garde” in their struggle against “world Zionism”.

Antisemitism in the Middle East: Abbas and Hamas: "Later, the former Mufti acted as patron and financier of the Fatah movement, founded in 1959, and he unofficially appointed Jassir Arafat as his successor. “Amin el-Husseini had the impression that Arafat was the proper leader for the Palestinian nation”, reported Muheidin al-Husseini, the Mufti’s son-in-law. (9) Today, it is above all the Islamist movement Hamas which has taken up the heritage of the Mufti of Jerusalem."

In other words, you are a late victim of the antisemitic Nazi propaganda.

The Arab-American Psychiatrist Wafa Sultan said on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006: "The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

"You would do better to actually know what you are talking about before you comment on such an issue.". Precisely, Anonymous.

9 February 2007 at 13:31  
Blogger tim said...

Amen, Archbishop! I'm always a proud to see us conservative Christians standing up for our Jewish bretheren, and it's astounded me that this isn't the stand of the secular Left.

M.D., your terminology is a little anachronistic, and it took me a moment to sort out what you were talking about. Israel invaded no "country" called "Palestine." Israel was founded within the territory formerly called Palestine in 1948, but I believe you are referring to the Six Day War of 1967. In that war, the following countries prepared to invade Israel: Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and these backed by the Soviet Union. Israel could either wait to be properly invaded, in which case it could count on American support (which was expected to come too late), or it could make a pre-emptive strike on the Arab armies, in which case it would have to do so alone (but it would have a greater chance of success).

American President Johnson felt that because of Soviet support for the Arab side, he had to maintain a publicly defensible position against their propaganda. The U.S. would only support a clearly defensive action (never mind the fact that at this point, whichever action Israel took, it was effectively defensive). If the U.S. supported Israel in a pre-emptive strike, the president was afraid the Soviets would give direct assistance to the Arab armies.

So, faced with waiting for an attack that would probably overrun them before the Americans could get in the war, or destroying the Arab armies first, without outside support...Israel chose to survive.

Yes, there were Arabs in the now "Palestinian Territories" who left then. They left at the behest of the invading Arabs, to clear the way for their armies, and planned to return once the Jews were swept into the sea. Funny how it didn't turn out that way. For those Arabs who took the invaders up on that deal, it's a shame they're not allowed to return. It's an equal shame that those Jews who were expelled from the Arab countries are not allowed to return to their homes, either. But unlike the Arab countries proudly proclaiming their lands "Jew-free," Israel only took this action out of self-defense. And Israel didn't eradicate the Arabs from its borders--witness the Arab citizens and even legislators His Grace mentioned in the Israeli government.

Does this clear up your misconceptions, M. D.?

9 February 2007 at 13:51  
Blogger Newmania said...

Thank you your Grace I am pleased to add my small voice of support, although I generally confine myself to domestic concerns).
My friend Croydonian has lent me a scholarly tome for study on the Israel and has himself posted magnificently on this subject in the past. I am however chiefly emotionally attached to their cause

I think ones interest is this. In our cosy enclave we are free to adopt all sorts of self serving hypocrisies about our dealings both with ourselves and with others .
Israel is a country maintaining civil society in the face of enemies at the gate.
It is most instructive to see how they are able to achieve it and infuriating to see their achievement denigrated by a motley crew of self dramatising pocket revolutionaries here. Even at their worst they are aware of the need , as Golda Meyer ( spelling ?) put it “to negotiate with our values”. to maintain those values. This problem of how to be a good man in a “naughty world” was once much ruminated upon. We seem to averted our eyes to it , and this leads to error after error. This is Israel for me. The truth lying in Browning’s words “ at the dangerous edge of things”

9 February 2007 at 14:49  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Gerv

I did look first, but I missed it.

Blush.

9 February 2007 at 14:52  
Anonymous Matt said...

I couldn't agree with your grace, and also with Colin, more. It is just a shame that the truthful and rational views expressed by them both are drowned out by the chorus of Jew hatred orchestrated by that unholiest of recent alliances between the Islamists and the Left.

9 February 2007 at 15:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hear Hear, your Grace! I'm sick and tired of hearing so-called "liberals" and left-wingers cosying up to Islamofascists who bomb internet cafes in Gaza because they might allow people to view "Western" material...

Having visited Israel (unlike most of her critics) I know that it is a bastion of tolerance, democracy and freedom. Sure, they have rigorous searches at airports etc (I happened to lose my camera to some over-zealous El Al staff), but when you're faced with genocidal jihadists intent on murdering innocent civilians (perhaps the slightly deranged poster above would care to comment on the Eilat bombing...?) I'm with Israel all the way.

9 February 2007 at 16:34  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

What I don't understand is why Israel happens to have made 200 nuclear bombs, and was supported in doing so by America, Britian and France; all which have signed the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty. If it was for defence, then the maximum amount of 4 nuclear bombs would have been enough. Why 200?
So... are you still with Israel all the way? (unless you can justify their reason for doing so)

9 February 2007 at 16:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh good grief, please put down your junior encyclopedia of the Middle East.

To Colin:

1)The United Nations accepted Israel as a nation in its own right because it was the best way to sort out a pretty bad situation, it was not a fair decision and it was not their, or alot of peoples ideal outcome at all. In fact i'm pretty sure that if it wasn't just after a world war, it would have had alot more opposition.

2) Just because there are refugees around the world who have also lost their homes does not make it ok, or legitimise the Israeli takeover of Palestinian homes... That is ridiculous. Besides I was certainly not saying that suicide bombing was ok, you really should re-read what I actually said as opposed to just vomiting out your opinions and mis-reading my written words.

3) Indeed some Palestinians have assimilated into their neighboring countries, but I guess I'm just one of those traditional people who think that maybe they have a right to return to their homeland... CRAZY ME. I'll turf you from your comfy house, make you live in another country in a tent for decades and then tell you you can't return and have to live with it... see how you like that.

4) Just because some dude writes articles doesn't make him right!!! I can find many articles which flatly deny anything.


To Tim.

1) I most certainly was not talking about the six day war, I was talking about Plan Dalet which occurred over 1947-48 if I was talking about the six day war I probably would have mentioned it... Look it up on Wikipedia, you might learn something... It was a huge and illegal land grab designed to push the rest of the Arab population out of the country.

As for the rest of your drivel, I can only assume that you are not aware of history, please look up what happened before 1967, yes things happened before this date, it is true.


Please, I study this at University. I am pretty sure I am right, I don't pay mountains of tuition fees to be an ignorant twat. I was the most unbiased in my views in saying that both sides have committed atrocities, you on the other hand just fell onto your own swords...

From an equally committed Christian who reads more than just the Daily Mail


M.D

9 February 2007 at 17:15  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

"Israel happens to have made 200 nuclear bombs"

How do we know that this statement is correct?

"If it was for defence, then the maximum amount of 4 nuclear bombs would have been enough."

Is it certain that 4 are enough if 5 countries are attacking you or would a larger number be a better deterence?

"was supported in doing so by America, Britian and France"

How do we know this and would Israel really need the help of these countries? Considering that a Third-World country like Pakistan was able to build nuclear bombs on their own, it is difficult to imagine that the large number of excellent Jewish scientists should be unable to do so.

Assuming that Britain has more than 4 nuclear bombs, may I ask you likewise: Are you still with Britain all the way?

9 February 2007 at 17:32  
Blogger Croydonian said...

If one takes as legitimate the claim that the Arabs of that area constitute a nation, one might ask why they did not fight Egypt for annexing Gaza, and Jordan for annexing Judea Samaria? Further, the idea that there is any Arab solidarity is shown to be arrant nonsense by the way that no attempt was made to raise up the Arabs of Gaza and Judea Samaria out of their predicament by their Arab 'brothers and sisters'.

Indeed, I would challenge anyone to find an example of a more generous peace deal offered to a defeated initiator of conflict than the Camp David plan offered to Arafat.

9 February 2007 at 17:35  
Anonymous Colin said...

M.D.,

Your argumentation is not based on facts but on emotions and on ad hominem attacks:

"put down your junior encyclopedia of the Middle East.

.. just vomiting out your opinions "


"Just because some dude writes articles doesn't make him right!!!"

That's correct but this dude also provided references to the sources. I am sure you didn't care to look it up because you feel so certain and superior to know it all.

"I can find many articles which flatly deny anything."

Correct. And you can find articles which deny the holocaust and articles which deny that the earth is not flat. What does the denial of facts prove?

9 February 2007 at 17:51  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Please, I study this at University. I am pretty sure I am right

Mr MD,

His Grace has just marked an undergraduate dissertation - the culmination of three years' theological study - and failed it. Regretfully, the study of anything at university no more makes one right than the self-confessed statement that one is.

What I don't understand is why Israel happens to have made 200 nuclear bombs, and was supported in doing so by America, Britian and France

Miss Jelly Bean,

Could you please source your assertions. This blog is for the intelligent and erudite, and that demands academic rigour. You will doubtless discover, if you attempt to find an authoritative source, that it comes from some Jihad-obsessed, Israel-hating website, and is itself unsourced. One needs to move beyond GCSEs.

9 February 2007 at 18:07  
Anonymous Colin said...

My good friend M.D.

"I study this at University. I am pretty sure I am right, I don't pay mountains of tuition fees to be an ignorant twat."

It is completely new to me that university students are taught to use in debates reference to authority, arrogance and insults instead of proofs. With this kind of style you are not only a shame for your university but you will also be unable to pass a dissertation defense.

Maybe some pictures as proof might help:

A German TV report with English subtitles shows Yasser Arafat’s uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, with Hitler, other Nazis, and his Nazi salute. "Kill the Jews wherever you find them," the Grand Mufti once said during a 1944 !!! Berlin broadcast. "This pleases God, history, and religion."

Books about the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Fuehrer.

Picture of Heinrich Himmler's souvenir for the Mufti and picture of contemporary Islamists with Nazi salute.

The evidence shows that it was not only a "dude" who wrote an article. The students at my university are not half as arrogant as you. May I ask what and where are you studying?

9 February 2007 at 18:40  
Anonymous Colin said...

Hear, Hear, His Grace,

A real student has honored this blog with his presence and paramount knowledge aquired at an University. I hope we didn't lose him because he should enlighten us ignorant twats.

Since I only know the Departments of Natural Science and Medicine, I am wondering if he is representative of the intellectual level at contemporary Humanities Departments of British Universities? In addition, would you care to comment on the relationship between "the mountains of tuition fees" he is paying and the result?

9 February 2007 at 20:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I study Politics, and quite frankly I'm not in a dissertation debate, I'm on a blog website. I really hope that you don't teach this kind of one-sided nonsense to your 'students' as your simplified beliefs which praise one side whilst demonising the other do nothing to illuminate the complex realities which make the Israeli/Palestine issue such a difficult and explosive subject. I certainly don't think that displacing the majority of the Palestinian population (a number which borders on 4 million if you include 3rd generation refugees) should be an action which is praised or lauded as something that God would have wanted. If you actually bothered to read my initial post then you would understand that I am not fighting for Palestinian rights, but trying to expose that perhaps the Israelis might have something to do with the instability of the region... perhaps the act of invading (yes I call it an invasion because that is what it was essentially, albeit a very slow and covert one) and the forcing out of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who lived there, a population who then proceeded to treat the remaining Palestinians as third-class citizens reducing their freedoms and shattering their economy. My arrogance is a reaction to the level of idiocity displayed on this comment section and the amount of inane back-slapping you all do, which i'm sure makes you all feel really reasured that you are indeed correct in all you spout, but it is, sadly, not a reflection of the real world.

