Thursday, August 04, 2011

As Israel buries her dead, Gaza continues to fire her rockets and mortars

The dead were the Fogel family (that is, Udi, 37, and Ruthie, 36, and their children, Yoav, 11, who was attacked and murdered while he read in bed; Elad, four, who was stabbed twice in the heart; and baby Hadas, just three months old, whose throat was slit as she slept). They got a brief mention on the BBC website, but not without Auntie mentioning en passant that ‘there are almost 500,000 settlers living on occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Settlements are regarded as illegal under international law although Israel disputes this.’ The BBC has to be balanced, you see. To be clear, the Fogels were slaughtered because they were living on occupied Palestinian land in an illegal settlement. It’s causal, you see.

It also explains why the mortars and Qasaam rockets continue to rain down into Israel’s Negev region, and why a poor Bedouin woman now has shrapnel in her legs. She is the wife of a shepherd from Be'er Sheva who tends his flock in the area. But instead of an angel of the Lord coming down to shine glory all around, this shepherd got a missile and quite a lot of mighty dread. “Tomorrow,” he says, “it could fall in a development. We must not give up, we rely on the IDF to know how to respond."

Rocket and mortar attacks are on the rise again in the region, and they are fired indiscriminately. It matters not if they kill or injure men, women or children; military or civilian; Jew or Muslim. Like the man convicted of murdering the Fogels, the jihadi-Islamists of Gaza don’t really mind where their little firework display lands or who gets injured or killed: all they care about is terrorising the Jewish State and ending the Zionist conspiracy. Yes, Gazan jihadi ideology is understandable; excusable, even, because Israel is the illegitimate state and occupying power, and the Jews are the main obstacle to world peace. It’s causal, you see.

So, the next time you hear BBC reports of an attack by the IDF upon Gaza, with streaming footage of Palestinian blood and detailed commentary of bombed hospitals and schools, try to imagine the 20, 30 or 40 deadly mortars and rockets which preceded the raid. They’ll have been fired towards Ashkelon, Pit'hat Shalom and Shaar HaNegev, with the intention of wiping out, inshallah, Israeli civilians of whatever gender, age or creed. It won’t have been reported, of course. But it’s causal.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

I hope the IDF retaliates.

It is the first duty of the Israeli government to protect its citizens.

Next time there is a strong Conservative government – it is to be hoped that it will privatise the BBC.

4 August 2011 at 08:09  
Anonymous FranatAFI said...

Your Grace.

Thinly disguised disdain for Israel seeps from the pores of each BBC report on the conflict.

For within the BBC/Grauniad axis, Israelis - let's be honest, Jewish Israelis - are ultimately responsible for any and every act of aggression against them. No attempt by Israelis to defend themselves from the aggression of their enemies, military or non-military can ever be justified in their eyes, for actually it is Israel's existence that offends them, not their action.

By contrast, any act of terrorism against Israelis, however cowardly or vile, can be explained in terms of Israel's 'occupation' of the West Bank. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza are autonomous, and would be a nation state by now if only they would renounce their avowed aim to take over Israel and ethnically cleanse her Jewish citizens.

The BBC/Grauniad sees the conflict solely through the prism of the Palestinian narrative. Nothing else can be allowed to interfere.

4 August 2011 at 08:28  
Blogger Span Ows said...

I have to agree entirely with D Singh and FranatAFI. And of course ANY retaliation is reported as disproportionate. What makes it worse is the most of them, even their "top" ME reporters don't seem to have any idea of the history in the region.

4 August 2011 at 08:41  
Blogger Nick Gibbs said...

Well done YG. You have finally come to see reason on this issue. If you steal from others there will often be negative consequences. If you steal a whole country, then negative consequences for generations.

4 August 2011 at 08:42  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Seriously, Nick Gibbs @ 08.42, try doing a little homework on the British Mandate. A number of opportunities were presented to the Arabs for a two-state solution, but they rejected them all. And hasn't there hasn't been a Jewish population in Israel since before either Jesus Christ or Mahommed were born?

4 August 2011 at 09:32  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Well done, Your Grace. The bias at the BBC and in Whitehall against Israel is fueling this conflict by the constant aplogistics of the Palestinian provocations.

How can a settlement, built on land purchased from the Palestinians be illegal? It takes a very strange mindset to see the sale of land from one man to another who then builds on it as he has openly stated he will, as an "illegal" act.

I find it very interesting that the new "histories" of this region make no mention of the Jews as a people in the area at all - even those that cover the Roman occupation speak of the Hashemites and others, but never mention the Jews except in connection with the insurrection in 70AD. Of course, in the minds of the writers of these 'histories' the Jews are a figment of the imagination, a Zionist Plot and the entire Bible is a work of fiction.

According to the trash my children were taught as "history" of the Middle East, the Jews arrived in the mid-19th Century and have waged a terror campaign against the 'rightful' occupiers of it ever since. No mention was made at all of the threats made publicly by Arab leaders and the Jordanian military to "drive the last Jews into the sea" as soon as the British withdrew.

Nor is any mention made of the several massacres of Jewish refugees by British Forces attempting to prevent them landing when they fled from the Nazi Holocaust in 1939 - 47...

But there, as Mr Gibbs, above, suggests, the "official" BBC, Whitehall/Westminster line is that the Jews have "stolen" Palestine.

4 August 2011 at 09:34  
Blogger Nick Gibbs said...

Hmmm - so the jews purchased the land with a clear intention of turning it into a Jewish state, and the muslim inhabitats have either forgotten the transaction or are liars, thieves and villians without cause. I think blame lies on both sides but not eveny. I find in these cases the strong usually take very unfair advantage of the weak.

4 August 2011 at 09:47  
Anonymous Crombouke said...

One factor that is seldom mentioned is that the Jihadists would still want to kill Jews even if the state of Israel had never been founded.

Genocidal hatred of Jews is intrinsic to Islam and encouraged in the Koran and Hadiths.

4 August 2011 at 09:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Maybe someone ought to set up a petition to dump the TV licence fee? Why the feck should we be forced to fund Al Jabeeba?

4 August 2011 at 10:09  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Israel and the Jewish people are a visible reminder that the Lord Almighty exists. Israel is the Lord's land. Though He punished the Israelites in scattering them throughout the world, in the diaspora, because of their apostasy and idolatry, He also promised that He would bring them back into their own land in the last days.

The devil is very keen to make sure we forget that.

4 August 2011 at 10:09  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Why bother privatizing the BBC. Just remove the license fee. That way we don't have to pay for their misinformation.

4 August 2011 at 10:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let the palestinians speak for themselves.

Saeb Erekat (chief palestiniannegotiator) interview with the Jordanian daily Al-Dustour on 25 June 2009.

Saeb Ereqat: Over the Years, Israel Has Gradually Withdrawn from Its Positions; Therefore, We Have No Reason to Hurry, MEMRI, 13 July 2009.


"[Some ask] where the negotiations with the Israeli side have brought us. First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90%, and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry..."

4 August 2011 at 10:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let the Palestinians speak for themselves, part2:

Nabil Shaath interview aired on ANB TV on 13 July 2011.

Fatah Foreign Relations Chief Nabil Shaath: It Will Be Difficult For Obama, As A Black President Facing A White Majority, To Exercise His Veto – He Will 'Not Make His Presence Felt'; The U.S. No Longer Plays A Role In the Middle East; The 'Two States for Two Peoples' Solution Is 'Unacceptable To Us', MEMRI, 25 July 2011.


"[The French initiative] reshaped the issue of the 'Jewish state' into a formula that is also unacceptable to us – two states for two peoples. They can describe Israel itself as a state for two peoples, but we will be a state for one people. The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this – not as part of the French initiative and not as part of the American initiative.
"We will not sacrifice the 1.5 million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who live within the 1948 borders, and we will never agree to a clause preventing the Palestinian refugees from returning to their country. We will not accept this, whether the initiative is French, American, or Czechoslovakian." […]

4 August 2011 at 10:31  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Here we go again, bash the Beeb because it isn’t infatuated with Zionism like Cranmer. The killing of innocents whether Jew or Palestinian is always morally wrong and no right-minded person can ever justify it.

Hamas is a terrorist organisation but Israel is a terrorist State. It kills wantonly anyone who has the effrontery to try and share its “God given” land. The only way to solve this problem is to deny power over the absurdly named “Holy Land” to all parties and impose a demilitarised and secular UN Protectorate upon Israel/Palestine, one that gives equal human rights to all but no right to claim ownership over land.

Let them pray to their silly Gods if they must, one day of course they will all grow out of it, but in the meantime secular governance would at least allow all them freedom to worship what and who they like.

A pipe dream? Yes of course, until we have rid this world of religion in all its myriad variations then conflict will continue.

4 August 2011 at 10:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer, these events can of course be presented as explainable, maybe even understandable, without the implication of them being either "excusable" or "causal".

And why accuse the BBC of being anti-Israeli because they offer some background perspective on thesee latest murders of innocent?

The fact is, as you say, according to international law Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem and it appears to have no intention of withdrawing. Stalemate.

It's been said before, both sides are at fault and their positions harden by the day. This suits the extremists on both sides and so the killing continues and will go on until some sensible compromise is reached and the hard-liners in Israel and the Jihadists are marginalised.

4 August 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous FranatAFI said...


His Grace's point is not that the BBC should not be providing context, but that their editors are selective in their provision of background perspective.

