Yet here it is in song at a major Jewish event and no one says a thing.

a respected orthodox zionist rabbi wrote a headline piece in the largest jewish paper in the states, which was picked up here in the largest jewish paper – and that, to you is “no one says a thing”?

sheesh.

b’shalom

bananabrain

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a15922/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

“This Is Zionism?

by Rabbi Sidney Schwarz
…
Then one speaker launched into a tirade about how every American president since Jimmy Carter had betrayed Israel by courting the favor of Arab nations. Applause. Another speaker announced that Hillary Clinton cared more about Palestinian national aspirations than about Israel’s survival. Applause. Candidate for Congress, Elizabeth Berney, slammed Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), chairman of the House Sub-committee on the Middle East for his characterization of Israeli settlement activity in the territories as part of a “destructive dynamic” in the region. More applause.

Then a band launched into a rousing rendition of Am Yisrael Chai. I spent more than 25 years as an activist for Soviet Jewry. This was our theme song signaling solidarity both with the history of our people and with all those oppressed Jews in the world whose cause we championed. A group of young men in their 20′s with kippot and tziztzit were right in front of me dancing in a frenzy. But they alternated the verse that meant “the people of Israel lives” with “all the Arabs must die.” It rhymed with the Hebrew. Given the way all joined in, it was clear that this was not the first time it was sung.

I leaned over to a young man who was next to me, also wearing a kippah and tzitzit. I nodded at the dancers and asked: “Does this song bother you?” He looked at me with a suspicious look and replied: “This is Zionism.”

There were a dozen or so sponsors of the rally including the Zionist Organization of America, Americans for a Safe Israel and the National Council of Young Israel. Rally sponsors cannot control every statement of every speaker and they certainly can not control the actions of those in the audience. Yet the messages from the stage were all in ideological alignment and the MC was generously doling out yasher koachs after each presentation.
…
Jewish leaders are quick to demand that Muslim clergy condemn the extremism that has hijacked Islam into a religion of terrorism and death. We need to make the same demands of the rabbis of institutions whose students make a chillul hashem (a desecration of God’s name) by singing “all the Arabs must die”.

Finally, Jews who love Israel and who want peace need to ask themselves how we can reclaim the public discourse about the future of the Jewish state. Islam is not the only religion that is in danger of being hijacked.”

The last sentence is indeed one that most people are in denial about and the apologists for Memri here well now lets see if they speak out.

Will Melanie Phillips or Memri discuss this? Will Hazel Blears demand clarification that such things do not go on here – well she can’t anymore cause she’s resigned but you get the point!

We’ve had denial after denial here that only an extreme minority of Jews say such things.

Yet here it is in song at a major Jewish event and no one says a thing.

These are not some minor organisations this is what is said about the Zionist Organisation of America:
“”The ZOA is the most credible advocate for Israel on the American Jewish scene today.”
The Wall Street Journal

“The ZOA is one of the most important and influential Jewish groups in the U.S. today.”
The Jerusalem Post”
http://www.zoa.org/content/about_us.asp

First of all yes we should condemn terror – all terror. I happily condemn terror against innocent Jewish people by extremists in the region.

Yes we should build social capital and this is sorely lacking. There is absolutely no reason why the two can’t go hand in hand.

“you’re finally asking a decent question here, one that admits you don’t have all the answers, just as i don’t have all the answers. ask them questions back:

1. what do you mean by british jewry?”

Look the BoD claims to speak for British Jewry so with respect if I say they can its based on their own words;

http://www.boardofdeputies.org.uk/

If you don’t like it ask them to change their slogan not me!

“2. what do you mean by speaking out?”
Speaking out to condemn the actions of Israel.

“3. when you say “israel’s actions”, what do you mean? the army? the settlers? the government? the nation as a whole? do you understand the relationships there?”
I do understand the relationship there and Israels actions are those of the State, Government, IDF, Settlers etc.

“4. why do you think that “israel” would listen to “british jewry”?”
Why do you think they won’t when you’ve never tried hard enough? Israel is dependent upon the Jewish Diaspora for support and influence. If the disapora speaks out Israel has to listen.