9 February 2007 at 20:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Cranmer,

With all due respect, your student and his failure to succeed has little to do with me or this subject. This is an empirical issue, one which relies on fact and the research of such facts. I am distressed to read your article as I agree with you on much, but I cannot ignore such glaring innacuracies such as:

'The land of Israel is fulfilling in this age what God exhorted it to do throughout the Old Testament - to pursue justice, to care for widows and orphans, to welcome strangers – and its strength and compassion are a beacon in a region of darkness'

Where to start! Israel have killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis, I really don't think that God would be well pleased by the death toll do you? It is mandatory that everyone do military service in Israel, primarily to fight for their right to keep hold of their stolen land whilst shafting those who were too weak to hold onto it. I am dismayed that you are so poorly informed sir. Israel is not a 'beacon' in the region, indeed they are quite the opposite as they continue to treat Palestinians as second class citizens as the vast majority of them live around the poverty line. The scary thing about people who peddle this dis-information is that people might actually read it and think that it is somehow correct.


P.S. Regretfully, the marking of anything at university no more makes one right than the self-confessed statement that one has marked something.

M.D

9 February 2007 at 21:07  
Anonymous RobtE said...

Your Grace -

As an honest seeker after enlightenment, I beg Your Grace's assistance in answering a question I have pondered for some years, namely, what is the justification for the existence of the state of Israel?

Although I am a Christian, I am not of the faction that believes that the existence of Israel is necessary to isssue in the End of Times.

Further, and again as a Christian, I believe that God has removed the children of Israel from the Promised Land as a result of their refusal to accept the Messiah, as predicted by the Prophets.

Further, I believe the argument that my enemy's enemy is my friend is tenuous at best.

In short, how do we rationalise the displacement of those peoples who occupied the Palestine from the destruction of the Temple to the end of the war?

I plead Your Grace's indulgence if this is too basic a question, but it is, as I said, something I have pondered for some while.

9 February 2007 at 21:34  
Anonymous jwlhopuj said...

"I study Politics"

That explains a lot.

"I'm not in a dissertation debate, I'm on a blog website."

That's correct but no reason to insult people who have a different view than you.

"I really hope that you don't teach this kind of one-sided nonsense"

How do you know that you are not taught one-sided nonsense?

"I am ...trying to expose that perhaps the Israelis might have something to do with the instability of the region."

Yes, you were trying but you didn't prove anything. A proof for your hypothesis would require to show that similar cases will always lead to similar results. Unfortunate for your hypothesis, this is not the case as I have attempted to tell you with reference to the refugees from other countries.

"level of idiocity displayed on this comment section"

That's your opinion unsupported by any evidence. How do you know that your diagnosis of idiocy doesn't apply to yourself?

"back-slapping you all do"

That's only a defensive reaction to your arrogance and insults. Simply count the number of insulting words used by you and by others and you will see that you are the absolute master in this discipline.

"you all feel really reasured that you are indeed correct in all you spout"

No, we don't feel that way but many of us did a lot of thinking and research on this issue. It seems to me that your statement applies very well to your own feeling.

"not a reflection of the real world"

How much real world experience does a student have besides school, teachers and the teachings of his professors?

In the real world, what kind of job can you get by studying politics except staying at the university or going into politics? I have my doubts about the sense of reality of people who "pay mountains of tuition fees" to learn something which will probably lead to joblessness.

9 February 2007 at 21:36  
Blogger Newmania said...

anon.8.43- it is, sadly, not a reflection of the real world.....which we will be pleased to welcome you to when you have finished your, “dissertation debate ", in what I can only assume is the fine art of pontificating. If you have some reason to be , as you put it ,“fighting for Palestinian rights”, rather than simply regurgitating your course for self aggrandising purposes why not reveal it ? Otherwise you are bound to appear to take an inordinate delight in yourself. Sorry; but there it is .


Next anon:Israel have killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis, I really don't think that God would be well pleased by the death toll do you? …

The Allies killed more Germans than visa versa and I like to think , if there was a just god , he would have been pleased .I certainly am. So what?

( I believe I take the Godwin`s law prize a relatively rare event on your Graces blog)

9 February 2007 at 21:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jwlhopuj said...
"I study Politics"

'That explains a lot.'

Yes it does, that I might know a little more than you on the subject.

You Stated: 'How do you know that you are not taught one-sided nonsense?'

Because I have read alot around the subject from books which are pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian and books which just lay out what happened when which tend to be the most accurate however dull. If you read around the subject, you might just find that there is more to the story than you think.

You stated: 'Yes, you were trying but you didn't prove anything. A proof for your hypothesis would require to show that similar cases will always lead to similar results. Unfortunate for your hypothesis, this is not the case as I have attempted to tell you with reference to the refugees from other countries.'

No, you just listed some other refugees, that just means that others have had to go through the same horrific ordeal which the Palestinians have had to go through, thus actually strengthening my argument.. cheers for that.

You stated: 'How much real world experience does a student have besides school, teachers and the teachings of his professors?'

Hmm.. yes perhaps my working in an office cubicle from 9 to 5 would enlighten me to the current debacle in the Middle East, as opposed to actually studying it.

You Said: In the real world, what kind of job can you get by studying politics except staying at the university or going into politics? I have my doubts about the sense of reality of people who "pay mountains of tuition fees" to learn something which will probably lead to joblessness.

So you didn't go then?... well done on that one.

I can go into pretty much anything I want to as long as it isn't vocational.

9 February 2007 at 22:01  
Blogger Cranmer said...

P.S. Regretfully, the marking of anything at university no more makes one right than the self-confessed statement that one has marked something.

Mr MD,

If you apply your own logic to this statement, it may transpire that the tutors who have marked your own assignments may have flattered your own prejudices, and thereby affirmed your own political ignorance. Universities are full of such 'professors', but please do not demean those with whom you happen to disagree. You see fit to boast about your undergraduate status in order to emphasise the extent and authority of your knowledge. This is a puerile pursuit in itself, and one which His Grace has no need at all to indulge in, and if he did, you may well discover that his qualifications displace yours to the penumbra of academic discourse, on all matters political, theological, and philosophical.

One may of course take a contrary view to His Grace, and vigorous discussion and debate upon the religio-political is the raison d'etre of this blog, but your evident irritation clouds your objectivity.

PS
Please call yourself 'Claude' or 'Demetrius', or some such. His Grace has a policy of ignoring anonymice.

9 February 2007 at 22:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm appalled at what is being said here. Clearly, M.D. (Madame Durkenheimer? I wonder...) is misled in everything said. Go back to the university library and come out only when you have played the Venetian Fiddle, twice.

9 February 2007 at 22:15  
Anonymous Colin said...

M.D.,

"It is mandatory that everyone do military service in Israel, primarily to fight for their right to keep hold of their stolen land".

I agree with you that it is possible to contend that the state of Israel shouldn't have founded on the land belonging to the Arabs living there. You seem to conclude from this fact that the Palestians should be permitted to revert the situation although it happened 50 years ago.

Where do you draw the line for reverting a situation caused by graping the land belonging to others, at 50 years, 100 years, 500 years, 1,000 years ...?

Should France give Elsass back to Germany or Britain return Northern Ireland to Ireland, should Americans give back their land to the Indians and return to Europe or should all the land of the Ottoman empire be returned Turkey, does Italy have the right to wage war because they want the land of the Roman empire back?

Since the advent of homo sapiens 130,000 years ago in Eastern Africa, humans have endlessly waged wars for conquering each others territories. When does the right of aggression to get one's territory back end?

As a matter of fact, nobody is able to draw a line. This leads us to the question why is Israel singled out? Why are other criteria applied to Israel than to other countries?

And when we try to answer that question, we come back to the question of religion and antisemitism. You complain that Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens. But isn't it the other way around? Jews are defamed as pigs and apes by Islamic organisations, on Hisbollah's TV etc. They don't want to live with Jews but they are trying to achieve a religious cleansing of the Middle East.

So what is your solution for the Israelis, do you want them to leave their land to the Palestians and return to ?? Where do they have your permission to live?

9 February 2007 at 22:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Colin,

NOT 50 YEARS!! No way. I'm suprised that we can still remember that it actually occurred... oh that's right, probably because the people who were forced out are still alive and living in squalor unable to go back home.

All I ever wanted to do was point out that perhaps there were two sides to this story. Clearly the Israelis cannot be expected to leave as this would be a ludicrous suggestion. That said, for Cranmer and his slavering minions to suggest that Israel should be praised as a becon of light in the region is plainly offensive to anyone with an ounce of knowledge on the subject. For a start I believe that the Palestinians should have a right to return and the right to exist without aggression from a state which is so far advanced and holding many illegal nuclear weapons (Yes that's right, they are illegal due to a UN Charter.. number 24 I believe) Also, the wall of separation should be torn down as it is a grotesque physical manifestation of their hatred towards the Palestinians and only serves to cause more antipathy towards themselves.

that would be a start....

m.d

9 February 2007 at 22:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

M.D.

"No, you just listed some other refugees, that just means that others have had to go through the same horrific ordeal which the Palestinians have had to go through, thus actually strengthening my argument.. cheers for that."

Sorry but that's wrong.

You said the instability of region (i.e. war of Arabs against Israelis) is caused by Palestian refugees. Hence, refugees are the cause and instability (or war) the effect.

If you were correct, refugees should always cause wars. Obviously, that's not the case. Conclusion, your hypothesis is either wrong or needs an additional factor to account for the wars of Arabs against Israel. Such a factor could be antisemitism or the need of the oppressive dictatorships in that region to find a scapegoat for their inability to improve the living standard of their own people.

9 February 2007 at 22:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My abject apologies 'your Grace' for posting as a leprous anonymous, but I felt compelled to add my small trinket of observation having perused this discussion.

I freely admit to a limited knowledge of the Israel/Palestine conflict and am in no way attempting to offer a solution to an obviously complex situation . . . yet one thing troubles me; 'M.D' (a fellow leper)appears not to attempt a vindication of either side, but merely suggests that two sides to the story may exist, that the facts may hint at a less than exemplary record on the part of the Israelis.

And I would be fascinated to know the answer to robte's question.

Yours (presumably impudently) anonymous

9 February 2007 at 22:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, Colin, your last post made no sense.

A-nonny-nonny-mous

9 February 2007 at 22:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say that the Palestinians caused the 'war' of which there were actually more than one (something you would know if you actually read more that Cranmer's posts.


M.D

9 February 2007 at 22:50  
Blogger Cranmer said...

His Grace requests that anonymice discover the creativity to name themselves something expressing individuality. It is manifestly easier to respond to 'Demetrius' than it is to respond to 'Anonymous', who may be one of ten.

He exhorts all of his communicants to adhere to one of the rules of this august blog of intelligence and erudition, which is not to engage with anonymice.

9 February 2007 at 23:01  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear M.D.

Thank you for your attempt to argue with facts instead with condescending remarks and insults. I appreciate that. Maybe we can agree on something. You said:

"I'm suprised that we can still remember that it actually occurred... oh that's right, probably because the people who were forced out are still alive and living in squalor unable to go back home."

That can't be the explanation because the displacement of Polnish refugees in former Poland and of Austrians in Czechoslovakia happened only 8 years earlier.

"All I ever wanted to do was point out that perhaps there were two sides to this story."

Yes, there are two sides to this story. And the feelings of the Palestinians are understandable. But war isn't a solution. Did you ever wonder why such a relatively small population is still living in squalor although their Arab brethren are swimming in oil and money and seem to prefer to finance a world-wide proselytization drive for Islam instead of using this money for helping their Islamic brothers? Could it have something to do with an attempt to obtain more power? What are your textbooks in politics teaching about the human drive for power?

"Clearly the Israelis cannot be expected to leave as this would be a ludicrous suggestion."

I agree.

"the Palestinians should have a right to return"

In a democracy, that would have the same consequence as what you called "a ludicrous suggestion", wouldn't it? Because the Palestinian majority would obtain the power for ethnic cleansing the land from the Jews. That's the stated objective of Fatah, Hamas and Hezbullah, i.e. the second Holocaust.