BBC editors thought it imperative to point out throughout the Fogel piece that the murdered children come from a 'settler' family, thus providing a rationale for the murders. However, as His Grace points out they rarely flag up Palestinian violence such as the steady hail of rockets from Gaza, which would provide context for their prominent reporting of Palestinian casualties and damage to Palestinian property incurred as Israelis attempt to prevent the murder of their citizens.

4 August 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger Owl said...


A very simplistic view. Please re-read HG's article.

4 August 2011 at 11:41  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Graham David said "impose a demilitarised and secular UN Protectorate upon Israel/Palestine, one that gives equal human rights." It wasn't so long ago the UN fired its own official for publicizing the corruption in the Afghanistan elections and as for a secular authority giving freedom to all just look at the secular agenda in Britain. Here's an article which shows how we are being manipulated.

4 August 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Maybe we watch a different BBC News! Where does the word "imperative" come from? And the children were from a family of "settlers". The BBC offered no "rationale" for this insane act, merely background context!

They do report on Palastinian violence - regularly. They do give air time to those who argue Israel uses disproportionate force in retaliation thus keeping the spiral of violence going.

4 August 2011 at 11:48  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I don't understand why the settlements are illegal.
Israel fought and won a war. Since time immemorial, the victors have taken such of the spoils of war as they have wished, including land that has been conquered. Unless a peace treaty is agreed that returns such land, the victor is free to do what he likes with it. As far as I know, no treaty has been reached between Israel and its enemies to return the land, and so the land is Israel's to do as it wishes.

4 August 2011 at 12:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is an example of the moral depravity and bankruptcy of Mr Davis:

‘It kills wantonly anyone who has the effrontery to try and share its “God given” land.’

The land is shared by people of many races, creeds and political beliefs.

4 August 2011 at 12:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1. Israel could not have purchased or stolen any land: the land was not occupied by a sovereign power.
2. The League of Nations gave Israel the right to settle in the land.
3. Their legal entitlement to the land was reduced by about 75% - given to Jordan (who had illegally occupied the land).
4. The 1967 border – is a ceasefire border – not a national border.

All that now needs to happen is ‘the 7th Day War’ for Israel to expand its borders.

Can’t wait – we really do live in exciting times.

4 August 2011 at 12:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

BBC News is worthless. Radio 5 Live being just about as bad as it gets.

4 August 2011 at 12:28  
Blogger thestreetman said...

Your Grace,

A near-perfect post. Beautifully written, and tragically true.

4 August 2011 at 12:30  
Anonymous FranatAFI said...


The words 'Settler' and 'Settlement' were included throughout the BBC piece, including the vital final paragraph which mentioned nothing other than the disputed status of settlements; this strongly suggests that the writer considered it essential (imperative) to communicate that the Fogel family were where he/she thought they had no right to be.

My observation is that if the BBC reports Palestinian violence - and it leaves much unreported - it is usually as an adjunct to any Palestinian loss caused by Israeli responses, and ALWAYS reported in the context of perceived Israeli misdemeanours.

4 August 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

The BBC seeds pro-Arab sentiment which blossoms as anti-Israel reaction of the sort acceptable in polite society and stimulating to chatter around the dinner table. Aljabeeba the acceptable face of Anti-semitism. Defenders of the indefensible and excusers of the inexcusable. The callous murder of the Fogel's was an inconvenient truth they navigated around, and exploited to smear Israel. The rest of the pack are no better. Why? What's really behind this?

1.The West's reaction to the Arab Spring gives us some clues. The spread of democracy is more important than Israel's security. Is the EU empire building? Is that why we are in Libya? A ring of democracy around the Med and it would not just be Turkey that is waiting to be welcomed with open arms.

2.The separatist legacy of multiculturalism. They are ducking serious issues and stretching toleration into appeasement to defuse community tensions in the UK.

4 August 2011 at 12:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'To your descendants I have given this land..."' (Genesis 15:18).

It is interesting to note that the Hebrew verb used in the Scriptures is natati, meaning "I have given" (past tense). This passage implies that God had already given the land to the Jews at some earlier time, though this is the first record of such a promise.

It’s as if the land had been allocated to the Jewish people:

as part of the fabric of creation itself.

4 August 2011 at 12:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh

Try that one in a court of law and see where you end up.

4 August 2011 at 12:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tut! Tut! tut!


4 August 2011 at 12:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4 August 2011 at 12:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Many of the students who attended were not Jews and held no firm views of Israel. They all came up to me afterward and said the same three words: "We didn't know!"
"We didn't know Israel first offered a two state solution, a Palestinian state, but the Arabs rejected it!"

"We didn't know in 1967 Israel accepted Resolution 242, in which the United Nations called for the return of territories captured in exchange for full peace and secure boundaries."

All Arab states rejected it saying, "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations," but students today said, "We didn't know!"
These Harvard students didn't know that in the years 2000 and 2001 Ehud Barak along with President Bill Clinton had initially offered the Palestinians everything they were asking for -- a state made up of 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Instead of accepting it or coming back to the negotiating table, Arafat walked away and started the intifada and all the violence. The Harvard students kept saying, "We didn't know!"

"We didn't know that Prince Bandar at Taba called Arafat's rejection of the offer a crime against the Palestinian people and against all the people of the region."
The students just didn't know.

Alan Dershowitz

4 August 2011 at 13:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"No peace, no recognition, no negotiations" say they and their Left-liberal supporters.

Don’t they realise they are carrying out the very purposes of the God of Israel?

The LORD said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. (Exodus 4:21)

4 August 2011 at 13:43  
Anonymous Jack Flash said...

Israel is a state. Not a group of travellers camping in a farmers field without permission.
History has proved their right to be there.
The Jewish race has been wrongly persecuted and pilloried for many generations.
If their enemies grew carrots the West would not be interested in supporting them. But it's Oil that swings the balance. Fear of an embargo weighs heavily against honesty and justice in this case.
The BBC is simply a propaganda machine in the guise of 'unbiased' media, reporting international news.
Hostilities will continue until it all comes to a head at Meggido.
Until then, as Jesus said "watch and be ready, for you know not the hour."


4 August 2011 at 13:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And statehood cannot come as a reward for terrorism. As Tom Friedman wrote in the New York Times, if Palestinian statehood is a reward for terrorism, then terrorism is coming to a theater near you. The world learned a terrible lesson when it rewarded Palestinian terrorism at Munich in 1972; when it rewarded Palestinian terrorism in Turkey and in France; when it rewarded Palestinian terrorists in Italy and Israel, as well. Indeed, I think Usama Bin Laden learned an important lesson from Arafat -- that terrorism works because the United States doesn't have the backbone to stand up to it.

Many European countries become complicit with terror by making deals with the devil, like when Germany's Wily Brandt freed the murderers of Munich after the fake hijacking that he arranged with the Palestinians. This is the kind of cowardly act which results in spreading terrorism around the world. And it's the United States that shares this same destiny with Israel. Both are victims of terrorism against civilians. They fight for the preservation of democracy in a world where terrorism is tolerated; a world where terrorists think they can change the outcome of elections the way they did in Spain, and hope to do in England, Australia, Untied States and Israel. These democracies have to be able to stand up to the tyranny of the world.

Israel can be proud of the way it stood up to terrorism. Israel should be proud of the way it has fought the wars that were thrust upon it for so many years. The last thing Israel wanted to do was fight the wars. Not in 1947, in 1948, not in 1956, not in 1967, not in 1973 and not in any era since. All Israel wants to do is live in peace and prosperity and openness and become a center of science, of intellectualism, of art and culture.

Alan Dershowitz

4 August 2011 at 14:28  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Unfortunately, there are many Islamic clerics posting videos saying that the enmity between the Jews and the Arabs is an eternal enmity and will never cease until there are no Jews left in Israel. Other videos show very young toddlers being told from an early age to hate all Jews and to aspire to being a suicide bomber. The hatred is built into the fabric of their everyday lives. We have seen the same thing in a different context closer to home. Hatred of Catholics was built into Northern Ireland society to such an extent that one section of the community conserved it right that political borders be gerrymandered to maintain permanent one party rule and the pay-off for voting in such a partisan way was special privilege in housing, employment and education. We still see it in the UK with people in a particular town in Dorset claiming to be the English Drumcree. The problem is not only an Islamic one as illustrated by some comments in this blog.

4 August 2011 at 14:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Genesis 12

1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4 August 2011 at 14:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Videns autem Pilatus quia nihil proficeret sed magis tumultus fieret, accepta aqua lavit manus coram populo, dicens innocens ego sum a sanguine iusti huius: vos videritis. Et respondens universus populus dixit: "Sanguis eius super nos et super filios nostros.""

4 August 2011 at 15:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

4 August 2011 at 15:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Why is it that ‘liberals’ in our country; academics in our universities; journalists in our finest newspapers; lawyers who yearn (at least in their hearts) for justice align themselves with those who not only desire to see the eradication of Israel as a nation-state but the destruction of our democracies?

Why do they want to see a nation-sate that develops new medical technologies to save lives all over the world eliminated? That has a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to defend the rights of the powerless? Whose military planners are careful to minimise casualties in civilian populations where the evil conceal themselves? And who built palaces and grand cities at a time when most of the world lived in mud huts – developing statute law, explained through expanding case law replete with its own system of appeals. And whose writers, artists and scientists share more Nobel Prizes than any other people on this rotating globe.


Why do his enemies reject and spit on peace plans which to the rest of the judging world would be considered stupendous triumphs of international diplomacy leading to justice first and then peace? It is not rational.