Why would Israel stop its present course when its knows that it won’t be told off?

“5. what influence do you think british jewry has on israel?”
Plenty – it just isn’t used and critics are silenced or condemned as self-hating.

“6. why do you think they don’t?”
Huh?

“7. why does it have to be public – who is the real audience? israel – or you?”
Are you for real? Of course it has to be public – Israel and its supporters argue for public condemnation of other states so why the double standard for Israel. Public also means that the hostility between Jewish and Muslims communities abroad is abated because it can be seen that Jewish Organisations are even handed and not biased.

” What reply do I give when I see it as well time and again all I hear is we must stand behind Israel so why shouldn’t the Muslim community stand behind the Palestinians? What reply do I give?

ask more questions:

1. what do you mean by “the muslim community”?”
I mean the Muslim Community – you know what I mean.

“2. what do you mean by “stand behind”?”
As you stand behind the principle of a state for the Jews – Israel – so most Muslims stand behind a state for Palestinians.
“3. what do you mean by “the palestinians”? hamas? mrs ghassam in gaza city with 14 kids? the PNC?”
This is getting silly now!
“4. how are you actually going to help “the palestinians”? what do they need?”
How can I help the Palestinians – well by making them see that the endless violence isn’t getting them anywhere. By helping to improve their daily lives by helping with education, basic needs etc.

“5. how will you know that your help is effective?”
It may not be but we must try.

“6. what would “peace” look like?”
Peace looks like Jews and Muslims living together and not killing each other.

“7. what should “palestine” look like?”
Already told you ’67 borders, military cooperation between the two, rental of borders and airspace by Israel, joint business parks and ventures. Integration of Israel into the region. Israel able to do business in the ME.

Look you and I essentially want the same thing peace in the ME and peace and better community relations here. To get there we need to be just and we can’t hide behind community positions saying our voice doesn’t count.

Frankly if it doesn’t count the feck em and let them carry on killing each other and don’t support them.

If they want our support then its conditional on good governance, justice for all and community harmony.

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Do you not see that there is a difference between support of a state and the actions of the state?

In your heated response and if you had followed the thread you’d see the context of the statement support was in reference to the actions of the state and not the state!

Sheesh!

You can support Israel and criticise its actions towards the Palestinians. That was my point that community organisations can criticise Israel but won’t and the BoD said that they wouldn’t.

Please don’t talk nonsense. I am answering your points and you don’t like that. Your point about a dirty bomb and how Iran and Egypt can supply one was asnwered by the fact they have no reason to!

It isn’t about point scoring – its about understanding that in this dispute the supporters of both sides fail to condemn their own sides excess and denying you can’t do anything and won’t be listened to is nonsense.

Israel will listen to its diaspora and the Palestinians to their diaspora and the wider Muslim world. The failure is that those groups on the outside won’t use their positions to bring peace and won’t use their positions to condemn excesses.

Its a point you are in denial about.

If you don’t want to discuss with me then don’t answer – I didn’t force you to talk to me.

i don’t think i’ve ever met anyone who was quite so obtuse about this. i have tried to clarify my positions over and over again and you are still maintaining that i have said things i haven’t said. i can’t dialogue with someone who has no concept of dialogue. all you appear to understand is point-scoring.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Aaaarrrggghhh!!!!! I support the existence of the State of Israel but not some of the actions of its various governments.

Being fair-minded also involves being fair which involves being somewhat balanced in regards to issues and not taking one side or apologising for one side.

“what on earth do you mean “influential positions”? look, i’m not about to tell you who i actually am, but i think you’re under a bit of a misapprehension about this “influential position”. what do you consider an influential position? i’m not a community worker, a rabbi, a journalist, a teacher, an academic, a fundraiser, a synagogue, movement or communal organisation functionary, or a BoD member. i just know a lot of people who are and all i am is someone who knows and talks to a lot of very different people all over the community, not in any formal or professional sense, purely informal; i am, however, unusual in that i mix in a wide variety of circles, as far as i know. and, as far as i am aware, i *do* act as a check and a balance, but only insofar as the people i know respect my opinions because they know me personally and they know i speak in good faith. i don’t represent anyone.”
Influential in the fact you know lots of influential people and if you behave with them as you do here then how will their view be changed or affected if all their friends are like you?