Naturally, it makes us feel good and morally superior to advise the Jews safely from our armchair in good old Britain what to do thereby only risking their neck and not ours.

9 February 2007 at 23:08  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear M.D.

"I didn't say that the Palestinians caused the 'war' of which there were actually more than one (something you would know if you actually read more that Cranmer's posts."

Anybody can make condescending remarks. It's a form of bullying and doesn't prove anything. As a student you are an intellectual and we have to assume that you are able to defend your views with reason and without putting other people down. The latter is only a sign of the lack of the former.

I read much more than Cranmer's posts. I also read the Sun [:-) Just kidding]. Actually, I came to Cranmer's blog by chance probably just like you did and posted an anonymous comment because I didn't agree with him. An interesting discussion developed and despite being an atheist I continue to return to his blog because one can meet a number of highly educated people here including Cranmer leading to some interesting debates.

Since you are always bragging about the superiority of your knowledge and since you constantly insinuate that I am ignorant compared to you, let's see what you really know about political science.

As you know, states did not always exist. What is the origin of states?

9 February 2007 at 23:27  
Anonymous Colin said...

"He exhorts all of his communicants to adhere to one of the rules of this august blog of intelligence and erudition, which is not to engage with anonymice."

Oh, come on Cranmer. It's so much fun to debate with him.

He can easily be identified by his signature "M.D." What a difference does it make if M.D. stands at the beginning or at the end of his comment.

You ought to know, M.D. that His Grace complained about me being an anonymice when I wrote my first comment on his blog and he kindly suggested Colin as my name. I am still ignorant about the meaning of this name. Maybe someone can enlighten me, the ignorant daily reader of the Sun?

9 February 2007 at 23:41  
Blogger Newmania said...

I , for one am greatly encouraged at the touching ,even sweet , delight , MD takes both in himself and his status as an undergraduate. In these days when degree comes with a suspiciously perforated edge there must be few who feel themselves so elevated by the status .

I am encouraged to believe that we should be ruled by students with their great advantage of having recently read some books . In fact the very culture I admire the most accords enormous status to “The students”.
On the other hand I can think of a salutary warning albeit fictional

………………In short, he became so absorbed in his books that he ..........his wits being quite gone, he hit upon the strangest notion
that ever madman in this world hit upon, and that was that he fancied it
was right and requisite, as well for the support of his own honour as for
the service of his country, that he should make a knight-errant of
himself, roaming the world over…. putting in practice himself all that he had read ………


Quixotic is often misunderstood, (or so I once read ).

9 February 2007 at 23:50  
Blogger Newmania said...

I couldn’t be sure Colin but the character Colin Clout appears in Spenser’s Faerie Queen already well known enough to command recognition.

,
That iolly shepheard, which there piped, was
Poore Colin Clout (who knowes not Colin Clout?)
He pypt apace, whilest they him daunst about.
Pype iolly shepheard, pype thou now apace
Vnto thy loue, that made thee low to lout

The name seems to have early associations with banality and homeliness ( Poore Colin Clout ,who knowes not Colin Clout?) employed by the poet here and still current in the 1960s when its innate comic qualities were employed the t Monty Python team on more than one occasion. Colin Clot appears as amore straightforward rustic from time to time with the quality of literalness against which is set he witty sophistication of a courtly visitor.

I imagine his Grace was aware of these associations and meant the name in a kindly and ironic sense given your mountainous command of references for all occasion.


Hope that helps

10 February 2007 at 00:46  
Anonymous Israel Has A Right To Exist said...

Point 1) There have been refugees from many places and in many places throughout human history. But only, and I mean only, the Palestinians are still, supposedly, refugees three generations later. Why? Because a) their so called Arab brothers won't accomodate or assist them, except in making war and b) so that the Jew haters of the world can continue to use the "poor Palestinians" as a stick to beat the Jews with.

Point 2) Who stole what land and homes from whom exactly? Just as some might say that the Jews stole this land from the Arabs so before that the Arabs stole that land from the Jews. This is a never ending argument that can go back into history as long as you want it to but that still doesn't change the fact that the current occupants have just as strong a historical claim on it as do the so called Palestinian refugees.

Point 3) Israel is a tiny little nation but it is also the only Jewish state in the whole world, every other religion has a home, but apparently only the Jews are not entitled to one. The entire rest of the middle east is Islamic and, except Iran, Arab.

Point 4) Israel is held to far higher standards of behaviour by the international community than any other nation on earth. Everyone else, Sudan for example, can seemingly commit genuine mass atrocities if they wish with merely a murmur of vague dissapproval from the rest of the world. But Israel must always behave better tha any other nation and then still have acxcusations manufactured against it just to keep up the morale of the Jew haters.

10 February 2007 at 00:59  
Anonymous grumpy said...

I have no wish to cast aspersions on any of the respondents who have so far engaged in what seems to have descended into mutual name-calling; nor do I have any desire to join in this debate.
I should, however, like to make a simple point; since anti-semitism has become unfashionable,the increase in anti-Israeli sentiment seems to have blossomed. Would I be over-cynical in suggesting a possible connection between the two phenomena?

10 February 2007 at 01:18  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

Anonymous

" ... the act of invading (yes I call it an invasion because that is what it was essentially, albeit a very slow and covert one)... "

Exactly what I think the Muzbots are doing to us, right now. If the Jews were wrong to do that,then, are the Muzbots wrong, now, too?

What do you think oh learning one?

Apologies Your Grace. I'm more renowned for my work with the cutlass than the pen.

10 February 2007 at 01:36  
Anonymous Herman said...

Interesting argument.
I feel that one of the most important points raised has not been answered, that of robte.
Seeing as there is an assumption on Your Grace's part that Israel is God's chosen people, it would seem he asks a fundemental question.
Grumpy's point is also an intriguing notion.

10 February 2007 at 02:37  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your Grace I fear is too selective. After a long and costly war the British Empire gave up two areas of its suzerainty and four new states were born.

In the one case it gave up the League of Nations/UN Mandate on the area "Palestine" and a Jewish State of Israel was created and the State of Trans-Jordan - war ensued in 1948.

It left the Raj with two new States - a secular State called India and an Islamic Republic of Pakistan split as East and West Pakistan. Within a year war had broken out in 1948.

UN Observers have been in the region continuously since 1948


Now why do we focus on a Jewish State among Muslims and forget a Muslim State among Hindus ?

It is hard to believe Korea was a more industrialised state than Pakistan in 1948, yet contrast their situations now.

Contrast Pakistan and India, or any Arab Muslim state with Israel.

There is something very different in the political and economic order which is worthy of consideration. Why do so many Christian Palestinians find life easier in new Jersey than in Jordan or The West Bank; why do so many Pakistanis find life easier in England ?

It is fortunate that the dissolving British Empire gave an analogue to the State of Israel - Pakistan - as we used to be asked - Compare and Contrast

10 February 2007 at 07:17  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

may I ask you likewise: Are you still with Britain all the way?

I never said I was with Britain. I don't believe any country should posess such weapons of mass distruction; pakistan, Britain or Israel.

10 February 2007 at 11:48  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

when I wrote my first comment on his blog and he kindly suggested Colin as my name.

Hmmm...Colin isn't such a bad name; what do you think of jelly bean?

10 February 2007 at 12:03  
Anonymous : ) said...

i like the name jelly bean...

10 February 2007 at 13:17  
Blogger duff said...

9. David Ben Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.

I have no sympathy for the Israeli government nor the radical zionists. Read Stephen Lendman's recent article 'A Review of The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe' at http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

10 February 2007 at 13:20  
Blogger tim said...

Well, it seems I left the field at the beginning of the battle, this time!

Colin--You've done a wonderful job returning defensive fire on this. I had heard that Naziism influenced contemporary Islamist anti-Semitism, but I'd not known the extent of the connection until I read your comments.

I must say, for all his vitriol, M.D. gave me a good laugh with his statement of his knowledge and authority: "Please, I study this at University. I am pretty sure I am right, I don't pay mountains of tuition fees to be an ignorant twat."

Heh, heh, heh...oh, how true, how true of the undergraduate mindset! I'm a university professor, and I come across this attitude of supreme self-confidence fairly often among the students. Even when I was in college (using the American phrase, here), I recognized that some of my classmates were infected with this attitude. Because they had taken, what? up to four years of classes on some topic, they clearly knew more about it than anyone else, even adults. It's the arrogance of a little knowledge. You don't recognize the limitations of your knowledge, yet. That mostly comes from experience. The funny thing is that this kind of college undergrad can wind up more prejudiced and fixed in his attitudes (at this stage of learning) than any grumpy old grandpa he knows himself to be superior to.

But M.D. claims to be fair and even-handed: he can admit that both sides have made mistakes, you see. And the Israelis are an evil, warmongering bunch of land-stealers. See? That's a perfectly level-headed academic analysis, based on up to four years of study.

Colin--I'm pleased to see that an atheist recognizes the good qualities of Israel, too. You're the one showing level-headed academic analysis, as far as I can tell.

10 February 2007 at 13:21  
Anonymous Observer said...

Before we forget - the first State to recognise Israel was Stalin's USSR.

The first State to arm Israel was the Czechoslovakian State.

Probably done to embarrass Great Britain but nevertheless it was the Communist Bloc which first recognised and armed Israel

10 February 2007 at 16:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim, Tim, Tim....I am dismayed that a University Professor can display such distorted opinions about this topic. My pro-Palestinian leanings in this debate are a reaction to the insane pro-Israeli stance whith which you all seem to hold. I was simply trying to restore some kind of balance to this comment page to offset the holy-huddle of opinion makers and head-bobbing minions which constitute the vast majority of commentors on this subject, all grovelling to his almighty Cranmerness in an embarassing froth of good tidings and brown-nosing. My points put across are a barometer of this entire argument and of how extreme I have had to go to begin to represent the other side of the argument, a side not even gestured to by posters so far. Although i'm sure that Palestinians everywhere are not waiting with baited breath for an intellectual display of shock and awe, I feel the need to represent them anyway. Yes, I am confident and probably too sure of myself, but I would much rather be a firebrand youth willing to stake a claim of opinion in the face of mounting opposition, willing even to fall upon my own sword if need be than to be a political and social non-entity who flips the channel to Big Brother as the opening chorus to Newsnight eminates from the tv's built-in speakers.

Oh, and don't think I haven't recognised the equally insipid, yet far more subtle arrogance in your retort, as if looking down your nose-perched half-moon glasses and warmly tut tutting at the idiocity of youth whilst basking in your god-like intellectual glow from your professors-perch.

Apparently, studying this subject does not make one able to be a voice of opinion on it, and of course, all undergraduates are incorrect because of their undergraduate status. Golly I can't wait till I have my PHD when my opinions are magically given the correct post-name lettering thus in turn rendering them worthy of being listened to by you.

Oh, and as Duff has brilliantly revealed, Ben Gurion himself has negated part of your argument, that has to be a bad sign.

M.D. AKA 'Arrogant Twat'

10 February 2007 at 17:12  
Anonymous herman said...

'colin', states are nothing more than the product of imagination, coupled with the political and military stength necessary to uphold the laws and boundaries within. Should a stonger external power disagree with a state, no matter how fervent the belief in the state, it will fall. A nation on the other hand can be placeless, and is nothing more than an imagined construct.

Also, 'tim' (because an internet name clearly carries vast weight, isn't that right 'Your Grace'?), 'colin' has done nothing more than present the opposing arguments to 'M.D's' points, and comes accross in a similarly arrogant fashion. As do you for that matter . . . not impressive for one who claims to teach these young upstart graduates. Perhaps that explains the prevelance of arrogance amongst those you teach . . . ?