No. Not rational in this world of space and time mediated through the senses.

Then there is only one other explanation left. The answer must lie in the spiritual world.

4 August 2011 at 15:19  
Blogger Owl said...

Anonymous 15:06

Even in Latin it is still a rediculous statement. Did they rehearse it and say it all together? Did they have a spokesman to say the dreadful words for them?

Or did someone include this at a later date to discredit a people?

4 August 2011 at 15:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Bravo Mr. Singh!

Mr.Dodo : your father, a Jew, who converted to Catholicism, might be forgiven a certain overt 'enthusiasm' - but your oftentimes 'Jesuit-like' blind persistence smacks of some unresolved, deep-seated inner-conflict.

Just a thought: but perhaps your pursuance of a 'Loyola-like' 'Counter-Reformation' outwardly reveals some inner turmoil, resultant in your anti-Israel perspective?

4 August 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Israel can be proud of the way it stood up to terrorism. Israel should be proud of the way it has fought the wars that were thrust upon it for so many years. The last thing Israel wanted to do was fight the wars. Not in 1947, in 1948, not in 1956, not in 1967, not in 1973 and not in any era since. All Israel wants to do is live in peace and prosperity and openness and become a center of science, of intellectualism, of art and culture.

Hear hear! Why can't the lefties/BBC/Guardian etc understand this? ...and despite all the wars and the constant alert israel IS a centre for science etc...and what a contrast with it's neighbours! (can't think why...)

4 August 2011 at 16:16  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

I agree with Owl. The Latin quotation may refer to a specific event in time but the Christian message is that Christ came to save everyone because everyone is a sinner. We do well to reflect on what we are doing now instead of referring back to an event 2000 years ago. Christianity believes that the Jews did not recognize the Messiah first time round but they will next time and there will be rejoicing in Heaven when the time comes. We can't cover our own sinfulness now by pointing at the historical error of others in past times. Let's face it, there have been plenty of other historical errors in the past for which the Jews paid a high price - errors which do not reflect well on some Christians. The same problem exists between SOME Catholics and Protestants today and they are perpetrating the same sin. As Jesus said find the plank in your own eye before pointing to the splinter in your neighbour's.

4 August 2011 at 16:18  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Oswin, perhaps you could explain what you mean by " 'Loyola-like' 'Counter-Reformation' and why it is bad or is it just a phrase you resurrect which you don't understand but sounds sufficiently anti-catholic to impress others of a similar disposition.

4 August 2011 at 16:21  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Hi folks. Profuse thanks to all you supporters of Israel, my other home; you have no idea what your words mean to me.

Your steadfastness and sophisticated knowledge of the issues is surprising. Ten years ago one would have been lucky to find one person in hundred who knows anything other than the Old Media obfuscations which ruled and still rule the field.

I had written an email to His Grace earlier this morning, thanking him for remembering the Fogel family. We're a tight community, often personally in touch,just or one person removed from people who makes the news and this issue is too close to home for me to muster up energy to engage in a spirited debate. Perhaps later and certainly another time.

I do wish to remark on one thing, namely Mr Dodo's predicament of his views being in the minority here. It is easy to lose perspective as a debate gets, predictably, hotter and hotter and for the sides to lump each other into homogenized opposing camps. While I think Dodo is woefully wrong about his facts and his conclusions, his views have undoubtedly been formed in part due to a consistent, decades-long campaign of villification from many seemingly credible sources. As Mr Singh pointed out in reference to other events, many simply don't know even the basic, undisputed facts. Dodo may not ever change his overall position but I, as someone who's been around the block a few times, don't think that it's in any way malicious.

I believe that the the tide has finally turned and that realistic and fact-based assessments of Israel's situation will move to the forefront in the coming years. In this, many of you and others out there are true pioneers and may the Almighty reward you for your fight against the villification of Israel and my people.

4 August 2011 at 16:50  
Anonymous Oswin said...


It means exactly what it says on the tin.

Is it that you do not yourself understand the reference to Loyola, and the 'counter-reformation' that you somehow imagine that I, in turn, do not?

My comments/questions are based upon Dodo's 'body of work' upon this site. For your attempts to patronise, may I refer you to your own 'plank and eye' before you too (ref' Dodo) commit the sin of 'smugness'

For the record : I am not an anti-Catholic, I am an 'English Catholic' of the High Anglican tradition; my objection is to the thrall of Rome, and Jesuit proselytism. Especially so when the latter adopts the contra-guise of the well-meaning 'liberal'.

4 August 2011 at 16:56  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

This is a very difficult situation. I remember reading a report some years ago about a Palestinian women who was being physically attacked and prevented getting to her own fields to tend her crops by Jews. The same report stated that other Jews were providing video cameras to the Palestinians to record this violence and report it to the authorities. As in other cases there are good and bad on both sides but what is clear is that Israel is faced with a state of war and this state of war has been articulated on many occasions by various leaders in the Islamic community stating that they have a traditional right to land and the state of war will not end until every Jew has left Israel. Ethnic cleansing is not the answer. If we were to apply the same logic in the UK we would have Catholics advocating the repatriation of all Protestants in Northern because of the brutal way Catholics were disposed in their own land centuries ago. We may have our difference but we recognize the need to live together.

With regard to Oswins comments he seems to suggest that the Catholic Church should not have had a counter reformation which, bearing in mind the abuses which had occurred seems rather strange. You still have not said what is was about the counter reformation you object to. I recognise the abuses that had crept into the Catholic and even today it is not perfect but to argue against an attempt at reform seems unjust. Correct me if I am wrong but you seem to imply that any attempt by the Catholic Church to reform will inevitably fail because it is inherently evil.

4 August 2011 at 17:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Send the Zionist Anders Breivik.

He knows how to deal with the Untermensch.

4 August 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Thank you for sharing what so few seem now willing to report.

4 August 2011 at 17:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i read the article and more importantly i read each and every one of the reply posted.

i am ashamed that so many are openly and happily express their hatred at any and all muslims who do not except that criminal nation "Israel"

i think i would just as ashamed if every post replied had as much hate fill propaganda against that criminal nation "Israel"

but mayhap you posters fill justified in posting such hate cos this site is only meant for those who hate.

and mayhap the most shameful thing is that those poster do not regard themselves as haters.

4 August 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

If Israel was as callous and barbaric as the bbc would have you think they are, they would have extirpated the arabs who occupy the land known as Palestine, by now (because I surely would have, in their position). That they have not is testament to their civilised behaviour when faced with the murderous hordes on their doorstep.
Oh, and aren't the Israelis just reclaiming lands that were historically theirs in the first place? When the nazis looted Jews during the second world war, they were stealing peoples belongings. In international courts, are the looted items restored to their rightful owner? Isn't that what Israel is now doing in the supposed occupied lands?

4 August 2011 at 18:07  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Oswin said “my objection is to the thrall of Rome, and Jesuit proselytism”. If we look into history we discover that the conditions of Catholics under Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and James I was a thraldom commensurate with the Gulag Archipelago in Russia. This was at a time when Catholic were not opposed to monarchy but the Puritans were and yet they were not persecuted in anything like the same way. The great sin of Catholics at the time was that they were not prepared to swear that Henry had the right to make up new rules for Christianity and have a divorce. Throughout the succeeding centuries there was an absolute determination to ensure that the King was not a Catholic and according to Belloc it was because of the great wealth given by Henry to his Yes men by the dissolution of the monasteries. They saw the return of Catholicism as a great danger to their wealth if the monasteries were re-established. The monasteries of the time were the welfare state and their dissolution resulted in the thraldom of the poor people of England. It was only in the 19th century that Catholics were allowed to become MPs – how’s that for thraldom. Only in 1948 did Cambridge allow Catholic students to enter their portals and even today it is illegal for a Catholic to become Prime Minister or Chancellor. I think your comments about the thraldom of Rome pale by comparison. The other point about the Jesuits may possibly be about the Jesuits’ loyalty to the Pope and if I understand you correctly that in itself is a great sin and thereby disqualifies them from proselytizing. Perhaps we should remember the words of Jesus who criticized the hierarchy of the Jewish establishment at the time but insisted the people obey what they taught because they occupied the chair of Moses. If you are looking for a Church whose leaders are perfect I do not think you will find it even in the High Anglican tradition.

4 August 2011 at 18:10  
Anonymous Geoffrey said...

Yes sadly the BBC is so biased about Israel that their obfuscations dent their credibility on any comment on any country outside the British Isles.

One retiring "radio journalist" here in New Zealand spoke recently of his time at the BBC as the high point of his career and gave as an example of a staff discussion about "The Middle East" and the need for informed comment and one of the journalists picked up the phone and spoke to Gadaffi "who he knew personally" for a comment. That broadcast was before Gadaffi was being encouraged to depoart the leadersip role.

Apart from an unbroken connection with the land of Israel Jewish people lived there before the advent of Christianity or Islam.

And the modern State of Israel was created by a vote of member nations at the United Nations after years of International Reports, International Enquiries and Reports. From memory Britain abstained. The legacy of their failed period of Mandate.

Comments about the "settlements" in the West Bank being "illegal" are ill-informed. There are no "borders" but merely cease-fire lines supported by peace Treaties with the aggressors and embedded in UN Resolution 242.

Nothing was "stolen." There was no Palestinian state or Palestinian people to be displaced. That fiction was the invention of Yasser Arafat in the early 1960s.