Sometimes people change due to the influence of friends and family. Olmert was a right winger whose own family disagreed with him and he changed.

“is that your definition of a “decent” israeli? if so, it is really missing a lot of the detail in israeli society.”
In part yes, but also people who stand up for justice, fairness etc.

“but if both sides use any admission by the other to score cheap propaganda points (i don’t think you can accuse me of that with any justice) i would be far more likely to go down that road. all i can tell you is that in the communal conversations i have, we are quite prepared to admit wrong and injustice, but standing up and attempting to speak for the community as a whole (as opposed to a distinct portion of it) is quite simply not something anyone other than the BoD can do – and even they do not speak politically about israel, because there is absolutely no consensus across the community about it other than the most basic acknowledgement that it is basically a good thing – and even that isn’t a complete consensus because it ignores the ultra-orthodox. and guess who the settlers listen to?”

So then if they use it to score points we shouldn’t do whats right or whats needed? It doesn’t matter if you can’t influence Israel but if Israel is hearing criticism it will change and the same applies for the Palestinians. If everyone is uncritical in public then why does either side need to change its approach – they’ll think they have support and carry on and guess what that is what is going on.

Its not about speaking for the whole community but its about standing up.

Imagine if the Germans had bothered to stand up and not gone along with things quite a few people may have survived.

“i’m not mute. i’m simply not doing things by the preferred lefty route of demos, platforms, manifestoes, statements, boycotts, snide journalism and all the other accoutrements of gesture politics. i am changing things, as myself, one person at a time. if every person i influence then goes on to influence other people, just imagine. this is grass-roots activism at its most fundamental and granular. i feel there is very little benefit indeed from sessions on the internet with keyboard warriors, whether jewish or not. politeness, civility, good manners and a presumption of good faith are what i value. i’m not getting that from you recently.”

Same applies to you recently and not just with me especialy on issues of I/P and you are prepared to dish it out for Israel but not listen back.

“when they feel that there is someone that actually wants to make peace with them, not just trying to turn every advantage no matter how small into a bigger chance to advance the “final solution” that abbas zaki appears to want. not firing rockets over the border to no purpose would be a start.”
Back to form. What is the definition of someone who wants to talk and while they claim to want to talk they are establishing facts on the ground which is hardly the mode of people wanting peace.

“nobody asked me. i object to them doing that. do they care? no. is there anything i could say, in any forum, that would make them care? no. with all due respect, imran, if they’re prepared to tell hillary clinton to feck off then what difference does it make what anyone in the jewish diaspora, let alone the UK, says?”
Thats just a cop out and is the reason the situation continues as it does. We can’t do anything and they won’t listen to us so lets stay silent and offer suppot. The reason they won’t listen to Hilary is because they know the diapora will back them mostly uncritically.

If the diaspora can’t influence Israel then why support it and why do all the lefty things you so hate such as news appearances, rallies, petitions etc. in support of Israel. It is ironic that you say no to lefty ideals when Israel is to be criticised and do them when Israel is to be supported.

If they won’t listen to you then why give them a platform in return? Why hold Israel National Days in the Square etc. when they ignore you and why do those lefty things to say to Israel you are alright when you won’t do them when they are wrong?

What message does that send to Israel apart from an uncritical one. Why have religious leaders in this country eulogise Israel and then mute themselves when the need to be critical is there?

The diaspora in the USA and UK are supportive of Israel and do everythiong you say the left do and I dare say you take part in these events probably or some of them and yet when it comes to criticism then it won’t have influence.

If it won’t have influence why have events in London which cost taxpayers money in support of Israel.