I personally find it refreshing that an undergraduate today still finds a sense of pride, even if naive, in their degree, and is willing to attempt to put what they have learnt to use, even if it is against a group of keyboard warriors operating behind internet names as mind blowing as 'colin'. I, personally, am filled with a gentle effervesing mirth that somehow a name plucked from the ether garners one the enviable position of acknowlegement from 'His Grace' over one who chooses to partake anonymously. The imagination required for such an endeavour clearly legitimates the ensuing statement.

Yours truely,

'Herman'

10 February 2007 at 17:21  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Herman,

Firstly, His Grace discourages anonymice for one purpose only - to facilitate discussion, such that one may address one's comments to a named person, instead of to one of ten anonymous posters.

Secondly, His Grace might be inclined to take 'Herman' more seriously if he could spell 'truly'.

10 February 2007 at 17:33  
Anonymous herman said...

Touché, 'Your Grace', touché, perhaps I should proof read rather more thoroughly.

Still though, I am overjoyed that you chose to respond; whilst you are here, might I once again inquire on the behalf of 'robte', what is the answer to his question?

Yours truly,

Herman

10 February 2007 at 17:44  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Herman,

Mr Robte himself observed the very reason that His Grace would not respond, when he stated: 'I plead Your Grace's indulgence if this is too basic a question, but it is, as I said, something I have pondered for some while.'

The level of theological understanding is indeed 'too basic', and it is therefore a question which His Grace would encourage Mr Robte to go on 'pondering' for much more time to come. The most cursory glance at the Wisdom literature would indicate that the cause and effect equation is simply not as convenient as he believes it to be. He may enthuse in the literal superficiality of Proverbs, yet he manifestly fails to comprehend the complex theodicy of Job. The Lord himself confirmed that disaster falls upon the just and the unjust (Lk 13:4).

10 February 2007 at 18:02  
Anonymous herman said...

Your Grace,

Indeed, although does that not throw into doubtful grounds the stance of the tenaciously pro-Israeli posters in this discussion? If we accept the teachings of Christ, then surely the other cheek would have been prudently turned? Or could it be possible, on religious grounds, that the failure to accept Christ resulted in removal from the promised land, so again negating a wholly pro-Israel stance?
Or, as Your Grace's post suggests, this situation is not one of simple cause and effect. However, if this is the case, from our limited human understanding, how can any one of us, yourself included, settle on either side of this tricky fence?

Yours, rather more humbly,

Herman

10 February 2007 at 18:20  
Anonymous Colin said...

Newmania,

Thank you for enlightening me about the name given to me by His Grace. I always imagined that he had played some kind of joke on me. But I loved the idea to probably carry the name of a (to use M.D.'s terminology) twat since self-mockery is a virtue able to prevent us from developing delusions of grandeur.

Well, M.D. and Herman are going to say: It didn't help, Colin, you are an arrogant twat suffering from delusions of grandeur. Aint't that right kids?

M.D.,

That's fine. It's a good sign that you do not simply accept the alleged wisdom of your profs but that you ask for supporting evidence. That's the only way progress in knowledge can be achieved. But just as your profs, you also have to provide evidence for you claims.

It isn't good enough to simply say, my view is better or more balanced, therefore my view is correct.

For example, doctor A says acupuncture helps against cancer and doctor B says radiation therapy helps. The balanced view would be employ acupuncture and radiation therapy by using half the number of needles and half the amount of radiation. If you were the patient, you would die earlier in the case of using a balanced approach vs. a proven therapy.

Would you also suggest a balanced view in the conflict between GB and Hitler's Germany bombing British cities or proposing to form a common state with Nazi Germany?

How does a balanced view help the Israelis who are threatened by extinction?

You are distracting from the main question how to solve this conflict.

You rejected the idea that the Israelis should leave Israel and give the land back to the Palestinians. As solution you proposed that Israelis and Palestinians should live together in a single democratic state.

My reply was that the Palestinian majority would decide to eliminate the Jews among them as did the Germans under the Nazi rule.

Since the first solution proposed by you doesn't work, what are you proposing next? I am waiting ...

Yours humbly,

Colin

10 February 2007 at 20:12  
Anonymous herman said...

Colin:

"Well, M.D. and Herman are going to say: It didn't help, Colin, you are an arrogant twat suffering from delusions of grandeur. Aint't that right kids?"

I believe delusions of intellectual w(h)ittery are your main crime Colin. Not once have I alluded to you attaining the status of 'arrogant twat', merely I have speculated that the individual behind the faceless hero Colin is at least as arrogant as the 'M.D' he so readily chastises.
I am charmed by the way that anyone who nods sympathetically towards the non-majority cause on this forum, is branded a . . . well I suppose 'twat-monger' would be the most suitable phrase. How disenchanting.

Yours disappointedly,

Herman

10 February 2007 at 21:52  
Anonymous Colin said...

Herman,

"I believe delusions of intellectual w(h)ittery are your main crime Colin."

You are right, Herman. I am guilty of intolerance because I have attempted to defend Israel's right of existence against the received wisdom of the media-influenced majority in Europe.

My ancestors were guilty of not protesting against the killings of Jews and I am guilty because I trying to do the opposite. The Times They Are A-Changin' and everyone who doesn't march with the crowd is guilty.

"Le jour du 14 juillet, je reste dans mon lit douillet
la musique qui marche au pas, cela ne me regarde pas
je ne fais pourtant de tort à personne, en n'écoutant pas le clairon qui sonne
mais les braves gens n 'aiment pas que, l'on suive une autre route qu'eux
Au village sans prétention, j 'ai mauvaise réputation"

(LA MAUVAISE REPUTATION Georges Brassens)

10 February 2007 at 22:17  
Anonymous Colin said...

Herman,

Another of your points is also correct, namely

"the individual behind the faceless hero Colin is at least as arrogant as the 'M.D' he so readily chastises."

It's correct that I am able to become quite arrogant and therefore I am always trying to control this instinct by sticking to the facts I can prove and by avoiding insulting language. However, I cannot exclude the possibility that I sometimes cross that line a bit. But I challenge you to chastise me by showing that I employed an insulting word in my conversation with M.D.

Furthermore, two of your claims are wrong.

First, I am not a hero. A hero in my view is an altruistic individual who risks his life in order to help others. A recent example is Wesley Autrey's life saving action at NYC's subway. I don't risk anything on this blog, I am just having fun by debating (like playing a match of tennis), and so does M.D.

That's why he entered the debate and why he enjoyed claiming superiority to the "dummies" on this blog because he already is an undergraduate student. Since these alleged "dummies" have as professors an even higher academic status than M.D., his argument of superior status crumbled to dust and the "dummies" started to make fun of him. If he can't take such ironic responses, he shouldn't dish out in the first place.

Second, I did not "chastise" M.D. I asked him to abstain from the use of condescending and insulting language and to prove his points with facts. That's the required standard for any intellectual debate at the university which he so proudly announced to be a member of.

Finally, all these discussions about status, arrogance etc. is distracting from M.D. main point, i.e. his claim to know a better solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am still waiting for his suggestions.

If you want to make kowtows in front of someone because of his claims to have superior insights derived from his status as undergraduate student, you are free to do so. Unfortunately, I am neither impressed by status nor by insults and therefore unwilling to perform the requested kowtows.

However, if M.d. is really able to come up with a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which obviously nobody else in the world has found yet, I will worship him as my master.

10 February 2007 at 23:15  
Anonymous herman said...

No Colin, you are guilty of trying to meld wit and wisdom, and succeeding only in whittering on, failing to acknowledge the legitimacy of any argument other than your own.

Please do try and understand the point I am making, rather than seeing fit to state I accused you of intolerance. There is a big difference between disagreeing and being intolerant.

Herman

10 February 2007 at 23:17  
Anonymous herman said...

And read between the lines. You are right, this is a blog, I am here, just as you, to indulge in some light hearted (and occasionally eloquent) verbal jousting.
Hero, I thought you would have noticed the sarcasm (as being the lowest form of wit, and myself being unable to resist rising above it) with which the term was used.

Again I reiterate my lack of detailed knowledge on the Israel/Palestine topic. However, I am very able to discern when a debate (or light hearted 'chat') is rather one sided, and as M.D raised the sole voice of counter argument to the norm, and seemed as informed as any other poster, the way he was dismissed out of hand grated slightly and resulted in my clearly unwlecome intrusion to this blinkered bastion of blog-based knowledge.

Also: "If he can't take such ironic responses, he shouldn't dish out in the first place."

In the light of this, you seem a little too concerned with putting me in my place, don't you think?

Herman

10 February 2007 at 23:29  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Dear Colin,
I will try to counter your sprawling and nonsensical arguments:
Ok, right.. here goes, first the act of 'Invasion':
I said that the Israelis settled in Palestine under the auspices of a small migration, yet this turned out to be a planned invasion with the ultimate aim to set up an Israeli state, this was the dream of Leo Pinsker and Theodor Herzel and was very much the aim, not to the knowledge of the Palestinians and they actually spent alot of time and money lobbying the British and American governments. Finally, in 1947 the United Nations decided to intervene. However, rather than adhering to the democratic principle espoused decades earlier by Woodrow Wilson of "self-determination of peoples," in which the people themselves create their own state and system of government, the UN chose to revert to the strategy whereby an outside power arbitrarily divides up other people’s land.
Under considerable pressure from high-placed American Zionists, the UN decided to give away 55 percent of Palestine to a Jewish state — despite the fact that this group represented only about 30 percent of the total population, and owned under 7 percent of the land. - fair?
When the inevitable war broke out in 1948 the outcome was never in doubt, according to U.S. intelligence reports from the time. The Zionist army consisted of over 90,000 European-trained soldiers and possessed modern weaponry, including up-to-date fighter and bomber airplanes. The Arab forces, very much a third-world army, consisted of approximately 30,000 ill-equipped, poorly trained men. The U.S. Army, British intelligence, and the CIA all agreed: it would be no contest.
By the end of the 1948 war the Jewish state — having now declared itself "Israel" — had conquered 78 percent of Palestine — far more than that proposed even by the very generous UN partition plan. And three-quarters of a million Palestinians had been made refugees. Over 400 towns and villages had been destroyed, and a new map was being drawn up, in which every city, river and hillock would receive a new, Hebrew name. All vestiges of the Palestinian culture were to be erased. In fact, for many decades Israel — and the US, following its lead — denied the very existence of this population. Golda Meir once said, in fact: "There is no such thing as a Palestinian."
This is supported by many books and journals, so I shall list some that I have personally read:

Books
Becker, J. (1984) ‘The PLO- The rise and fall of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’ George Widdenfield & Nicholson ltd. London, UK

Frangi, A. (1983) ‘The PLO and Palestine’ Zed Books ltd, New Jersey, USA

Inbari, P (1994) ‘The Palestinians between terrorism and statehood’ Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, UK