4 August 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The Inspector General finds it quite remarkable that a people subjected to 2000 years of racism should themselves set up a racist state and run it for nearly 60 years.

Unlike the North of Ireland, whose own racist state collapsed when the 'excluded' fought back, Israel expects to go on and on, relying on 'friends' and US cash. When will any comprise be entertained ?

The IG is convinced that one day, the Islamnists will get their act together, and drag the West into a destructive nuclear conflict over the issue. All this for the Chosen People ?? What about the rest of us !!

4 August 2011 at 18:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only hope that Jesus comes soon and puts an end to this madness.
The same spirit of hate that inspired the holocaust now inhabits those who murder Jewish families while they sleep in their beds.
This is the same spirit that opposes God and will be destroyed in the final conflict.
And if the Israelis respond they will be pointed out by the Media as 'aggressors.'

4 August 2011 at 19:45  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Mr Shacklefree @ 18:46,

"If we look into history we discover that the conditions of Catholics under Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and James I was a thraldom commensurate with the Gulag Archipelago in Russia."

What complete and utter rubbish. The victims in the gulags were in the millions. Given the spirit of the times and the treasonous acts of the catholics who were trying to overthrow the lawful authority of the Realm, it can only be concluded that the government of the day acted with unusual restraint.

4 August 2011 at 20:23  
Anonymous FranatAFI said...

Avi Barzel

Thanks for your comments and your encouragement. His Grace writes thoughtful and well informed articles on the Middle East and the debate here, whilst lively, is usually rational and abuse-free.

Sometimes the sheer irrational hatred against Israel and its Jewish citizens spills even into this most civilised of sites, as you can see from a very few of the comments above. Elsewhere it can be almost overwhelming.

Then someone like you writes an encouraging comment and there's that incentive to go on trying to tell the truth about vibrant Israel, a beacon of liberal democracy in an area dominated by dismal dictators.

Thanks again.

4 August 2011 at 20:41  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Correction, I should have made the time 18:10. My apologies.

4 August 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin and Avi

Please point out where I have expressed an 'anti Israeli' view. I merely pointed out that the State of Israel is, according to international law, illegally occupying parts of Palestine.
I also observed both sides are at fault and their positions harden by the day. This suits the extremists and so the killing continues and will go on until some sensible compromise is reached and the hard-liners in Israel and the Jihadists are marginalised.

Why is this anti-Israeli?

And Avi, do stop playing the "poor us - nobody loves us" card! I have not been influenced by a
"decades-long campaign of villification from many seemingly credible sources."

The God I follow cried out through His many Prophets for social justice in the Promised Land amongst His Chosen People. Are you seriously telling me the secular State of Israel is behaving justly?

4 August 2011 at 20:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

IanCad said...

Not just the time you got wrong. Bit light on facts too.

" ... the treasonous acts of the catholics who were trying to overthrow the lawful authority of the Realm, it can only be concluded that the government of the day acted with unusual restraint."

Oh dear,oh dear!

4 August 2011 at 21:03  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

My dear Inspector General

As a half Jew, half Anglican Zionist, married to a High Hindu, I have this to say on the subject of The State of Israel.

All this for the Chosen people!!!!

By this statement alone you have clearly displayed your own vile racist credentials, they may condemn you to burn in the fires of hell itself. Let us all hope not.

The State of Israel is already a most dangerous compromise, indeed it was set up as such, by the exact same people that set up THE BBC.

Therefore I beg you to start thinking for yourself, for quite obviously the first time in your entire life.

Israel represents the ONLY predominately Jewish State in the entire world, and is constituted in an area not a whole lot larger then Wales.

Whereas Muslim nations add up to an area the size of North America, with a combined population that well exceeds that of the whole of Europe, and North America.

However this is not spiritually about size, or geo-politics, it is about our common creators will that Muslim, Christian and Jewish people should live in peace, prosperity, and harmony with each other.

The prospects for which are not in anyway enhanced by your own clearly stated ignorance, or the one sided, and so divisively provocative pronouncements of The BBC.

Violent conflicts, most especially of a terrorist nature have never achieved anything ultimately good for the ordinary people of either the 'winning' or losing side.

The aim of the people who really control The BBC is to cause, or create the excuse for all types of violent conflicts around the entire world. They do this largely by promoting ignorance, such as your own.

The people of Israel are justifiably paranoid enough, as it is, for extremely well documented reasons. Perfectly nothing The BBC says, achieves anything to help this situation, indeed The BBC only makes this situation forever worse.

Ordinary people, which is virtually everyone, never have had anything to gain by the use of violence. ONLY despotic rulers, oligarchs, tyrants, arms manufacturers, priest-hoods and bankers benefit from violent conflict.

The BBC is therefore EVIL, run by EVIL, for the purpose of spreading EVIL around the planet, as much, and as often as it can get away with.

The BBC does not work for the interests of any of the worlds ordinary people, be they Muslim, Atheist, Pagan, Jew, Hindu or Christian.

The BBC works solely for the interests of the BANKSTERS, and oligarchs that set the nasty corporatist body up over 85 years ago, as well as The State of Israel, 63 years ago.

As also, wittingly, or otherwise, do ALL of our selected politicians, be they supposedly left, right, Conservative, Labour, Communist, Socialist, Theocratic, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, up, down, or middle.


Of course you don't, and neither does hardly anyone else, thanks in no small way to wholly corporatist institutions such as The BBC. Which is why we are where we are, and what will be will very unfortunately be.

Jesus had an important message, and the message was LOVE.

Yourself and many others choose to ignore this vitally important message at your own peril.

4 August 2011 at 21:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Atlas sir , your detailed reply considered.

The Inspector General does not associate himself with the critism 'vile racist credentials'.
To critise the Chosen People is not tantamount to that - Also, I am a vociferous critic of the BBC; others believe that the organisation is of a communist nature. I personally believe a more sinister multicultural (to use that awfulword) agenda.

You accuse IG of ignorance. Oh, if only he was - perhaps he wouldn't need to point out to all that which is self evident.

Your IG considers Israel top of the festering sores that threaten world peace. He is conscious that the Armageddon hilltop is reputably in the area - the 'end of the world' scenario, yes the book of revelation. For the 'the beast with ten horns and seven heads' from 2000 years ago, imagine amphibious landing craft packed with tanks and their gun barrels today'

All this for the Chosen People ?? What about the rest of us !!

4 August 2011 at 22:35  
Anonymous berserker-nkl said...

Lord Reith the first DG of the BBC said:

" that the BBC has never attempted to give the public what it wants. It gives it what it ought to have".

Ramsay MacDonald the Labour leader during the General Strike complained that the BBC was biased and unfair in its reportage.

Plus ca change!

4 August 2011 at 22:42  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

IanCad, the persecution of Catholics under Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and James I is a matter of historical record. I willingly concede that the numbers were not anything like that of the Gulag but when James I became King of England he was welcomed by the Catholic population because he was an intelligent monarch and had written about the duties of the monarch to the people. However when he arrived he discovered the coffers were empty. Here is a quote from Claire Asquith’s book Shadowplay:

To all these domestic difficulties the Privy Council, led by Robert Cecil, supplied a characteristic solution – to divert the Puritans onslaught and increase the royal income by once again declaring open season on Catholics. The deal for Puritans was, in Lingard’s words, ‘if they were not suffered to purge the [Anglican] church from the dregs of superstition, they might still advance the glory of God by hunting down the idolatrous papist’. … The penal laws were not only revived – they were extended, … The slightest default in payment incurred forfeiture of all goods and chattels and two-thirds of any property. … ‘they complained in vain. The exaction of the penalties was too profitable to James and his minions to admit of redress by the king.

4 August 2011 at 22:56  
Anonymous Cary said...

And still the BBC refuses to publish it own investigation into anti-Israel bias within its news service (the Balen report).

4 August 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

Thanks for reminding us Cary.

Balen examined hundreds of hours of broadcast material, television and radio, and analysed the content in minute detail, often scrutinising journalists' individual phrases and choice of words. He then put his conclusions in a 20,000-word report. If BBC executives had hoped for a clean bill of health they were to be disappointed. Balen's findings, given highly restricted circulation at the end of 2004, were frightening.

Although they were kept secret, elements leaked out, including Balen's conclusion that the BBC's Middle East coverage had been biased against Israel.

The enormity of this can hardly be overstated. Apart from the corporation's legal obligation to be impartial, it had struggled for years to counter allegations that its reporting favoured the Palestinians. The claims meshed with attacks on the BBC for being Left-leaning and undermining its own legitimacy by harbouring a secret liberal agenda. Bosses at the corporation ordered Balen's report to be locked away. When an effort was made to make its findings public through Freedom of Information laws, the BBC spent £200,000 on a legal fight to keep it secret.

4 August 2011 at 23:37  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Mr Dodo,

I knew you had a sense of humour somewhere. You say, "Please point out where I have expressed an 'anti Israeli' view." Then, in the next sentence, "I merely pointed out that the State of Israel is, according to international law, illegally occupying parts of Palestine."