“no, you’re right. this is about the way that the settlers have co-opted the organs of government and that is a matter for the israeli electorate and political system. there is very little i can do about it other than criticise it when there is an appropriate opportunity, but this thread ain’t it.”
Which is the time for the diaspora to say enough is enough and not just celebrate all the time. At the Israel National Day celebrations why can’t speakers say the are unhappy why the support solely and not the messages. If this isn’t the forum and I accept it might not be what is? The Chief Rabbi keeps saying as do the BoD that it is right to criticise Israel but now isn’t the time or this isn’t the place so when and where? Its never happened. All they want is 100% uncritical support for Israel which is why you have Louise Ellman and her LFI which is also so uncritical.

Where are these fictional places where criticism is to take place?

Israel will never change its course if it knows it can rely upon you and others to never say anything especially publicly and it can then threaten Hilary and co. with its support base. Hey guess what thats what happens!

“that’s because they’re behind the scenes. look, it’s you that’s talking nonsense. the board just elected a peace now activist and one who was a founder member of the new israel fund. if you don’t understand the significance of that then you don’t really understand anything. the BoD has always been dominated by the mainstream united synagogue as they are the most numerous in the UK and those people tend to be likud sympathisers to a greater or lesser degree. similarly, most of the reps are in their 50s and 60s and generally more conservative even when they are from the reform or liberal movements. finally, it is moving to represent the far more centrist view of the community as a whole. BUT – and this is a very big BUT, you are completely misunderstanding what the board does if you think it is there to take positions on israel which are by definition party political IN ISRAELI TERMS. any criticism would be the same. that is simply not what the board does.”

Frankly this is stinking hypocracy because they demand public statements for Palestinian Terror which is fair enough but then want to do things behind doors for Israeli State Terror. Thats comical.

ALso if that isn’t what the board does then why the need to criticise the Palestinians because that isn’t what the board does because it isn’t involved in ME Politics or it is selectively.

Can’t you see that what you say is part of the problem. The baord won’t criticise Israel but will criticise those that do! Also if that isn’t what the Board or the Chief Rabbi do then why do they have positions for people who do advocacy for Israel -s what they do is in fact give Israel uncritical support which is what Israel relies on so yes they do it but only one way.

“because, you ignoramus, israelis think they fecking know it all. they have an amazing ability (like most people) to be selective with what criticism they take up and what they ignore. that goes for us too.”
If they won’t listen then why support them? You can’t have it both ways. Why the need then for lobby groups for Israel by non-Israeli’s? Frankly you are talking nonsense – its not that they won’t listen its the fact they know they won’t get any criticism which drives them on.

“oh my G!D this is so fecking *vague* and clueless about the relationship between israel and the diaspora. israel is not steered by the opinions of the diaspora, nor, up until at the very least 1982, has there ever been much of a difference of opinion about whether they were going about it the right way. there hasn’t even been the *option* of peace until 1989 at the earliest. when you say things like this this reveals to me what a gulf of understanding there is – yet you won’t accept that your understanding is in any way deficient. how about this statement of yours:”

No your is deficient and you are selective about the portrayal. Fine there was no partner until 1989 but why couldn’t they be told not to build settlements? Why were people jumping up to support Israel saying at the time they would be demolished when peace came and now they say they are facts on the ground?

Its the lack of criticism and toeing the Israeli line that has us partly where we are. Its the same with the other side because there was no criticism and people followed their line they carried on without a blind hope of achieving their aims!

“do you still not understand that the diaspora doesn’t have a say in the matter?”
If they don’t as you claim then why blindly support a country that won’t listen to you? You want it boths ways. Why give it money and support? You wouldn’t do it elsewhere so why for Israel when it has such contempt it won’t listen to you?

Israel uses the dispora as leverage and this fictional claim the dispora doesn’t have influence is not true because of the funding and support Israel relies on.

Its not that Israel won’t listen its that it doesn’t have to because the leverage is never used.

Al-Quaeeda won’t listen to Muslims in the West but does that mean we give up? Oh no we are told we have to speak out against terror even in Israel and shouldn’t support it.