Rubin, R & Colp, J (2003) ‘Yasir Arafat- A Political Biography’, Continuum, London, UK
Journals and Periodicals:
Yezid Sayigh ‘Struggle within, struggle without: The transformation of PLO politics since 1982’ Vol 65, No. 2 (1989)
Walid Khalidi, 'Plan Dalet: Master Plan for the Conquest of Palestine' , Journal of Palestine Studies > Vol. 18, No 1, Special Issue: Palestine 1948 (Autumn 1988), pp 4-33
If you have access to Jstor and or a library, I would urge you to read some of these.
There is much proof of Plan Dalet and the ultimate goal of pushing the Palestinians out into neighboring states:
For instance, in Theodore Herzel's diaries:
"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country." - (12 June, 1895. Raphael Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, vol. 1 Harry Zohn. Trans., New York: Herzl Press and T. Yoseloff, 1960, pp. 88-89.).
Also:
Eli'ezer Kaplan, who was Head of the Jewish Agency Finance and Administrative Department, said:
"I shall not enter now into the details of the question of the 'transfer' of the Arabs. But it is not fair to compare this proposal to the expulsion of Jews from Germany or any other country…. The question here is one of organised transfer of a number of Arabs from a territory which will be the Hebrew state, to another place in the Arab state, that is, to the environment of their own people." - (Statement made at the Convention of Ihud Po'alei Zion in August 1937. 'Al Darchei Mediniyutenu, op.cit, pp.82-83.)
Berl Katznelson, an influential leader of the Mapai party favored transfer, including "compulsory" transfer. However, the "compulsion" was to come about as the result of agreement, and not through war or violent action. He wrote:
"The matter of population transfer has provoked a debate among us: Is it permitted or forbidden? My conscience is absolutely clear in this respect. A remote neighbour is better than a close enemy. They [the Palestinians] will not lose from it. In the final analysis, this is a political and settlement reform for the benefit of both parties. I have long been of the opinion that this is the best of all solutions.... I have always believed and still believe that they were destined to be transferred to Syria or Iraq." - (At the World Convention of Ihud Po'alei Tzion, August 1937. Al Darchei Mediniyutenu: Mo'atzah 'Olamit Shel Ihud Po'ali Tzion (c.s.)-Din Vehesbon Maleh, 21 July-7 August [1938],
On June 22, 1941 Joseph Weitz, a former director of settlement in the Jewish Agency, wrote in his diary: "Amongst ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country. No 'development' will bring us closer to our aim to be an independent people in this small country. After the Arabs are transferred, the country will be wide open for us; with the Arabs staying the country will remain narrow and restricted.... There is no room for compromise on this point....land purchasing....will not bring about the state;.... The only way is to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries, all of them, except perhaps Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Old Jerusalem. Not a single village or a single tribe must be left. And the transfer must be done through their absorption in Iraq and Syria and even in Transjordan. For that goal, money will be found - even a lot of money. And only then will the country be able to absorb millions of Jews.... There is no other solution." - (Weitz Diary, entry dated 20 December 1940, pp.1090-91, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem.)
So, can we come to some conclusion that the Zionists both planned to colonise and eventually take over the territory of Palestine whilst displacing the Arab population, forcing them to assimilate into their neighboring states?
Well, if not, i'll carry on regardless, Now onto the subject of refugees:
You stated regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees:
"The same is true for the other refugees. However, they don't live in abject poverty but started to build a new life in a new country and their children became citizens of their new countries. What prevented Palestenian refugees to do the same? "
Well, one major argument as to why Palestinians have not put their energies into building a new life in a new country is to avoid dissolution of their identity and protect their right to return to their homeland, yes Palestinians want to remain a distinct national grouping, not assimilate into their neighboring Arab states. This is actually an internationally supported strategy.
Indeed the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194, paragraph 11, states:
'..Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for the loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible...
It clearly instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation.

I believe that you then quoted the completely non-biased accounts of an Israeli for a couple of paragraphs ignoring the fact that antisemitism wasn't the topic of discussion, you sought to bring it up anyway, then spoke of the origins of Fatah and Hamas, also slightly off of the subject of whether Israel had a right to be there in the first place which was my origional concern, not what lengths the Palestinians had to go to counter such a great giant such as Israel...

You much later said: "Naturally, it makes us feel good and morally superior to advise the Jews safely from our armchair in good old Britain what to do thereby only risking their neck and not ours."
I'm sorry, but they decided upon embarking on the dangerous decision of colonising a state when they had no right to except that they wanted to... heaven forbid they have to face the consequences of their actions.
You much later Said:
For example, doctor A says acupuncture helps against cancer and doctor B says radiation therapy helps. The balanced view would be employ acupuncture and radiation therapy by using half the number of needles and half the amount of radiation. If you were the patient, you would die earlier in the case of using a balanced approach vs. a proven therapy.
- Presumably you assume that your position is the equivalent to this 'proven theory' and mine is the needles of stupidity? Except you really haven't proven anything at all have you, you have just made an analogy, besides, why does the doctor have to use half of A and half of B, just use all A and all B, which in this little analogy of yours was my proposal.... Actually, this analogy is non representative of my opnions at all... what were you thinking?
You Said:

"You rejected the idea that the Israelis should leave Israel and give the land back to the Palestinians. As solution you proposed that Israelis and Palestinians should live together in a single democratic state. "
I never proposed that there should be a single state solution!!! Where did you get that from?? I said that the wall of separation should be torn down, primarily because it cuts into Palestinian land as proposed by the Road Map, I also said that the refugees had a right to return, not to live side by side with Israelis.

That negates this:

"My reply was that the Palestinian majority would decide to eliminate the Jews among them as did the Germans under the Nazi rule. "

To correct your most recent post, I have never claimed to be able to sort out the conflict, I think you warped my words there buddy.

M.D.

11 February 2007 at 00:13  
Anonymous Colin said...

Herman,

Excellent retort, indeed.

"Hero, I thought you would have noticed the sarcasm"

I noticed but so what does it prove. It's not difficult to be sarcastic. I could do the same to you but I won't because you seem to be an honest man.

"I am very able to discern when a debate ... is rather one sided, and as M.D raised the sole voice of counter argument"

That's correct for this blog but not for the majority of the media reporting and the population. Should we all agree with him because he is the minority on this blog?

"seemed as informed as any other poster the way he was dismissed out of hand "

I asked him to prove his points. But he continued to use insulting language, hardly a method to change anybodies mind.


"my clearly unwlecome intrusion to this blinkered bastion of blog-based knowledge."

On contrary, your intrusion is most welcome. It's much less fun if everybody has the same opinion, isn't it.

"In the light of this, you seem a little too concerned with putting me in my place, don't you think?"

Absolutely not. Professionally, I have to search everyday for errors of reasoning. Hence, I am trained in spotting and discussing them.

I don't feel attacked by you and I am not trying to put you down. Most of the things you said were reasonable and correct.

I simply like to debate and find it rather funny that some people are getting so emotional as if their life depended on winning a debate.

If it makes you happy, I admit that you are right and I am wrong.

PS: Before I pushed the button, M.D. lengthy comment appeared. Simply checking the first and last sentences, again his arrogance is visible:

"your sprawling and nonsensical arguments"

"you warped my words there buddy"

But thanks, buddy, for your kindness to reply. It's 1:30 here and I just wanted to go to bed. Tomorrow evening after work, I will read your undoubtedly excellent contribution.

11 February 2007 at 00:19  
Anonymous grumpy said...

Would it be otiose to comment that colin seems to be a rather condescending little prig?

11 February 2007 at 01:42  
Anonymous herman said...

Grumpy,

Not at all dear chap, thank goodness somebody else has noticed! I look forwards to hearing his response to M.D's impressively long and, I feel, thorough response to questions posed and veiled accusations levelled.

I'm sure his students would be filled with confidence to know that their tutor is happy to write off, even (I assume in this case) if in jest, a significant body of words by reading the first sentence and second half of the last sentence.

I also enjoy his attempt to undermine arguing with any passion;

"I simply like to debate and find it rather funny that some people are getting so emotional as if their life depended on winning a debate."

Indeed so, yet this being a blog, I feel that few would actually care if they were proven wrong, and the apparent emotion unlikely to be on par with life dependency issues, given that a post would normally take no longer than 5 minutes to complete. So what if someone wants to get really involved? You have done, yet you seem to be the one hell-bent on belittling others for it. Consistent . . . it seems you may need to take a closer look at your own subjectivity?

I do indeed doubt that this argument, as has been pointed out, will be resolved here. In fact, the spark that caused this debate was simply a voice calling, admittedly strongly, for a recognition of two sides, that M.D felt Cranmer's blog entry to be too one-sided. The call for M.D to reveal the answer he supposedly hinted at has come from nowhere but Colin.

Goodness, I've done it again, posted more than 3 lines, sorry Colin, I must care too much.

Herman

p.s. Having fallen foul of the spelling police myself, I feel it my duty as a reformed character to point out to Colin that it's 'anybody's' not 'anybodies'
Grammatical asbo served.

11 February 2007 at 02:39  
Anonymous herman said...

Which makes it a shame that I misspelled 'leveled'. Ouch.

Herman

11 February 2007 at 02:48  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Colin,

"you warped my words there buddy" is a statement which holds no arrogance, it is just what I meant to say and is totally devoid of any such arrogance, on the contrary, I feel that the addition of 'buddy' gives it a warm, friendly tone.

"your sprawling and nonsensical arguments" I feel as though your arguments have been sprawling and to me are more than a bit nonsensical, so again, just what I think, and totally devoid of the arrogance you so readily pin on me...

I am also a bit fed up with the constant redirection of this debate to 'antisemitism' and not to what it was initially about, which was that Israel had no right to colonise Palestine etc... Although antisemitism is real, it seems to me that everything is labelled antisemetic nowadays. Criticising israel = antisemetic. Pro Palestine = antisemetic. Yoghurt = antisemetic. Everything is blooming antisemetic which makes me think that some Israelis and Jewish people are too sensitive for their own good. Denouncing everything as antisemetic is a really useful method of avoiding anything which is critical or negative so that you don't have to reflect upon yourself or whether those comments might actually be true. Could it be that some peole hide behind this shield so as to avoid such pronounced criticisms?

M.D. waits patiently for a barrage of 'you're antisemetic!' remarks.

11 February 2007 at 03:01  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Also,

My origional post was a response to Cranmer's blog posting where he denounces certain "ill-informed Bishops" for their opinion, whilst air-brushing Israel. I haven't heard such garbage for a long time, such as:

"While the extremists launch missiles upon Israeli villages, or send suicide bombers into buses, bars, and markets, consider that Israel may be imperfect, but like all democracies, it is a land of tolerance, liberty, and justice. It is why many Arabs choose to live there, and they do, peacefully alongside their Semitic cousins."

I suppose 'imperfect' is a euphamism for 'agressive military revenge strikes'. Cranmer's Disney version of Israel is clumsy and sounds like it was lifted from an Israeli government press-release.

Cranmer Stated:
"All have access to quality health care, irrespective of age, religion, or employment status"

This is somewhat contradictory to Israeli laws passed since 1948 which restrict Palestinian rights:

1)Israeli Palestinians who marry Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories are not able to legally live with their spouse in Israel.

2) Israeli laws which seek to limit the growth of the Palestinian population within Israel.

3) Palestinians living within Israel are also discriminated against when it comes to the issue of land. Ninety three percent of Israel’s land is controlled to the “Jewish National Fund” and the “Israel Land Administration”. In most cases this land is available only for Jewish development and purchase.

4) In addition, many different Palestinian villages in northern Israel have not been officially recognized as villages by the Israeli government, and for this reason they do not get basic services from the government like running water, electricity and schools.

This certainly doesn't seem like "a beacon in a region of darkness" does it now Cranmer?

I'll continue:

Cranmer says:

"If one were to believe much of the media reporting on Israel, it is a land obsessed with its wealth and military prowess"

Yes, I suppose that the fact that Israel's military expenditure was $9.44 billion in 2005 (almost half of Russia’s military budget) is not at all indicative of a militarily obsessive nation.

Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world with it's GNP higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, yet the Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world, receiving over one-third of total US aid to foreign countries. Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200 - a very large proportion spent on defence.

"Quite rightly!" I hear you hollar back... Yes if you invade a country, you had better be prepared to defend yourself as you blooming well deserve retalliation.

Cranmer Said:
"If one were to believe much of the media reporting on Israel...Jews flout international law, they alienate, build fences, persecute Muslims, and arbitrarily kill women and children.
"

Israel has flouted numerous international laws, just one of them being that the have developed nuclear weapons, contravening U.N Charters. Israel is building a massive WALL, not a fence. Since 28 September 2000, Israeli police, soldiers and settlers have killed more than 2,050 Palestinians -- the vast majority of them civilians -- in contravention of international law.