Yeah, that's even-handed. What "international law"? I don't expect you to be an expert on the subject, but at least be aware that you are echoing a mere opinion. There never was or is an "international law" that bars Jews from what are now disputed territories, Yudah and Shomron, once the actual sense...and violently occupied and subdued by Jordan. Until there is a political resolution, both Arabs and Jews can try to grab as much land as they can and to build and expand on it. And, anyone who says that only Jews can't do so is a an antisemitic racist, a bought-off coward or an utter ignoramus. There is a claim, by the usual Arab and Muslim states, their Turd World sycophants and oil-dependent nations who go along with the charade, that Israel "occupies" these "teritories" illegally and there have been non-binding resolutions by the General Assembly. All these are opinions with as much gravitas as yours. You may feel that the Arabs who decided to call themselves "Palestinians" in 1967 deserve to be given a state, but I for example, don't, and until the standing laws and traties are changed, or an Israeli government foolishly (and arguably, illegally) surrenders Jewish lands to the Arabs, the law is still on my side.

"I also observed both sides are at fault and their positions harden by the day...." Blah, blah, blah, Dodo. I hear this tripe day in, day out. Intellectually lazy and morally flacid people make it all the time. Your comparing Israeli "hardliners," (whoever you mean by that; JDLers, Likud, Zionists, majority of Jews, auntie Mabel, who?) to jihadis is not only factually and grossly wrong, but morally obscene.

"And Avi, do stop playing the 'poor us - nobody loves us' card!" With apologies to His Grace's delicate ears: And up yours too, Dodo, with all due respect and a fist-full of Vaseline. When did I imply that? Plenty of people love us, but most don't and many of those who don't, want us gone. Some have tried real hard, others want to try, but are a little scared now, which is good. You may wish to hide your head in the sunless place, play the morally detached even-Steven honest-broker and pretend that all was and is well and regular, but me and mine don't have that luxury. We actually remember our past.

"I have not been influenced by a 'decades-long campaign of villification from many seemingly credible sources.'" Right-ho. Like, you came up with those banal, shallow and canned opinions all by your lonesome self? Give yourself a little more credit, Dodo.

"The God I follow cried out through His many Prophets for social justice in the Promised Land amongst His Chosen People. Are you seriously telling me the secular State of Israel is behaving justly?" Just a sec while I dab my eyes and wipe my nose, Dodo. In all seriousness, and you can take this one to the bank: I believe that Israel is the most moral nation in war as in peace today and since its inception. I challenge anyone...except for the few disgusting gomers here I don't care to chat show me one country with Israel's capacity and under even loosely similar situations and conditions (hint: not Luxemburg) that has treated its enemies as fairly and I'll even say, with such foolish, if not outright stupid leniency, as Israel.

4 August 2011 at 23:42  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


I merely pointed out that the State of Israel is, according to international law, illegally occupying parts of Palestine.

Oh, how traumatizing! The Israelis are in violation of International Law? Good gracious, how did this happen? Next thing you know, we will be told that the Israelis are in violation of The Official Rulebook of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Is there no end to their dastardly behavior?

Or to put it in American terms, who the hell cares? "International Law" is little more than a hodgepodge collection of customs and agreements between nations leavened with a fair degree of power politics. Were the Soviets in violation of "International Law" for their seizure of Eastern Poland? And chunks of Finland? And Latvia, and Lithuania, and Estonia for that matter? Did you notice anyone of significance fail to recognize these facts from 1941 until 1991?

To say the Israelis are in violation of "International Law" is to say that a whole bunch of people in the International community have an interest in opposing the Israelis. Or perhaps they just hate the Israelis. Either way works. There is no principled objective authority called "International Law" by which the Israelis may be judged. There is only the power relationship between states.


5 August 2011 at 00:14  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Avi Barzel

So you're not really the easy-ozzy lorry driver trucking about nonchantly across America. The man who feigns a degree of disinterest about world affairs and mildly offers opinions.

In fact, you have some pretty definite views, don't you?

"Until there is a political resolution, both Arabs and Jews can try to grab as much land as they can and to build and expand on it."

You have to be kidding! Open season Avi? That's smart and likely to lead to peace!

So it's okay if the surrounding Arab states all invade Israel? However, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't Israel the military superior force in the region at present?

5 August 2011 at 00:17  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

carl jacobs said ...

" ... a whole bunch of people in the International community have an interest in opposing the Israelis. Or perhaps they just hate the Israelis."

Or perhaps they want to settle one of the most dangerous and volatile conflicts in the world through the application of legal and moral principles?

What a hopeless position you advocate! Might is right - it just so happens, coincidentally, Israel is militarily stronger at the moment. Just let them fight it out and see who comes out on top - oh, that'll be Israel.

Are you seriously advocating the continuation of armed struggle in the region by whatever means each side sees as legitimate?

5 August 2011 at 00:30  
Anonymous Eve of Destruction said...

Are people on here seriously advocating a free for all in the Middle East without the restraint of any international law? Let the Arab states have nuclear weapons and use their oil money to purchase arms?

5 August 2011 at 00:56  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


I was stating an incontrovertible fact. There is no objective authority behind "International Law." Assume for the sake of argument that the PRC invades and occupies Taiwan. How much time will elapse before this occupation is accepted and recognized by almost every nation on Earth? China is too powerful and too important to cross, and no one can (or would) do anything about it. So what then is the point of "International Law?" Why does it apply to Israel and not to China? Perhaps because nations have interests and those interests drive their perceptions of occupations.

Or perhaps they want to settle one of the most dangerous and volatile conflicts in the world through the application of legal and moral principles?

Or perhaps they don't. Or perhaps they are living in Wonderland and think this conflict can be solved by "mutual understanding and communication." It can't. The conflict is about whose culture dominates the land. Such conflicts are intractable. The Israeli/Palestinain conflict will only be solved when when side or the other decides in can no longer win. Not before.

If the Israelis lose, they die. At which point, no one will be talking about international law anymore. There might be a few perfunctory expressions of regret. Then what? Will there be punitive expeditions against Palestine? No, Europe can't manage an invasion of Luxemburg. Will there be boycotts of Arab oil? No, that oil is needed. Will there be angry reprimands of the celebrating Muslims in Europe? No, there is too much fear of European Muslims. And too much hidden Anti-semitism in Europe as well.

You can keep trying to solve the problem by getting water to run up hill, or you can recognize reality. The Arabs want the Jews dead or gone. That reality lays the foundation for an settlement. You can accept it or not, but not accepting it is sort of like refusing to accept the law of gravity.


5 August 2011 at 00:59  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

"The Arabs want the Jews dead or gone."

I do take your points about real poliks but it's not applied evenly in the middle east is it? Your country, for one, has provided military aid to Israel and countless Arab dictators for decades in an attempt to maintain its own narrow interests. British foreign policy isn't exactly glorious either.

Who are 'the Arabs'? Is there really 'hidden anti-semitism' in Europe? Can the conflict only be solved by the defeat of one side or the other?

I'm not so pessimistic as you about the prospects for peace. I don't believe every Muslim hates Jews and wants them dead and gone. Neither do I believe all Muslims are quietly plotting a take over of the world. I think most people just want to get on peaceably with their lives, work, have a home and raise a family.

A Jewish State and a Palestinian State, surrounded by other Arab States, is surely not beyond reach?

5 August 2011 at 01:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My closest friend who is a fine Moslem in the best sense has told me all Moslems hate Israel he is a man of the highest professional integrity

5 August 2011 at 01:36  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


"Your country, for one, has provided military aid to Israel and countless Arab dictators for decades in an attempt to maintain its own narrow interests. British foreign policy isn't exactly glorious either."

That is what nations do. They protect their own interests. That's why it's called realpolitik. I believe beyond any reasonable doubt (for example) that the Israelis deliberately tried to sink the USS Liberty in 1967 with the intent of killing the entire crew. Whereupon the US Gov't and the Israeli Gov't conspired to cover up the incident for the sake of narrow national interests. As I said, this is what nations do.

"A Jewish State and a Palestinian State, surrounded by other Arab States, is surely not beyond reach?"

Yes, it is. Only Israeli military power keeps Israel alive. Honestly, I don't know what the Israelis are expected to do. Naive interlopers constantly demand it expose itself to risk for the sake of peace. The death of this family is almost considered acceptable loss. At what point do the Israelis get to say "Enough is enough!" How do they convince you their enemies desire their extermination? At that point, what will they be allowed to do to establish their own security?


5 August 2011 at 02:06  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Er, well, Dodo yes, as a matter of fact, I have been known to have an opinion or two. My wife doesn't let me have too many around her, so they sort of, you know, bust out sometimes. Sorry for my rudeness; I guess my excuse is that flying scares me silly and I had to fly back, even though I would have preferred to walk barefoot on the melting highway asphalt.

Anyway, I suppose you and Carl could think what you are thinking I'm advocating. But I'm not advocating, merely pointing out observable and in many ways, regretable facts. It has always been and it always will be a free-for-all. The pretense of an "international community," the farce that is selective "international law," the castrated squeeks of the EU and the undeserved puffery of the UN which has, among other things, been energetically facilitating the massive rearming of two Iranian proxies and allowing a declared genocidal maniac to promise armaggedon, those will not keep the peace. They are maintaining a temporary ceasefire in a complicated political dance. Israel was always on its own when the Arab states attacked with the aim to annihilate, and the Yom Kippur War, on two fronts, with a threat from the third was a close thing. Everyone watched as Israel had to beg for weapons and ammo and there was nothing to do but to defeat the enemy and wipe the floor with him to discourage further attempts.

So, however it affects your fantasies of a new world where everything is resolved with pretend declarations, sanctions, strictures, warnings or whatever, the bottom line is that in the end one either loses a conflict or wins it. Israel survives only because its enemies have failed to destroy it, and the only way there will be peace if one side wins. I hope you don't mind my being picky or biased, but I root for my side.