“if the offer doesn’t come from people who can deliver, what is the point of negotiating? can the OIC stop the iranians and syrians? can they stop the fundraising for terrorist groups in the gulf? the arab press doesn’t think so. they’re promising far too much. of course it can be negotiated but it has to start from a realistic basis. otherwise, it’s just grandstanding.”
That is nonsense, any starting point is just that a starting point. From here you bring people on board and show people peace is achievable and then yes you can stop it.

How can you stop something if you don’t start somewhere?

“well, that is precisely what rabin, barak, sharon and olmert tried to do – but they’re a tough nut to crack. not for nothing are there periodic predictions of an israeli civil war. you don’t seem to get this.”
No you don’t get it – there won’t be civil war.The right will just melt away as it always does. They are bullying to get their way because no one will stand up to them. The issue is used by the very politicians you name to avoid agreement as they always say to the USA, UK etc. oh we have to deal with the right and they won’t like this and we have to go slowly. Its propoganda and no other country uses this like Israel.

By your logic the government here could keep saying that it has a right wing to deal with but guess what they don’t.

Does dealing with a right wing mean you avoid the necessary?

“because the BoD are british, not israeli. there are plenty of groups standing up to the israeli right and they are well-represented in this country, the new israel fund, british friends of peace now, kibbutz movement, the youth movements, much of the progressive synagogue movements, most of the academics, about half the journalists and so on. the BoD, as i’ve said, cannot be seen to be taking party political sides in terms of israeli politics.”
Then why ask others to? Why then provide uncritical support? If you can’t take sides then stay quiet but they won’t do that either? Why act as an advocate and fail to be critical? Its simply a case of wanting it both ways.

“walk into any shop on the edgware road and look at the collection boxes. look at who pays for the islamic books in the mosques. read the FSA report on hawala and money-laundering. look at zogby! look at the feckin’ al-yamamah oil deal, for feck’s sake!!”
Thats not money spent to support the Palestinians or their position is it. Was the al-y deal money to support Palestine?

“i’ve never heard that about arabs, especially not in jewish circles, but we certainly have that joke about ourselves.”
I have – I do know a lot of Jewish people you know and I laughed with them when they said this as its so true!

Thats why I find your position so difficult to grasp because even ardent zionists I’ve spoken to from the right are vastly different to you or maybe thats just the way you are presently coming across.

“right, that must be why the bbc is so balanced on israel that it had to have an internal inquiry. as for the american press, i’m not especially interested in what they have to say. i am not denying that memri has influence, but this all begins to sound painfully like the well-known myth of jewish media power, oh, they’re all-powerful and we poor muslims can’t do anything. what a crock.”

I didn’t say Jewish Media Power so please don’t twist my words. As I have said to you in the past I’ve heard Israeli Commentators say that if the Arab world used its wealth and used it well then Pro-Israelis wouldn’t have such an easy time and that is true.

As the World Superpower influencing the USA is critical and Memri is able to do that.

“that’ll be news to the israelis.”
Please don’t talk nonsense – as people know Al-Jazeerah became very popular amongst Israelis during the Gaza Conflict becauseit was neutral so many turnt to them for a more balanced view than what they were getting. Check out Hareetz they had the story at the time.

“hizbollah still managed to use their “crude” rockets to get a million people in the north of israel into the bomb shelters in 2006. that’s the point – israeli military sophistication is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of irregular, ubiquitious low-level attrition warfare. and, to my knowledge, israel has neither chemical (i don’t include white phosphorous) nor biological weapons. i would be most upset if they did. that would be a desecration of the Divine Name.”

Oh please – Israel is a mass producer of Chemical and Biological weapons and this is well known.

“In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[2] Former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 “I have no doubt that Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long time … There’s no doubt they’ve had stuff for years”.[11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

“right, because nuclear material can’t be passed to terrorist groups for use in a “dirty bomb”? absurd.”

Frankly you are being an idiot. Why would Egypt give a dirty bomb to terrorists when its impactwill affect Egypt as well. Why would Iran when it would bring similar response and wipe out Iran. You are being a dick now. Any dirty bomb in Israel will be met with a nuclear strike most likely on Iran so why would thye give it when their influence is spreading. It would set back their efforts.

