Huh? Depends on what you mean by consensus: if a criminal doesn’t happen to agree with a particular law and can get away with it, does that nullify it? Sure it can’t be enforced but the principle is there.

The thing is that there are sets of laws and rules that almost all of the states of the world sign up to and that are commonly agreed upon as binding, such as when you occupy a territory during a war for some reason, you don’t then annex it and start to settle it with your own inhabitants. Just because you can get away with it, doesn’t mean that you somehow haven’t broken these guidelines — that’s just wishful thinking.

sorry, anas, of course you’re right, obviously the dictates of common sense morality ought to apply to everybody. i’d differ on international law, though, because that is based on consensus and, where there is no consensus, there is no enforceable law.

i am curious though, someone pointed out to me that the population movements in eastern europe in the latter half of the twentieth century were orders of magnitude larger than they have been in the middle east, yet for some reason nobody is suggesting that that situation be reversed. should the germans of danzig return? should the ulyensk cossacks?

b’shalom

bananabrain

Sorry, BB, you’re right, I should have said there is a solution under international law and the dictates of common sense morality. And comparing the US’ influence to Iran’s over I/P I must admit that’s a masterstroke!

Shalom aleichem.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Huh? Finkelstein is a cold fish? He has no sense of humour? WTF? Maybe on the debate (which I haven’t seen), but can you blame the guy after that piece of shit Dershowitz’s attempts to stop him getting tenure (which it is a fucking disgrace he doesn’t have).

But I did get to meet Finkelstein once and he certainly didn’t come across as a cold fish, in fact he came across as warm and very friendly. And how can you say he has no sense of humour? have you ever read anything he’s written …ever, have you seen his website? In fact I even emailed him once complementing him, among other things on his great sense of humour — which a lot of other lefties seem to lack– and he responded:

The anarchist Emma Goldman once said, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want your revolution.” I say: “If I can’t laugh I don’t want your revolution.”

The guy rocks, basically.

“Before anybody assumes that I’m Muslim, let me say that I’m an atheist.”

Things really have sunk to a new low when you have to declare yourself an atheist (or in your case non-muslim?) before you feel you would be listened to.

Now, I’ve followed the course of Aaronvitch’s development for the last 10 odd years, and, I feel that he is just another apologist for the fascist/rightwing/Zionist Israelis abusing Palestinians.

I am sure you meant to be nice about Robert Fisk but to put him in the same brackets with Mel Phillips and George Galloway is a little harsh. Fisk might be boring or predictable, but sadly protracted conflicts, like Northern Ireland, are boring, but with his awards for international journalism behing him, Fisk isn’t quite in the same league as those other personalities. He packs out lecture theatres these days – strange thing for a boring journalist. Though I tend to agree Guardian is predictable, stopped taking it seriously a long time ago.

I also think I/P is solvable – where there is a political will, there is a way.

IMO if everybody left them alone, and gave them absolutely no publicity, I think they’d resolve it PDQ. Nature abhors a vaccuum.

These entrenched positions, which are now currency in all manner of Western media channels, journals, publications, blogs etc are reinforced for us, the consumers of information, by obdurate “intellectual” tossers like writer Norman Finkelstein, writer Andrew Cockburn, David Aaranovitch (The Times) and Dr Martin Indyk (from AIPAC).

If you look at circulation figures it turns out that more people care about Richard Littlejohn, football, and breasts than Israel and Palestine.

precisely, which is why my position (without seeing the video) is the following:

the pro-israel lobby does not *stifle* debate, but it does *polarise* it. so does the anti-israel, or pro-palestinian or whatever you call it lobby.

that means that instead of debate you more or less get get mel phillips vs george galloway, or robert fisk if you prefer, with galloway off on an entirely different scale of lunacy – i’m not a fan of fisk, but at least he has principles, even if i don’t agree with them. that’s why most of the I/P debate is so annoying and predictable.

b’shalom

bananabrain