5 August 2011 at 02:08  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Uh, Carl, I incorrectly included you in a response to Dodo. No idea how, I needed a nap, I think.

5 August 2011 at 04:38  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

And, Carl, your description of "international law" has to be the most bang-on one I've ever read.

I do disagree about the Liberty attack; "friendly fire" incidents are fairly common, especially whenever aircraft are involved. Several years ago US ground attack aircraft, some Hogs (A-10 Intruders?) I think, inadvertantly shot up some of our Canadian ground troops, even with the new fancy, electronically linked, real-time communication networks and precision guidance gee-gaws the techno-weenies have been pushing.

5 August 2011 at 05:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh dear, is it true Anders Breivik carried out his terror attack on the anniversary of the King David hotel bombing.

5 August 2011 at 06:03  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

There are probably lot’s of Muslims who are not looking for the destruction of Israel but I do not think their voice will get listened to and if they express that opinion among their own communities they will probably be killed which is why there is a deafening silence from them on Muslim atrocities. However even some moderate ones I have spoken to, when asked about the rockets going into Israel from Gaza, respond with “What else can they do?” There are probably lot’s of Jews who would willingly live side by side with Muslims if their security was guaranteed. However, this is the most intractable problem we have and I do not think it will be resolved until the second coming of Jesus the prince of peace. The Inspector General mentions Armageddon and I think that the prophecies of St John in that book are relevant even though they are difficult to decipher. Two in particular, can I think, be identified. Chapter 12 mentions the woman adorned with the Sun which in my opinion refers to the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in October 1917 one month before the Russian Revolution. The children at Fatima prophesied that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world and so it is possible that the beast in Chapter is atheistic communism possibly linked with freemasonry. The other prophecy is in Chapter 18 which predicts the collapse of the stock market system of the world so if you have a lot of stocks and shares I suggest you diversify your portfolio.

5 August 2011 at 07:11  
Anonymous tony b said...

Seems a little fact if I may so so, to accuse the BBC of not reporting Palestinian attacks on Israelis by giving the example of..a BBC report of a Palestinian attack on Israelis ..

5 August 2011 at 08:07  
Anonymous tony b said...

Daft, not fact. I wish phone wouldn't replace words without my consent.

5 August 2011 at 08:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Office of Inspector General:

‘What about the rest of us !!’

Run from the wrath that is to come.

5 August 2011 at 08:26  
Anonymous IanCad said...

I am a conservative. I am an absolute supporter of Israel. I still maintain that BBC Radios 3 & 4 and World Service are national treasures.

5 August 2011 at 08:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the people of Israel:

For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
(Deuteronomy 14:2)

For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, Lord, art become their God. (2 Samuel 7:24)

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. (Psalm 33:12)

For the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for his peculiar treasure. (Psalm 135:4)

The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people. (Deuteronomy 7:7-8)

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, even like Israel, whom God went to redeem for a people to himself, and to make him a name, and to do for you great things and terrible, for thy land, before thy people, which thou redeems to thee from Egypt, from the nations and their gods? (2 Samuel 7:23)

Therefore say, Thus says the Lord GOD; Although I have cast them far off among the heathen, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries where they shall come. Ezekiel 11:16
Therefore say, Thus says the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel. (Ezekiel 11:17)

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. (Isaiah 11:11)

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.... Therefore fear thou not, O my servant Jacob, says the LORD; neither be dismayed, O Israel: for, lo, I will save thee from afar, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and shall be in rest, and be quiet, and none shall make him afraid. Jeremiah 30:7-10

And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. (Amos 9:14)

And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, says the LORD thy God. (Amos 9:15)

And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10)

5 August 2011 at 08:58  
Anonymous Ric said...

Well said, Arch!As Netanyahu said:
'If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more ‎violence. If the Jews put ‎down their weapons ‎today, there would be no ‎more Israel'‎

5 August 2011 at 09:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5 August 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Shacklefree said ...
" ... this is the most intractable problem we have and I do not think it will be resolved until the second coming of Jesus the prince of peace."

And that's the problem with some people's thinking about the Middle East. Even if this is so, and we have to wait on Christ's return, does it mean we sit back and leave the situation alone?

It was God's Will that Christ was crucified, yet those who caused this are personally accountable for their actions. And those in the Sanhedrin who tried to prevent the unlawful and unjust murder of Him, whether they recognised Him as the Christ or not, cannot be accussed of attempting to pervert God's plan.

Avi Barzel
Sorry but now you sound like a militant Zionist to me. You appear to be advocating an all out war. A war Israel might loose if it delays too much longer.

There is a delicate balance of military power at the moment. If Saudi Arabia changes it's allegiances and should other Arab States use their wealth to fully arm would 'international law' become more attractive to you?

5 August 2011 at 11:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So when Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but rather that a riot was beginning, he took some water and washed his hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood; see to it yourselves." Then the people as a whole answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!"

5 August 2011 at 11:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'It was God's Will that Christ was crucified, yet those who caused this are personally accountable for their actions.'

Are you saying I am not personally accountable?

5 August 2011 at 11:12  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Can I be the only one who shudders with incredulity that such erstwhile intelligent and eloquent commentors can tarnish (in my opinion) their own credibility by recourse to biblical references to justify the existence of the State of Israel.

Israel exists as a sovereign nation as much as do all other nations new or old, because they are internationally recognised by the world of today.

Israel needs to foster wider support and understanding for its existence as a nation, as defined not by religion, but by historical precedence ancient and modern; it needs to distance itself from such nonsense (as quoted by Singh), as being the land of God's chosen people - all that does is alienate it's people and cause from the rest of the world and legitimise by equivalence, the Islamic claims to the land.

The world has turned and moved on since the myths of Moses. Zionism is flawed. Israelis should marginalise the claims OT 'land rights' and leave their religious colours to the minority zealots and conduct their affairs in a more secular context.

5 August 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.


5 August 2011 at 11:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.


5 August 2011 at 11:30  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Avi Barzel

I recognize the reality of 'friendly fire.' My father was almost killed in France by American artillery. Lethal accidents happen in war. I simply do not believe the USS Liberty was attacked by accident. I believe the Israeli military attacked the ship intending to kill everyone aboard. I believe they either intended to blame it on the Egyptians, or claim it was a terrible accident. The only thing that went wrong was that the Ship's crew refused to die. The testimony of the crew is definitive on this matter.

The motive remains a mystery. To solidify American support for Israel by blaming the Egyptians for the attack? To prevent the ship from learning something the Israelis didn't want exposed? I don't know. I do know it was nothing but murder on the high seas, and the Israelis have never been called to account for it.


5 August 2011 at 14:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

D. Singh said...
"Are you saying I am not personally accountable?"

Don't be obtuse, you know full well what I mean.

5 August 2011 at 15:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Go on then: explain.

5 August 2011 at 15:41  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Dodo spake, "Avi Barzel...Sorry but now you sound like a militant Zionist to me. You appear to be advocating an all out war. A war Israel might loose if it delays too much longer."

I am a died-in-wool-Zionist, Dodo. Guilty as charged. But what do you mean by "militant"? As in the media term for a terrorist, or just any Jew who refuses to lie down and let "well-meaning" powers of the day determine the most ecologically sustainable method for his extinction?

Definitions, Dodo, are crucial to any discussion. What is an "all-out war" in your mind? It's a fear-laden term that no longer defines operational military realities, so please help out nwith that.

Whatever monsters you may believe I'm advocating, here again is my position: Israel has been subject to planned annihilations by Arab powers and their enablers. These are best defined as "contemporary solutions to the Jewish problem." As always, Israel must be prepared to fight physically and politically, but not just to hold off the beasts at the fenc in a losing struggle of slow-mo attrition, but to achieve clear, decisive and consequential victories. Israel's one-time defeat will be the end of the Jewish state and possibly, no, make that most likely, yet another genocidal decimation of the Jews. Its enemies, on the other hand, can attempt to destroy Israel again and again, knowing that the UN will always step out of the way and even lend a helping they are now...and only spring into emergency action and calls for cease-fires when the Muslim states get their first bloody nose or it looks like they might lose a bit of land again.

The point is, Dodo, that the way of negotiations and concessions has never worked and it only brought misery to Jews and yes, to Arabs as well. Had Israel kept the Sinai, levelled the government district in Damascus, kept the "West Bank" under real occupation as a strictly demilitarized zone, with Yasser's terror gangs stuck in Tunisia, history might have been different. The brief Palestinian-Israeli cooperation and economic surge we saw in the 80s saw a miraculous appearance of a Palestinian Muslim civil society, with tens of thousands of Israelis "invading" the West Bank, to shop, eat at restaurants, stay in resorts and blow money at casinos. But no, the wise international community...with the blessings of the dovish morons in Israel...decided to bring in Arafat and his killers, to give that farcical collection of gangsters "international recognition" and...this is where idiocy seems to have no arm the world's most vicious terrorists in order to, get this, fight terrorism.

By now even you must suspect that an independent Palestinian state is not what the Muslim nations and the majority of Pal Muslims want. Poll after poll shows the deep hatred of the Palestinians for Jews, their desire to see Israel eliminated and their total lack of interest in statehood, independence or responsible governance. This is what multilateralism, diplomacy, land-for-peace formulas, concessions to terrorists, peace accords, firm resolutions, lofty declarations and heavy-handed interference have wrought. I don't want more of it; I want Israel to be allowed to draw a clear line and to make it obvious and clear that another attempt to destroy it will bring a costly and consequential defeat to its enemies. If this makes me into a right-wing, imperialist Zionist extremist militant in your eyes, rhen fine, we have no common language or agreed-upon database of basic facts, so won't matter what words we use anyway.