“what am i now, dr evil? i can’t believe on the basis of what you say that you actually have an acquaintance beyond the denizens of JfJfP and the jewish socialists group.”
I don’t talk to any groups at all just ordinary Jews including right wing Zionists.

Will answer your other points later

‘Israel should remember Nakba day

Trying to erase Palestinian history by banning Nakba day would not strengthen Israel but undermine it’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/28/israel-palestine-nakba-day

What caught my eye was this comment from someone who would usually be supportive of Israel, and for me it captures the essence of the debate:

TrueLeft
28 May 09, 4:56pm (about 9 hours ago)
For nearly two thousand years Jews in Europe were subject to oppression and violence, seemingly eternal refugees- fleeing one place and driven out of another.

During that time the reason for the exclusion, the attacks, the lack of rights, was in large part based on two things: an alternative view of history (and especially historiography) from the Christian majority, and a faith-based prohibition against oaths of fealty to worldly authority. We didn’t place any great import on Jesus’ life or death while Christians not only disagreed but held us responsible for the crucifixtion; and we refused to swear our loyalty to kings and kingdoms because Jewish law contains a specific interdiction against oaths.

It is therefore particularly ironic and distressing that the Jewish State may try to impose similar prerequisites upon its minorities as were placed upon Jews as conditions for equal rights. Such a history may not place upon Jews any obligation to be more understanding of the situation in which minorities exist (such an obligation is present in every society regardless of whether it itself suffered as a minority), but it does at least raise the hopes of such comprehension. Vain hopes, it turns out.

The Jewish Torah states in numerous places that we must treat minorities among us with compassion because we were a minority of slaves in Egypt. To that we can now add our experience during exile. But the religious authorities in Israel are strangely silent regarding a pair of bills which criminalise another’s history, and which require very non-Jewish oaths of fealty. These authorities are Zionists before they are Jews, apparently.

Jews were dispossesed refugees, without rights and vulnerable to attack by the majorities among which they lived for two thousand years. Palestinians are now in precisely the same situation. We Jews and our Palestinian brothers are taking turns at being the dispossessed- we should be trying to make the duration of their exile as short as possible. Instead, the Jewish State is the jailor, the torturer, the executioner. Since that is the case, “Jewish State” is a misnomer perhaps.

So Shabi is quite right: the ones pursuing these laws are the greatest risk to the Jewish State. The danger for Jews is that the Jewish State will simply be the Zionist State and Jews themselves will be as Stateless as the Palestinians before too long.

How can it not be propoganda when you and the Israeli spokepeople quote from the same sheet?

i don’t see that i do such a thing at all. that is what you are saying, not what i am saying. take what mark regev has just said about justifying “natural growth” in settlements, rebuffing hillary clinton’s call for a freeze. i agree with her, not with him. it is unsophisticated in the extreme for you to do as you continually do, to seize upon any point of agreement i have with anyone even vaguely right-wing in order to claim that i am some sort of secret right-winger. it does you a disservice.

if as you claim you are neutral then you wouldn’t.

am i not saying this right? i am NOT neutral, i am NOT impartial and i am NOT objective – BUT NEITHER ARE YOU. i simply strive to be fair-minded. what do you not get about this?

It does further peace because it illustrates that people like you in influential positions are pushing for peace. Its not about signing up its about acting as a check and balance.

what on earth do you mean “influential positions”? look, i’m not about to tell you who i actually am, but i think you’re under a bit of a misapprehension about this “influential position”. what do you consider an influential position? i’m not a community worker, a rabbi, a journalist, a teacher, an academic, a fundraiser, a synagogue, movement or communal organisation functionary, or a BoD member. i just know a lot of people who are and all i am is someone who knows and talks to a lot of very different people all over the community, not in any formal or professional sense, purely informal; i am, however, unusual in that i mix in a wide variety of circles, as far as i know. and, as far as i am aware, i *do* act as a check and a balance, but only insofar as the people i know respect my opinions because they know me personally and they know i speak in good faith. i don’t represent anyone.