So people would be right if they though these things.

Cranmer Said: "consider those with whom God might just well be pleased"

Would God really be pleased with them? I certainly don't think so seeing as they still haven't accepted Christ as religious group and have colonised a land for many reasons none of them being to fulfill Biblical prophesies, in short, from a Christian point of view, they couldn't be further away from God.

Cranmer... I think I just laid the Smackdown upon thee.

11 February 2007 at 03:57  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If we accept the teachings of Christ, then surely the other cheek would have been prudently turned?

You would be wise to note that only Palestinian Christians accept the teachings of Christ or indeed his significance. Although a Torah-observant Jew Himself he is accorded no special place in Judaism and therefore not relevant to Israelis, except insofar as His sayings are those of the Torah.

The quotation you refer to should be referenced to context and midrash.

There is NO state on earth which operates on the basis of Christian, Judaic or Islamic moral precepts - Oliver Cromwell made an attempt in England unfortunately curtailed by his death.

The basis of State Power is violence and the ability to inflict physical damage. The degree to which physical violence must be deployed is conditional upon the level of socialisation of that power.

The Soviet Union had to employ significantly more violence to maintain power in the early 1920s than at any stage since; and Khrushchev was the very first Soviet leader able to retire from office alive.

In much the same way the Communist Party of China maintains its monopoly on power today without the need for the Red Guard. The public is socialised into accepting the power structures.

The problem for the "Palestinians" is that they have not been socialised into any form of state and even now fight for control of public funds with machine-guns and RPGs to see which gang can access the public treasury. Abbas loaded Fatah militias into the police force to access EU funds for security and pay his party bosses.

As for MD....the Jews did not arrive on boats from Italy in 1945-46 - many had lived there for millennia. It is deceitful to claim that Jews did not live in Israel long before and long after the Muslim invaders swept up from The Hejaz.

The Temple Mount is the site of an illegal settlement for that is what the Al-Aqsa Mosque is. It has no more connection with Islam than does the Cathedral of St Sophia in Constantinople or the plundered Christian churches in Syria.

Islam has no place on the Indian Subcontinent save where it attacked and invaded Hindu and Buddhist lands and destroyed whatever it could - just as the Turks of Central Asia invaded Constantinople and Western Europe.

11 February 2007 at 09:01  
Anonymous Observer said...

Israel has flouted numerous international laws,

meaningless concept. There is no such thing as "international law" because ONLY the Anglo-Saxons enforce it and it reflects their value-systems - China, the Arab World, Russia, Africa despise these "values" as Western "Neo-Imperialism"

You should look at the rejection of the UN Charter by Arab countries who recast their own; and the meetings in Asia to declare their own Asian Value System.

Those who speak of "international law" are so ethnocentric as to believe The West can impose its will on the world - it can no longer and so must be more flexible - the world is multipolar and that means Chinese and Russian values may well hold sway in Darfur, or in Tibet, or in Zimbabwe.

11 February 2007 at 09:05  
Anonymous herman said...

voyager,

yes, exactly, so why does Cranmer refer to the Israeli's status as God's elect as being in anyway significant? If religion of any kind cannot be used to help seek a path through this argument (as I hint it may not be), why mention it? Cranmer himself admits it is not black and white, so why then did he back the Israelis as fulfilling God's onus on them?

What you insinuate is that the use of violence is never a bad thing. It does not help your argument to liken the Israeli use of violence to that of communist Russia, and that indoctrinating an entire society through fear should be the primary step towards order. Brilliant. Of course a state has to maintain order, but there is a difference between this and outright brutality.

Herman

11 February 2007 at 10:09  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Dear Observer,

While International Law may be the 'vanishing point' of law, it is silly do to away with the concept altogether or brand it a 'meaningless concept' as 192 countries actually claim to be somewhat under these laws by being members of the UN.

"ONLY the Anglo-Saxons enforce it "

I believe that China is on the Security Council, thus negating that.

"You should look at the rejection of the UN Charter by Arab countries who recast their own; and the meetings in Asia to declare their own Asian Value System."

I believe that as I am typing there are many people living in the UK currently ignoring and flouting UK domestic law. Just because you disregard it, doesn't mean it is not there.

To Voyager,

"the Jews did not arrive on boats from Italy in 1945-46 - many had lived there for millennia. It is deceitful to claim that Jews did not live in Israel long before and long after the Muslim invaders swept up from The Hejaz"

Israelites lived in Israel, then they left, moving to regions across the world. This is called the Diaspora.

Zionists started migrating 'back' to the area which was PALESTINE late 19th century.

Actually, The Jewish kingdoms were only one of many periods in ancient Palestine. The extended kingdoms of David and Solomon, on which the Zionists base their territorial demands, endured for only about 73 years...Then it fell apart... Even if we allow independence to the entire life of the ancient Jewish kingdoms, from David’s conquest of Canaan in 1000 B.C. to the wiping out of Judah in 586 B.C., we arrive at [only] a 414 year Jewish rule.” - Illene Beatty, “Arab and Jew in the Land of Canaan.”

11 February 2007 at 11:22  
Anonymous m.d: AkA 'Undergrad-extraordinaire said...

Dear Voyager,

You Said: "The basis of State Power is violence and the ability to inflict physical damage. The degree to which physical violence must be deployed is conditional upon the level of socialisation of that power."

Well, for a start, the basis of 'state power' as you put it is based upon the notion on a monopoly on the 'legitimate use of violence'. The degree to which physical violence must be deployed is not simply based upon the socialisation of that power.

You Said: "The problem for the "Palestinians" is that they have not been socialised into any form of state and even now fight for control of public funds with machine-guns and RPGs to see which gang can access the public treasury. Abbas loaded Fatah militias into the police force to access EU funds for security and pay his party bosses."

Erm.. The problem for the Palestinians is that they are still struggling for a fair outcome to the conflict, their problem is in still trying to claw back some semblance of their homeland, and whilst they may do this having used violent means (which should not necessarily be condoned) it isn't hard to see why as they have been faced with an aggressive Israeli military for decades which are significantly better armed and trained whith billions of dollars in their military funds... A sit-in protest may not work in this situation.

You said: "The Soviet Union had to employ significantly more violence to maintain power in the early 1920s than at any stage since; and Khrushchev was the very first Soviet leader able to retire from office alive....In much the same way the Communist Party of China maintains its monopoly on power today without the need for the Red Guard. The public is socialised into accepting the power structures."

So, correct me if i'm wrong, but you have used two states which have terrible human rights histories and corrupt leaders, violently ruling over a population who are desperate to live in a country where they won't be imprisoned arbitrarily or for worshipping a God of their choosing... Something which is still a massive issue in China today (perhaps not the red guard, but the modern equivalent). If you are caught holding a Christian meeting in China you can still be imprisoned. Well done on that.

Of course a population will begin to have resistance fatigue if you continually oppress them, look at Iran at the moment, a large section of the population are students who are both anti-Kohmeini and anti-Ahmadinejad but will they revolt or protest? No. Primarily because of the resistance fatigue syndrome. I remember an Iranian friend of mine from school saying to me that 'every family in Iran has a member who died in the Iran-Iraq war, every family has someone who has been imprisoned by the revolutionary regime for protesting against it, every family has a member who have bee threatened and beaten by the religious police forces, will they revolt anytime soon? Not while they still see the results of such actions in the faces of their extended families.

You use the use of violence to legitimise the control of a population until it has experienced enough oppression that the state doesn't need to use overt physical violence to supress them any longer......

You make machiavelli look like a social worker.

11 February 2007 at 13:17  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Also, well said Herman! Your eloquence has set the standard for further such debates!

11 February 2007 at 13:20  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Herman, address comments to His Grace to he and not myself.

The State is the reification of violence, it holds a monopoly on violence, it is the institutionalisation of force to hold together a polity.

Once it feels secure and the quiescence of the population is assured and external threats abate it becomes much more pacific.

The problem facing European states today is that it cannot calibrate the threat to its existence from Fifth Columnists, and as such it does not know how to react.

Anyone who pretends that this island was pacified by conferences or workshops is demented. It was centuries of action by English Armies pacifying wales, Scotland and Ireland.

11 February 2007 at 13:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I believe that China is on the Security Council, thus negating that.

Tell me how China voted on Myanmar, Darfur, Zimbabwe, et al.

Tell me when China has voted on any Human Rights Resolution

11 February 2007 at 13:24  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Well, for a start, the basis of 'state power' as you put it is based upon the notion on a monopoly on the 'legitimate use of violence'. The degree to which physical violence must be deployed is not simply based upon the socialisation of that power.

Legitimacy arises from Dominance. The USSR had no legitimacy, the Communists lost the November 1918 election but initiated a Civil War to seize control.

You use the use of violence to legitimise the control of a population until it has experienced enough oppression that the state doesn't need to use overt physical violence to supress them any longer......

Exactly - you get the idea of socialisation. It is how countries like the GDR survived until people dared risk challenging the Party.

All states are fundamentally the same - the legitimacy of the British State depends upon Lord Liverpool's use of troops in 1819; survival in two World Wars..........had the State lost control and support in either event it would have been removed.

Political Power is a fluctuating thing and can be withdrawn at any time. the socialised notion that the Govt is always there is what shocked Citizens of the GDR when it vanished, or of the USSR when it collapsed; or of the Polish State in 1939.

The State of Syria has "legitimacy" because the French created it and traded territory with Britain to define its current borders - Syrians think they should have a border with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

India thinks it should have a border with Afghanistan and with China not Kashmir lines of control.

You make machiavelli look like a social worker.

Social workers do not build States they are merely footsoldiers exercising control for those who do. Machiavelli sought only to make his patron secure in an environment of competing principalities where none was powerful enough to dominate the other but security was lacking - an oscillating disequilibrium

11 February 2007 at 13:35  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Voyager,

"Tell me how China voted on Myanmar, Darfur, Zimbabwe, et al."

"Tell me when China has voted on any Human Rights Resolution"

That's entirely off the point of the subject. However they choose to vote, they have tied themselves to the UN and it's legitimacy... Hence it is not a simple case of ethnocentricity.

11 February 2007 at 13:37  
Anonymous Voyager said...

NO MD you are in error. China uses the UN but has never taken action to enforce its will.

In 1950-53 the Russians actually fought UN troops together with Red China (not then a member) in Korea

11 February 2007 at 13:51  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Voyager,

Your uncompromising views upon the character of the state aside, I really have no idea what you are trying to say in reference to Israel. Could you please clarify what all of this means to the origional debate?

Also, my tongu-in-cheek comment referencing Machiavelli was an indictment upon your morality (or absence of it), not as you have assumed, a comparison of the two's job titles.

Imagine this as a tv advert:

The opening shot is you at a computer, typing away on a comments page about how states should use violence to whip a populace into submission, you espouse how it is fine to use physical oppression to control them because it is ok as ultimately they will calm down and accept the iron-fist rule of the state.

Then a voice over says in a warm tone

"How does he sleep at night...?"

"He drinks Horlicks"

Then it fades to black

I will be asking for some of the royalties.

11 February 2007 at 14:00  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I suggest M D you go and read a book by Amy Chua World On Fire A NY Times Bestseller on the effects of globalisation and the Anti-Western backlash

11 February 2007 at 14:00  
Anonymous herman said...

voyager, dearest voyager,

Now . . . lets take a little look at this shall we? You would be very correct if I had asked a question of His Grace's statements, but asked your good self to give the answer. However, as I am sure any person reading this debate can see, the question that you chose to answer was posed directly to His Grace, in relation to comments made by him.
Yet suddenly we see Cranmer's self appointed knight in shining armour charging magnificently into view. He lances my malicious question and beats it to the ground, then stands proudly, victorious. In response to this unexpected turn of events, I inquire of Sir Voyager why he has chosen to answer the question as he has done. As no response from Cranmer had emerged, one could only assume that Voyager knows all Cranmer's thoughts, so perfectly justifying my response, which still asked of Cranmer.