5 August 2011 at 16:21  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Carl Jacobs,

Someone with such a sophisticated view on things, who simultaneously with similar arguments to mine in clearer, more comprehensible language (I admit to the sin of envy on that), should know better not be swayed by a classic antisemitic canard of the right wing variation.

As you yourself recognize, there was no logically sound reason to attack and sink a US vessel. The simple explanation that Israeli naval intelligence wrongly, but understably assumed the Liberty to be yet another Egyptian war craft deceptively flying another nation's flag is a much more logical assumption. This conspiracy theory which you have, incongruously, accepted has generated such an incredible volume of half-truths and outright lies that the simple, most rational explanations now appear as a cover-ups. Still, the rule of Occam's razor is our best guide.

5 August 2011 at 16:39  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Avi Barzel

I agree your ill-considered and somewhat paranoid rant does make you:

" ... a right-wing, imperialist Zionist extremist militant ... " in my eyes.

5 August 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

D. Singh said...
"Go on then: explain."

Don't be so immature.

5 August 2011 at 17:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its the Banksters fault.

5 August 2011 at 17:32  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, you are a formidable opponent. There is no known rhetorical defense against someone who has nothing new to say and retorts by quoting his opponent. You have vanquished me again.

5 August 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Avi Barzel
There's little point in attempting to logically deconstruct your position. It contains too many assertions based on unsubstantiated opinion.

Fundamentally you seem to be arguing all Arabs are out to get the Jews and no non-Jewish State really cares and the world will stand by and allow " ... contemporary solutions to the Jewish problem."

Linking political disagreement with Israel to Facism is a distortion of reality.

You are advocating the use of superior military might to impose and maintain a settlement in the Middle East. This will result in endless terrorist activity and endless bloodshed.

5 August 2011 at 18:41  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Avi Barzel

"...a classic antisemitic canard of the right wing variation."

I do not believe an antisemitic canard. I believe the testimony of the crew which contradicts the Israeli account at every important juncture. Specifically:

1. The dozen or so low-altitude recon flights by Israeli aircraft in the hours before the attack- some so low the crew members could make out the facial features of the pilot. There is no way the Israelis lost track of the location of the Liberty because they kept sending planes to look at it. There is no way they didn't recognize the western features of the crewmen on deck.

2. The enormous size difference between the Liberty and the Egyptian ship the Israelis claim they thought they were attacking. Not to mention all those antennas on deck.

3. The initial jamming of communication channels that the Egyptians didn't use but the Americans did.

4. The attacks on the communications antennas to prevent the ship from sending a distress call. It was only an emergency repair under fire that allowed the Liberty to notify the fleet it was under attack.

5. The obvious and prominent large American flag that was fully displayed in the breeze.

6. The raking of life rafts in the water by machine guns on Israeli patrol boats.

Your task is simple. If you want to convince me, then first convince the surviving crew.


5 August 2011 at 18:42  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


"You are advocating the use of superior military might to impose and maintain a settlement in the Middle East. This will result in endless terrorist activity and endless bloodshed."

Yes, that settlement imposed on Europe by superior military might failed miserably, didn't it? Too bad we assumed Hitler just wanted to conquer. If only we had sought after a mutually agreeable settlement. There might have been peace in our time.


5 August 2011 at 18:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


Bit of a different scenerio I think. There we had a State machine totally driven by military objectives and led by a madman who believed he had a historical mission to perform.

What Avi seems to be proposing is a fight to death between Arabs and Jews. One of them, according to his 'solution', has to be removed. Not going to happen, now is it? The Allies defeated Germany and, to their shame, backed off standing firm against Russia. They did not wipe out all Germans!

Both Islam and Judaism have underlying religious positions that are irreconcilable - I agree. However, surely the answer isn't to let both sides arm to their full potential, conventional and nuclear weapons, and see who wins?

5 August 2011 at 19:24  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


"Bit of a different scenario I think. There we had a State machine totally driven by military objectives and led by a madman who believed he had a historical mission to perform."

It's only different because the surrounding Arab nations have failed so utterly to achieve their objectives by conventional military means. Not for want of trying, however. They fight a different kind of war from Hitler because they do not possess the power that Hitler possessed. Hitler btw was not a madman driven by military objectives. He was an ideologue driven by ideological objectives. He was very rational, and his defeat was for all intents and purposes a miracle. The Arabs also fight for an historical mission driven by ideology - to remove the crusader state from the Middle East, avenge the many years of Arab humiliation, and extend the House of Islam over the whole of the region.

"What Avi seems to be proposing is a fight to death between Arabs and Jews."

He is proposing nothing of the sort. He is stating that the stakes for Israel are life and death. The Israelis have no margin, and yet everyone demands they make concessions on the assumption that the Arabs will respond in kind. Well what if they don't? What if the Arabs take advantage of the Israeli concessions? It is not high-minded Europeans who will bear the cost of that miscalculation.

I will ask this question again, Dodo. What has to happen to convince you that Israeli fears are justified? When do you say "They have conceded enough. I now agree the Palestinians are acting in bad faith." I perceive you are ideologically opposed to that conclusion, and so will never allow it. You want to believe a solution exists, and so you must believe in the good faith of the Palestinians. Yet, if you are wrong, you pay no price for your error. It is the Israelis who die.

If the Palestinians want peace, then they can prove it by submitting. If they won't submit, then let them be beaten with an iron rod until they either change their collective mind, or are beaten so bloody, they are incapable of raising their fist in defiance. I for one would never allow my civilian population to be held hostage to these kinds of attacks. The Palestinians would pay - one way or another - until the attacks stopped.


5 August 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


The Israelis have conceeded nothing! Their current strategy of containing Palestinians and launching reprisals against attacks is not working. If anything it makes matters worse by giving weight to Palestinian claims they are being treated inhumanly.

And to what should the Palestinians "submit" or be "beaten by an iron rod ... until incapable of raising a fist in defiance"? There will always remain a capacity for terrorist activity. Are you ruling out a 'Two State' solution? Ruling out further peace attempts?

I am not ideologically opposed to seeing Palestinians as acting in bad faith. Just opposed to the use of brute force by a superior power against a predominantly civilian population.

Hitler was defeated by the bravery of Britain standing alone against Germany, by his foolishness in not invading this country in 1940 and then turning his attention to Russia. Not a 'miracle' - more a case of poor strategy, poor leadership and his own pyschological deficits.

5 August 2011 at 20:21  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

The Arab political mentality wouldn't know the meaning of 'peace' if it jumped up and bit it on the arse. They are not even at peace amongst themselves or ever likely to be. And all along theocratic opportunists like the Muslim Brotherhood are playing the waiting game ready to maximise their influence in the confusion as dictatorships crumble.

When the so called Arab Spring settles into the Arab winter the last to fall will be the house of Saud then the shit will really hit the fan for the West - and Israel. The West won't even have the fuel or assets to mount a defence once the Straits of Hormouz are mined.

Like it or not DoDo, Israel is the canary in the coal mine and it is apparently shrieking unheard into the wind. As the product of Imperialist Franco-British meddling in the region, the UK and the West need to find the backbone to stand up for what is and or ever likely to be, their only democratic ally in the ME - it is after all their baby.

This situation is not about religion - its about the future of Western survival.

5 August 2011 at 20:41  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


"Are you ruling out a 'Two State' solution? Ruling out further peace attempts?"

Yes, I am ruling out the idea of two-state solution. The idea of a Palestinian state on the West bank is an absolute fantasy. The security threat such a state would pose is extraordinary. It isn't going to happen. No Israeli gov't is going to allow it.

1. The Israelis must control the Jordan River.

2. The Israelis must control the water.

3. The Israelis will not allow the formation of a Palestinian military.

4. The Israelis will not allow the Palestinians to make treaties that would allow for the introduction of foreign military forces into the West Bank.

That means the Palestinians can't have a state.

"And to what should the Palestinians "submit" or be "beaten by an iron rod"

Israeli sovereignty. They must submit to Israeli rule without resulting to violence. This they have never done, and have no intention of doing.

"I am not ideologically opposed to seeing Palestinians as acting in bad faith."

Then tell me what would trigger this judgment in your mind, and what the Israelis should do once that judgment is made?

"Just opposed to the use of brute force by a superior power against a predominantly civilian population."

What do you think the Palestinians are doing? It may not be superior power, but that is why the concept of asymmetrical warfare was developed. Do you think they randomly murdered a family of five? They are seeking to intimidate and demoralize an entire population. How are the Israelis to respond to this overt act of political murder? Do you have any useful suggestions that don't involve acquiescence in the face of atrocity? Are they to issue meaningless arrest warrants for suspects that will never be caught let alone tried?

It is not true that the possibility of terrorist activity always exists. I guarantee you the Israelis can inflict enough pain to stop it. If the Palestinians continue on this present path, they are going to find that out.


5 August 2011 at 20:51  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


You are clearly diametrically opposed to my views on this. I am not so convinced as you that the Palestinians and Arabs cannot be trusted. See the situation from 1948 from their point of view and you might understand their anger and mistrust of Israel and the West.