So you are saying most Israelis don’t want a two state solution?

is that your definition of a “decent” israeli? if so, it is really missing a lot of the detail in israeli society.

with respect if both sides can’t admit wrong, injustice and simply revert to defensive positions then how does that move them forward.

but if both sides use any admission by the other to score cheap propaganda points (i don’t think you can accuse me of that with any justice) i would be far more likely to go down that road. all i can tell you is that in the communal conversations i have, we are quite prepared to admit wrong and injustice, but standing up and attempting to speak for the community as a whole (as opposed to a distinct portion of it) is quite simply not something anyone other than the BoD can do – and even they do not speak politically about israel, because there is absolutely no consensus across the community about it other than the most basic acknowledgement that it is basically a good thing – and even that isn’t a complete consensus because it ignores the ultra-orthodox. and guess who the settlers listen to?

Ok so don’t join in, so by being mute then how does your methodology move things forward?

i’m not mute. i’m simply not doing things by the preferred lefty route of demos, platforms, manifestoes, statements, boycotts, snide journalism and all the other accoutrements of gesture politics. i am changing things, as myself, one person at a time. if every person i influence then goes on to influence other people, just imagine. this is grass-roots activism at its most fundamental and granular. i feel there is very little benefit indeed from sessions on the internet with keyboard warriors, whether jewish or not. politeness, civility, good manners and a presumption of good faith are what i value. i’m not getting that from you recently.

If there is no check or balance of Israel by people like you then what will make Israel stop and make peace.

when they feel that there is someone that actually wants to make peace with them, not just trying to turn every advantage no matter how small into a bigger chance to advance the “final solution” that abbas zaki appears to want. not firing rockets over the border to no purpose would be a start.

Today they have said they intend to carry on taking more land and has anyone said anything

nobody asked me. i object to them doing that. do they care? no. is there anything i could say, in any forum, that would make them care? no. with all due respect, imran, if they’re prepared to tell hillary clinton to feck off then what difference does it make what anyone in the jewish diaspora, let alone the UK, says?

How does staying quiet bring peace because that policy hasn’t stopped settlement activity has it now?

no, you’re right. this is about the way that the settlers have co-opted the organs of government and that is a matter for the israeli electorate and political system. there is very little i can do about it other than criticise it when there is an appropriate opportunity, but this thread ain’t it.

Frankly you are talking complete nonsense and it shows. As reported and I quoted here the BoD elections as reported by the JC reaffirmed that no criticism of Israel was going to be made and that Israeli politicians were welcome to visit the board. These behind the scene discussions you allude to are not what is being reported by the Jewish Communities own media.

that’s because they’re behind the scenes. look, it’s you that’s talking nonsense. the board just elected a peace now activist and one who was a founder member of the new israel fund. if you don’t understand the significance of that then you don’t really understand anything. the BoD has always been dominated by the mainstream united synagogue as they are the most numerous in the UK and those people tend to be likud sympathisers to a greater or lesser degree. similarly, most of the reps are in their 50s and 60s and generally more conservative even when they are from the reform or liberal movements. finally, it is moving to represent the far more centrist view of the community as a whole. BUT – and this is a very big BUT, you are completely misunderstanding what the board does if you think it is there to take positions on israel which are by definition party political IN ISRAELI TERMS. any criticism would be the same. that is simply not what the board does.

Where such things happen in the Muslim community you are the first to criticise it

no. i’m sorry, but you keep saying this and there’s no evidence of it. this thread was started by sunny, criticising mel phillips about something that the palestinian ambassador said. i fail to see how that is something “in the muslim community”. if someone brings something to my attention, i will criticise it. i don’t spend my time like some surfing the web looking for muslim silliness to point my finger at.

You are clueless in the fact that if the diapora won’t bring pressure on Israel then why woudl Israel change its policies.

because, you ignoramus, israelis think they fecking know it all. they have an amazing ability (like most people) to be selective with what criticism they take up and what they ignore. that goes for us too.