Or, Voyager, you answered a question not directed at you, then have the ineptitude and cheek to take umbrage with the fact that I responded to what you said.
It would appear that this was an attempt to side step what you could not answer, but resulted in an earth-bound voyage as you tripped over a small nugget of hypocrisy during this dainty manoeuvre.

And please, read my posts more thoroughly. Of course all states use the threat of violence to bring order. However, not all embark upon mass killing sprees to achieve this.

Herman

11 February 2007 at 14:01  
Anonymous Voyager said...

M D there is little morality connected with states that is why it is called Realpolitik.

As for your contention - Israel is a State developed out of a rebellion against the British Mandate (like many others) at a time when Britain wanted out. At the same time it tried to exit India, and was trying to leave Greece...

The Israeli State was attacked by Arab states and survived - in that survival it entrenched its claim to be a State which the UN General Assembly recognised.

That is the basis of establishing a State - the Kiev Rus expanded to embrace Russia; Prussia expanded to embrace what we call Germany.

The bulk of those you call "Palestinians" were part of the new state of Trans-Jordan and many inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza carry passports of countries like Jordan, Egypt, USA, UK etc.

You might recall that large swathes of France belonged to the English Crown going bacl almost 1000 years but unless we had staked that claim in 1944 it was unlikely to be treated as valid.

Likewise Hannover in 1945 wished to return to the British Crown but in the end stayed within the German Republic.

Who knows, one day Mexico may regain Texas and California...or Zimbabwe may regain Zambia; or Japan may regain Taiwan.

In the meantime Israel exists and can defend itself, just as Great Britain can defend itself, and that is the only basis for the reification of a nation just as if The Kurds decide to estabish themselves against Iranian and Turkish attack

11 February 2007 at 14:10  
Anonymous Voyager said...

As no response from Cranmer had emerged, one could only assume that Voyager knows all Cranmer's thoughts, so perfectly justifying my response, which still asked of Cranmer.

Herman would do well to consider carefully what he writes. Whatever Cranmer's thinks is for Cranmer alone. Your assumptions are presumptuous and erroneous - two cardinal failings

11 February 2007 at 14:13  
Blogger 3 lions said...

Couldn't of said it better myself.

http://england-is-cool.blogspot.com

You have a Bible, see what it says about israel.

11 February 2007 at 14:19  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Another topic which causes much contention!! Cranmer said that Islam and homosexuality made the longest threads, but now Israel has joined them!!

MD might be sincere, even knowledgeable, but he seems to fail to understand what a state should do if it finds itself bombed from within and threatened and bombed from without. That's the political reality. Arafat flatly rejected the best offer that the Palestinians could ever have hoped for at Camp David, and that involved huge concessions on Israels' part. Do you know anything about that? Is that Palestinian intransigence, or more Israeli arrogance? You should check that offer, and consider now that 'democratic' Hamas might just give its right arm for such an offer.

11 February 2007 at 14:24  
Anonymous herman said...

Voyager,

I assume you bring grown men to tears on a regular basis with your utter failure to comprehend even the most basic statements.

Look at what you just wrote:

'Herman would do well to consider carefully what he writes. Whatever Cranmer's thinks is for Cranmer alone. Your assumptions are presumptuous and erroneous - two cardinal failings'

You have fallen (as has been pointed out) on your own sword. You answered a question directed to Cranmer. Either you are arrogant, or you do indeed know how Cranmer would response, hence my sarcastic statement;

'As no response from Cranmer had emerged, one could only assume that Voyager knows all Cranmer's thoughts, so perfectly justifying my response, which still asked of Cranmer.'

Please, just don't make such obvious mistakes. We all make them on here, but normally they take a moment or two to spot.

Herman

11 February 2007 at 14:34  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Voyager!

If there is little or no morality connected with states, then there is no moral framework for understanding their actions or whether they are positive or negative. This leads to a moral relativism and by extension a political-moral relativism which seeks to say that all political actions or thoughts on these actions are relative, outside of the realms of morality, and cannot be judged as right or true when compared against all other actions - i.e. there is no room for using moral/ethical structures to understand a state's actions. This in turn renders your argument an inherently relativist one as you have removed the frameworks which would dictate a correct position and expose an incorrect position. Caught by your own absence of a moral framework you cannot then say that I am incorrect because if it's inherently relativist structure (or lack of structure) - in other words, you cannot say that I am incorrect because you have extracted the only means to judge whether someone is right or wrong, in doing so you have rendered your opinion an absolute, surely not something you can claim working as you are in a relativist system characterised by the absense of such a framework?

Your arguments suggest that Palestine has just as mugh of a right to wage genocide against Israel because of this 'realpolitik'.

Well sir, you are wrong on many accounts. Of course there is morality in states, especially regarding domestic issues, and while it can be argued that in the international scene there are less morals involved in making decisions, it has also been argued that this is a self-perpetuating stance which isn't necessarily the natural character of the way states behave.

11 February 2007 at 14:43  
Anonymous M.D. said...

3 Lions + Ulster Man,

You Said: "MD might be sincere, even knowledgeable, but he seems to fail to understand what a state should do if it finds itself bombed from within and threatened and bombed from without. That's the political reality. Arafat flatly rejected the best offer that the Palestinians could ever have hoped for at Camp David, and that involved huge concessions on Israels' part. Do you know anything about that? Is that Palestinian intransigence, or more Israeli arrogance? You should check that offer, and consider now that 'democratic' Hamas might just give its right arm for such an offer"

The failure of the Palestinian-Israeli-American summit at Camp David did not surprise most Palestinians or those who understand Palestinian opinion on the issues. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's well-publicized "red lines" going into the negotiations delineated a position very far from the minimum that the Palestinian national consensus could accept as a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Barak loudly announced that Israel would not return to its pre-1967 war borders. He sought to annex settlement blocs containing about 80% of the 180,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) to Israel. Like every Israeli leader since 1967, Barak demanded that the Palestinians accept all of Jerusalem as Israel's "eternal capital." And Barak insisted that Israel would accept no moral or legal responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. In essence, Barak demanded that the Palestinians give their blessing to Israel's many violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and dozens of UN resolutions since 1967--most notably the confiscation of land for civilian purposes, settling civilians in occupied territories, the unilateral and internationally unrecognized annexation of East Jerusalem and the installation of some 175,000 Jewish settlers there.


I assume it was Camp David 2 you were referring to?

11 February 2007 at 14:58  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Herman - hence my sarcastic statement - my error, I thought it was simply naive rather than sarcastic.

Thanks for the heads-up !

11 February 2007 at 16:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

This leads to a moral relativism

Not at all. It is the absence of any morality that is the hallmark of international relations.

Tell me M D of a moral action undertaken by Russia since 1917; or by China since 1949; or by Japan ?

Tell me of a moral action undertaken by Zimbabwe, Sudan, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia ?

Tell me if "moral actions" in The Koran relate only to actions with respect to Muslims or whether they encompass Jews and Christians - often denoted as apes and pigs.

What moral action has Turkey been associated with since 1924 ?

Perhaps you should read up on Legal Positivism

11 February 2007 at 16:39  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Dear Cranmer, please could you respond to my criticisms of your origional post, if you can't find it, I have pasted it below:

M.D. said...

My origional post was a response to Cranmer's blog posting where he denounces certain "ill-informed Bishops" for their opinion, whilst air-brushing Israel. I haven't heard such garbage for a long time, such as:

"While the extremists launch missiles upon Israeli villages, or send suicide bombers into buses, bars, and markets, consider that Israel may be imperfect, but like all democracies, it is a land of tolerance, liberty, and justice. It is why many Arabs choose to live there, and they do, peacefully alongside their Semitic cousins."

I suppose 'imperfect' is a euphamism for 'agressive military revenge strikes'. Cranmer's Disney version of Israel is clumsy and sounds like it was lifted from an Israeli government press-release.

Cranmer Stated:
"All have access to quality health care, irrespective of age, religion, or employment status"

This is somewhat contradictory to Israeli laws passed since 1948 which restrict Palestinian rights:

1)Israeli Palestinians who marry Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories are not able to legally live with their spouse in Israel.

2) Israeli laws which seek to limit the growth of the Palestinian population within Israel.

3) Palestinians living within Israel are also discriminated against when it comes to the issue of land. Ninety three percent of Israel’s land is controlled to the “Jewish National Fund” and the “Israel Land Administration”. In most cases this land is available only for Jewish development and purchase.

4) In addition, many different Palestinian villages in northern Israel have not been officially recognized as villages by the Israeli government, and for this reason they do not get basic services from the government like running water, electricity and schools.

This certainly doesn't seem like "a beacon in a region of darkness" does it now Cranmer?

I'll continue:

Cranmer says:

"If one were to believe much of the media reporting on Israel, it is a land obsessed with its wealth and military prowess"

Yes, I suppose that the fact that Israel's military expenditure was $9.44 billion in 2005 (almost half of Russia’s military budget) is not at all indicative of a militarily obsessive nation.

Israel ranks as the 16th wealthiest country in the world with it's GNP higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, yet the Israeli government is the largest recipient of US financial aid in the world, receiving over one-third of total US aid to foreign countries. Since 1949 the US has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200 - a very large proportion spent on defence.

"Quite rightly!" I hear you hollar back... Yes if you invade a country, you had better be prepared to defend yourself as you blooming well deserve retalliation.

Cranmer Said:
"If one were to believe much of the media reporting on Israel...Jews flout international law, they alienate, build fences, persecute Muslims, and arbitrarily kill women and children.
"

Israel has flouted numerous international laws, just one of them being that the have developed nuclear weapons, contravening U.N Charters. Israel is building a massive WALL, not a fence. Since 28 September 2000, Israeli police, soldiers and settlers have killed more than 2,050 Palestinians -- the vast majority of them civilians -- in contravention of international law.

So people would be right if they though these things.

Cranmer Said: "consider those with whom God might just well be pleased"

Would God really be pleased with them? I certainly don't think so seeing as they still haven't accepted Christ as religious group and have colonised a land for many reasons none of them being to fulfill Biblical prophesies, in short, from a Christian point of view, they couldn't be further away from God.

Cranmer... I think I just laid the Smackdown upon thee.

11 February 2007 at 16:40  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your arguments suggest that Palestine has just as mugh of a right to wage genocide against Israel because of this 'realpolitik'.

You are a confused bunny - Real politik conveys no rights. You talk the language of the confessional. "Palestine" does not exist - it is not a state and it is not a nation.

It has no "right" to do anything. Every act of murder is just that.

11 February 2007 at 16:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Of course there is morality in states, especially regarding domestic issues

Wholly untrue... read up on Legal Positivism. There is no morality in Law and Law is the instrument by which the rulers control the ruled.

You might dip into a bit of Thomas Hobbes during your trip to the library

11 February 2007 at 16:43  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Cranmer... I think I just laid the Smackdown upon thee.

Mr MD,

If that makes you feel better, His Grace is happy for you to believe so.

11 February 2007 at 16:47  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Dear Voyager,

I like your subtle undermining of my points by reducing me to a small furry creature who is a minor irritation at best, but I will ignore such 'cunning' and cut to the chase.

1) You Said: "Real politik conveys no rights. You talk the language of the confessional. "Palestine" does not exist - it is not a state and it is not a nation."

"It has no "right" to do anything. Every act of murder is just that."