The Israelis, in public at least, are commited to a State for the Palestinians. One without a military, by the way. It's a question of governance, borders and land.

Israeli sovereignty - but not over Palestinian land and a Palestinian State surely? Are they to have no self-determination?

Without a settlement that is just to both sides terrorism will most certainly continue. So will Islamic extremism.

I agree with proportionate responses to terrorist aggression and any attacks by Arab states. Ones that minimise 'collateral damage'. Earlier, you yourself pointed out an example of Israeli morality.

5 August 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said ...

"(Israel) ... the product of Imperialist Franco-British meddling in the region, the UK and the West need to find the backbone to stand up for what is and or ever likely to be, their only democratic ally in the ME - it is after all their baby."

From an Islamist-Arab perpective Israel is an illegal State formed throught the use of terror and installed as an ally of the West. The West have supported numerous dictators in the region to further their own interests. In the middle of all this are the people who once lived there - the Palestinians.

One suspects the extremes on both sides do not want a solution. It's not in their interests. Why would Israel want to permit a State within a State? Why would Hammas et al want Arabs and Jews tolive peacefully together?

Time to seek a just solution. I agree, time is running out.

5 August 2011 at 22:14  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...


As Carl is doing a superior job countering your positions, including defending mine better them me, I don't need to say much except that your tactic of putting words into other's mouths and trying every which way to misrepresent their position is supremely tiring and functionally pointless. It's also obvious that you know far less about the history and issues of the conflict than your vehemence would suggest. My initial opinion, to which you took exeption, that your position is a product of propagandish palestinianist twaddle is confirmed by every post of yours.


As if you don't have enough on your hands with Dodo, it's back to the USS Liberty. I'm sorry, but the more I read your posts, the more I'm puzzled by that incongruity; I would be equally surprised if, out of the blue your started talking about UFO abductions.

The bottom line in this saga has always been this: There was no reason for the Israeli leadership to order an attack on an American vessel and no reason for the US, a multi-party and open, not to mention porous and unruly system, to then cover up the intent for such an attack. Committees in both countries examined the matter in detail, came to conclusions and apologies and restitutions were made, perhaps not to the survivors’ satisfaction, but that would be another matter. In the world’s most litigious nation, with thousands of possible legal venues, not one court ruled that the attack on the US vessel was anything but a regrettable friendly fire incident.

The Liberty incident has been consistently used by the anti-Israel right and left-wings to cast a shadow on a near-perfect Us-Israel relationship, which grates on US isolationists, paleo-conservatives, policy "realists," the Foggy Bottom (US foreign affairs establishment) types and the ubiquitous grimy antisemites. Given that a US president was assassinated by a Palestinian (Sirhan Sirhan), that Muslim governments and political groups have killed thousands of Americans, even one incident would suffice for distraction. So, when looking at all these fascinating mysteries and puzzles, ask yourself what the source would say to a big "so what"? So what if the Israeli government knowingly ordered an attack on a US craft. If the US for some reason decided to cover that up so unbelievanly well, obviously it has reasons to feel that Israel was justified.

5 August 2011 at 22:45  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


"See the situation from 1948 from their point of view and you might understand their anger and mistrust of Israel and the West."

"Without a settlement that is just to both sides terrorism will most certainly continue. So will Islamic extremism."

These two statements are interesting for they reveal the difference between us. You see the Palestinians as reacting to Israeli actions. I see the Palestinians as acting in accordance with their worldview, and not in response to provocation. When I read "See the situation from 1948" I immediately thought "You mean 'Kill all the Jews?'"

"The Israelis, in public at least, are commited to a State for the Palestinians. One without a military, by the way. It's a question of governance, borders and land."

A state that doesn't control its borders, or resources, or security, or foreign relations isn't much of a state.

"Are they to have no self-determination?"

Not until they can be trusted to use it responsibly.


5 August 2011 at 22:57  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Avi Barzel

Motive is not an element of the crime. Even so, I can conceive of possible Israeli motives. The most credible would be to cover up alleged Israeli war crimes in the Sinai. The Liberty was an intelligence gathering ship, after all. Until the Israelis actually explain their rationale for the attack, we won't know.

You need to explain why the crew was unsatisfied. You need to explain all the obvious incongruities between what the crew says happened, and what the Israelis say happened. The crew has no reason to lie. Nor can you innoculate the Israelis by appeal to a lack of motive. The absense of motive doesn't explain away the problems in the Israeli story. And, yes, I can see why the two governments would squash this story - and squash it they did. The US and Israel are allies and have mutual interests. It does nobody any good to threaten that relationship over a stupid Israeli decision. In effect, the Johnson Administration decided to sacrifice the dead on the altar of American interests. What was done was done. It couldn't be undone, and I suspect the Israelis won't do anything that rash again.


5 August 2011 at 23:22  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...


The Israelis are known for 'rash'actions!

They impersonate British citizens and commit murder and assinations abroad.

6 August 2011 at 01:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


When you say the US and Israel are allies with mutual interests, in what way have those interests benefited Jews or Gentiles.

Jews fight for a plot of land they do not need, why still livig in lands they do not want.

Its not a case of US and Israeli interests, its a case of Jewish and Gentile interests and Gentiles also have Nations and lands to defend.

Now its easy to argue that Israel the State is secular, but secularism would have to assume the none existence of a Chosen people and therefore the none existence of Jews.

So what Is Ra El?

6 August 2011 at 01:22  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


I personally do not recognize any connection between the modern state of Israel and the Old Testament. Nor do I see the state of Israel as the fulfillment of prophecy. It is simply a western state in a region largely devoid of western states. Beyond that, I am not sure what you are asking.


6 August 2011 at 03:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A manufactured western state in the middle east put there to secure the colonial interests of Europe and in particular to preserve access to the Suez canal.

The Balfour Declaration and the League of Nation's Mandate were immoral and illegal acts against the Arab nations. The support of Arab dictators favourably disposed to the west were not acts of democracy. It was to protect oil.

Sow the wind, reap the hurricane.

6 August 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger Ivan said...

I used to believe that the attack on the Liberty was no accident, but now in the light of new evidence, I am not as certain. The Liberty incident continues to be a sore point as among other factors, too many high American officials, Dean Rusk, George Ball and Clark Clifford - the latter a man present at the creation of modern Israel at President Truman's side - were incredulous that the Israelis could make such a series of blunders. Occam's razor require that the economical explanation be that the Israelis deliberately set out to destroy the Liberty. However declassified transcripts that has lately became available corroborates the Israeli account; as far-fetched as it seems. I have to say this though: some Israelis can come across as totally insensitive to the great pain they had however inadvertently caused.

As for Al-Beeb they left the path of truth and unbiased reporting some time in the late 80s and have not looked back since.


7 August 2011 at 09:26  
Anonymous sane jez said...

I can only conclude that Mad Mel has taken on a number of alter egos and is running amok again...

7 August 2011 at 14:54  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...


There isn't anything new in that story. It's the same story the Israelis have been telling for 40 years. None of it explains the difference between the crew's testimony and the Israeli account. I want them to explain for example how the Israeli pilots couldn't see a flag the crew says was flying full extended. "There was no flag." simply doesn't wash with me. I don't believe it.


7 August 2011 at 15:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems that many dispute the right of Israel to exist as a Nation and the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

The right of Israel to exist.? God gave Israel the land as an everlasting covenant and fulfilled that promise to return Israel to that land, which we read in Ezekiel 36. God has placed them there and Zechariah 12 explains what will happen to those who try to divide it and take it away from them.

So all that oppose Israel, your quarrel is actually with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

7 August 2011 at 16:04  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...,0,43090.story

The other side of the Transcript story. It makes reference to the Israeli transcript in the previous link.


7 August 2011 at 16:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...
"So all that oppose Israel, your quarrel is actually with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Except God is not a member of the UN Security Council and so we don't actually know what he thinks. A 2500 year old text capable of multiple interpretations is no basis for foreign policy!

Whether you're right or wrong, God surely expects Israel to behave with justice and honour.

God's support for the Jews has never been unconditional. When they break his covenant there are repercussions. They rejected their long promised Messiah and those minority who still follow his Torah are still waiting for an earthly king to rule an earthly kingdom.

Come down from the mountain.

I know you believe the Holy Spirit has told you not to engage in discussion with me. However, I will continue to challenge what I consider to be your errors.

7 August 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger Ivan said...


The original testimony of the Liberty crew to Admiral Kidd (which can be obtained by following the link: indicates that the Israeli torpedo boats opened up only after the Liberty started firing on them. From the point of view of the Liberty crew they were of course defending themselves, but one can understand why the Israeli boats started firing as they continued to be under the impression that the Liberty was an Egyptian ship. In later accounts, some lurid details were added such as that the Israeli boats were firing on sailors already in the water, but this detail is not in the FIR. As you know, it is a principal of law from Roman times that the first thought is the true thought. In particular there were no sustained attacks on the Liberty lasting two hours as some accounts have it. The testimony of the pilot Spector rings true to me, he was ordered to hunt for a ship that had apparently caused a large explosion at El Arish on the coast. He rushed in, saw a ship heading out - and here his confirmation bias kicked in - and attacked it. There is no indication that he was told of the possibility that the ship could be American or of the feared Russians. Now if I were in his place, it is quite possible that I would acted as he. At this stage in the war the Israeli air force was on roll, having destroyed the Egyptian air force and blitzed the Egyptian armoured formations, clearly success went to Spector's head.


8 August 2011 at 01:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older