So if Realpolitik conveys no rights why on earth are you talking about Palestine in the context of rights? Where did you get the idea that everything a state does is legitimate, while everything a stateless nation does is illegitimate?

The PLO was founded and driven by Palestinian Nationalism, if Palestine didn't constitute a nation in Benedict Anderson's imagined sense, then this would never have arisen.

"There is no morality in Law and Law is the instrument by which the rulers control the ruled."

Well, I'd like to think that law has a basis in morality wouldn't you? Are you saying that British law for instance doesn't have a basis in Judeo-Christian teachings?

I have read Thomas Hobbes - Should I believe everything I read?

If I'm a confused bunny, your arguments are certainly not the myxomatosis you believe it is.

11 February 2007 at 17:06  
Anonymous M.D. said...

Dear Cranmer,

Why have a blog if you refuse to answer for the points you make? Perhaps you aren't the intellectual heavy-weight you claim to be, all i'm trying to do is engender debate, a debate you are ignoring to your behest. It is very similar to Tony Blair's 'Big Conversation' Where he spoke and we had to listen. For someone who broadcasts his views so readily, you catagorically fail to stand beside them when they are challenged.

SMACKDOWN! (maybe?)

11 February 2007 at 17:12  
Anonymous Voyager said...

So if Realpolitik conveys no rights why on earth are you talking about Palestine in the context of rights? Where did you get the idea that everything a state does is legitimate, while everything a stateless nation does is illegitimate?

I did not say everything a state does is "legitimate" simply that by surviving as a state everuthing it does is internally consistent because survival of the state is its paramount goal.

You constantly seek an external reference point which I contend does not exist with respect to nation-states. Whereas you continually refer to some arbiter which i contend is not relevant.

You have a jumbled sentence with regard to "Palestine" and what you call "rights". In my comment I used full-stops to signify that the statements were unnconnected. You omitted to note them

11 February 2007 at 17:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Well, I'd like to think that law has a basis in morality wouldn't you? Are you saying that British law for instance doesn't have a basis in Judeo-Christian teachings?

Law does not need to have any moral basis that is Legal Positivism.

I do not think most laws put on the Statute Book in the past 40 years at least have any foundation in Judaeo-Christian morality - I cannot see the Abortion Act or Divorce Act or Civil Contingencies Act, Single European Act, European Communities Act 1972, or the Planning-Gain Supplement (Preparations) Bill currently in The House have any morality.


I do not see any morality in the National Lottery Act 2006; Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006; or the Trustee Savings Bank Act 1978; European Assembly (Pay & Pensions Act) 1979; or Matches & Mechanical Lighters Duties Act 1979.

I really cannot see how these Acts of Parliament can have an ethical basis when even the Ten Commandments are not embedded in English Statute or Case Law

11 February 2007 at 17:55  
Anonymous Colin said...

Dear M.D.,

Congratulations !! This is an excellent reply, well-reasoned and documented with facts.

First, I mostly agree with you in regard to the history of the state of Israel, the displacement of Arabs, and that this is one more example of the many injustices committed by empire building.

Second, since nobody is able to win in this conflict and everbody will lose by investing their resources in an arms instead of the economy, all parties and especially the Palestinians will get poorer by continuing this approach.

For this reason, I am absolutely in favour of peace and free trade between two independent states. This approach has brought an end to the five centuries of war between France and Germany, despite the fact that the former is still holding a large part of land of the latter. Nevertheless, both countries decided that they would win more by cooperation than by demanding the return of the land or by endless wars which obviously nobody is able to win in the long-run.

Third, I never understood and still don't understand the kind of solution you have in mind. In the beginning, I had the impression you wanted Israelis to leave the region. However, you rejected that idea and said that you wanted the return of the Palestinians to their land. Then Israelis and Palestinians would live together in the same land in my view and I told you about the most likely effect of a Palestinian majority living together with an Israeli minority in the same state. Now, you say that you did not suggest that they live together in the same state. Maybe I am too slow on the uptake, but if the Israelis stay there (as you said) and if the Palestinians return to there land (as you demanded), don't they then live in the same state, country or area?

Finally, a clear statement of facts and their interpretation is much more convincing without than with condescending remarks and insults, as you just have proven.

Thank you for taking the trouble to use the academic approach to debate.

Most gratefully yours,

Colin

11 February 2007 at 18:56  
Anonymous Colin said...

Grumpy,

You kindly said "Would it be otiose to comment that colin seems to be a rather condescending little prig?"

:-)

Very convincing, indeed.

11 February 2007 at 19:03  
Anonymous Colin said...

Herman,

"to point out to Colin that it's 'anybody's' not 'anybodies'
Grammatical asbo served."


Thank you Herman for helping me to improve my English which is my second language, fyi. Undoubtedly, you are able to write fluently in a second language without any errors.

That proves that compared to you I am a stupid pig as Grumpy observed and you were eager to agree.

Have a nice evening, Sir.

11 February 2007 at 19:16  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr MD,

While His Grace is content to welcome you to his blog, and entertain your infallible self-perceptions of your undergraduate genius, he begs to remind you that this blog is the property of His Grace, and you are his guest. He would be more than happy to engage in discussion with any of the points you raise, as his regular communicants will doubtless attest, but your superficial approach to the issues, and your perpetual reiterations of His Grace's supposed deficiencies, not to mention your ignorance of the English language (how can His Grace ignore something 'to [his] behest?'), rather incline him to the view that your academic approach is limited to a reasoned consideration of quoting four authors in favour of your proposition, four against, and arriving at some fudged via media to conclude. This is a limitation of the modern AS/A-level modular approach to education, when all you ever do is regurgitate the opinions of other supposed experts in the vein hope that you yourself acquire their expertise vicariously.

When you have an opinion that is truly your own, an original thought to share, or can communicate your unique epistemological voice, His Grace may indeed engage with you.

In the meantime, he is immeasurably grateful for the longsuffering of Mssrs Voyager and Colin for engaging with the novice.

11 February 2007 at 19:30  
Anonymous grumpy said...

colin,
fyi: 'priggishness' is an attitude of mind;
'piggishness' is a material state.

I know nothing of your physical condition and would not, therefore, offer any comment thereon.

'Priggishness' is a quality easily detectable in attitudes demonstrated through an individual's communications (oral or written). A brief examination of your outpourings seemed to me to establish the validity of this as a criticism.

It should be clear from this that neither the words, nor the notion that you are 'a stupid pig' would, or could have been applied by me to you.

Let me also make it clear to you that, while I am happy to offer - and accept - criticism, I have never found it necessary to indulge in personal insult.

12 February 2007 at 11:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a bit strange that someone who calls himself 'grumpy' should take umbrage at an 'insult'. Haven't you chosen to insult yourself?

12 February 2007 at 17:44  
Anonymous Colin said...

Grumpy,

"Would it be otiose to comment that colin seems to be a rather condescending little prig?"

Would it be otiose to comment that calling someone "a rather condescending little prig" is a condescending remark?

"Let me also make it clear to you that, while I am happy to offer - and accept - criticism, I have never found it necessary to indulge in personal insult."

Let me also make it clear to you that, while I am happy to offer evidence disproving claims and accept evidence disproving my claims, I have never found it necessary to indulge in condescending remarks. But I shall now give you a dose of your own medicine.

The debate was about Cranmer's statement that Israel deserves to be defended and M.D. challenged his view. In return, I challenged M.D.'s claims and asked to adhere to the established principles of academic debate, i.e. to provide evidence for his claims and to avoid condescending language.

In the course of this debate, you made two comments:

(1) "I should, however, like to make a simple point; since anti-semitism has become unfashionable,the increase in anti-Israeli sentiment seems to have blossomed. Would I be over-cynical in suggesting a possible connection between the two phenomena?"

(2) ""Would it be otiose to comment that colin seems to be a rather condescending little prig?"

While your first comment is an intelligent observation which helps to elucidate the question of the debate, your second comment is simply an ad hominem attack at me completely unrelated to the question if the view of Cranmer or of M.D. are correct.

Whether you like it or not, ad hominem attacks don't disprove anything and are not a sign of intellectual strength but rather of weakness.

13 February 2007 at 00:11  
Anonymous Wrinkled Jelly Bean said...

This is a limitation of the modern AS/A-level modular approach to education, when all you ever do is regurgitate the opinions of other supposed experts in the vein hope that you yourself acquire their expertise vicariously.

Yes, but Cranmer, have we not ultimately formulated our views from the ideas of those who came before us. The ability to subjugate the dissolute and comprehend that which is moral for example, comes from the teachings of our parents, spiritual teachers, school teachers, etc. Such people act as determining factors in our lives, whereby our spiritual states, material conditions and temperament are all lined in accordance to what we learn from them. Therefore, can our ideas truly be ours?

P.S. you seem to frequently associate me with some illiterate, ignorant school kid as you claimed 'One needs to move beyond GCSEs'
I will therefore re-name myself 'wrinkled jelly bean' to emphasise upon my old age. God bless you my boy!

13 February 2007 at 11:02  
Anonymous supplicant said...

MD's reply to Observer at 11:22 AM that

"ONLY the Anglo-Saxons enforce it "

I believe that China is on the Security Council, thus negating that.


China must be either following and enforcing international law, due to its position at the heart of the organisation you yourself state as the font of international law, or it is not. This brings Tibet into the argument.

If international law is a concept that runs beyond the west (which Observer was disagreeing with) and this is proven by China, then everything that you say Israel is doing to Palestine is within international law since China is doing the same and worse to the Tibetians. Or Voyager and Observer are correct and international law is in reality what those with power can get away with.

13 February 2007 at 12:43  
Anonymous Colin said...

Jelly Beans are tasty but Wrinkled Jelly Beans?

14 February 2007 at 16:59  
Anonymous Miss Jelly Bean said...

hmmm...I suppose you're right. I guess I'll have to change back to Miss jelly Bean then. Better?

14 February 2007 at 19:55  
Anonymous Colin said...

Yeah!

15 February 2007 at 21:16  
Blogger Caryl said...

Sir,
I believe there was a logical (or perhaps emotional) error in approach to Israel. Because your enemies (certain sectors of the Left, etc.) may criticize Israel, does not necessarily mean that Israel is beyond criticism.
Also, you did not address the sad fact of the matter: the enormous influence of the Israel Lobby on the politics of the United States. This to me is the most worrisome feature of our international scene, and it hampers the U.S. from being able to act rationally and in its own interests.

18 February 2007 at 00:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

CARYL SAID...the enormous influence of the Israel Lobby on the politics of the United States.

no doubt the question remains unanswered. Is the USA in control of Israel, or is Israel controlling the USA?

18 February 2007 at 10:43  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Miss/Mrs Caryl,

His Grace welcomes you to his august blog of intelligence and erudition.

However, he begs to point out your propensity to read into the article your own 'emotional' approach to the topic. His Grace included the line: 'consider that Israel may be imperfect', clearly indicating that it is not beyond criticism. And 'lobby groups' are a reality of politics, for good or ill. These groups have competing interests, and have every right to lobby their representatives. It may even be that your own worldview has its advocates, and you would want their voices to be made known to people in government...

18 February 2007 at 12:00  
Blogger prof said...

hello
vous pouvez laisser vos messages sur jewisheritage
a bientot

5 May 2007 at 22:08  
Anonymous Steven said...

Shalom friend. :-)

7 August 2007 at 16:25  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Shalom to you too!

+Cranmer

7 August 2007 at 16:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

----Israel effectively 'invaded' Palestine (a country they had no real right to return to) and through actions such as Plan Dalet, caused hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes and become refugees on their own borders and in neighboring nations - living in abject poverty.. People who still don't have the right to return to their homes they left and still have the keys to. Palestinians in Israel had to struggle through years of intense social, economic and political discrimination----

...er, like the American Indians?

29 February 2008 at 13:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older