In the past 40 years what has staying silent done to make Israel change course?

oh my G!D this is so fecking *vague* and clueless about the relationship between israel and the diaspora. israel is not steered by the opinions of the diaspora, nor, up until at the very least 1982, has there ever been much of a difference of opinion about whether they were going about it the right way. there hasn’t even been the *option* of peace until 1989 at the earliest. when you say things like this this reveals to me what a gulf of understanding there is – yet you won’t accept that your understanding is in any way deficient. how about this statement of yours:

Why can’t the diaspora come back with a counter offer?

do you still not understand that the diaspora doesn’t have a say in the matter?

Then why can’t it be negotiated or why can’t Israel come back with a counter offer?

if the offer doesn’t come from people who can deliver, what is the point of negotiating? can the OIC stop the iranians and syrians? can they stop the fundraising for terrorist groups in the gulf? the arab press doesn’t think so. they’re promising far too much. of course it can be negotiated but it has to start from a realistic basis. otherwise, it’s just grandstanding.

A peace deal would then expose Iran’s position and if it carried on then it would be exposed and then dealt with.

i fear you have far higher expectations of iran’s commitment to fair play than i do.

Oh please this is another standard propoganda line – we have to deal with the Israeli right and they are so tough. They wouldn’t be so tough if people stood up to them.

well, that is precisely what rabin, barak, sharon and olmert tried to do – but they’re a tough nut to crack. not for nothing are there periodic predictions of an israeli civil war. you don’t seem to get this.

Why then is the BoD choosing to stand up to the BNP but scared of standing up to the Israeli Right?

because the BoD are british, not israeli. there are plenty of groups standing up to the israeli right and they are well-represented in this country, the new israel fund, british friends of peace now, kibbutz movement, the youth movements, much of the progressive synagogue movements, most of the academics, about half the journalists and so on. the BoD, as i’ve said, cannot be seen to be taking party political sides in terms of israeli politics.

Of course I am serious. How much do the Arabs spend on even promoting themselves, their religion and the Palestinian cause.

walk into any shop on the edgware road and look at the collection boxes. look at who pays for the islamic books in the mosques. read the FSA report on hawala and money-laundering. look at zogby! look at the feckin’ al-yamamah oil deal, for feck’s sake!!

If you knew about such things as you claim then you’d know that even in Jewish circles there is a joke that each time the Arabs need to do some promotion they set up a number of committees, who then rarely ever deliver a strategy and the whole project dies away. They also joke that getting a decision from them is painfully slow.

i’ve never heard that about arabs, especially not in jewish circles, but we certainly have that joke about ourselves.

The BBC actively quotes from Memri and many discussion on Newsnight, BBC News etc. actively quote Memri and you know this so please don’t try and make out otherwise.

right, that must be why the bbc is so balanced on israel that it had to have an internal inquiry. as for the american press, i’m not especially interested in what they have to say. i am not denying that memri has influence, but this all begins to sound painfully like the well-known myth of jewish media power, oh, they’re all-powerful and we poor muslims can’t do anything. what a crock.

Al-Jazeera is hardly pro-Palestinian its neutral

that’ll be news to the israelis.

You are so biased you can’t bring yourself to admit….blah blah blah

ok, now you’re hectoring me again. i’m not interested when you do this.

Oh yes a real danger, rockets that are crude, cehnical and biological weapons that are a fraction of the size and less sophisticated that Israels.

hizbollah still managed to use their “crude” rockets to get a million people in the north of israel into the bomb shelters in 2006. that’s the point – israeli military sophistication is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the face of irregular, ubiquitious low-level attrition warfare. and, to my knowledge, israel has neither chemical (i don’t include white phosphorous) nor biological weapons. i would be most upset if they did. that would be a desecration of the Divine Name.

your Israeli Embassy manual

stop it, imran. you’re being a dick now.

So tell me how Egypt and Iran’s CIVILIAN NUCLEAR programmes are a danger when they CANNOT in their present state be used for military means?

right, because nuclear material can’t be passed to terrorist groups for use in a “dirty bomb”? absurd.

The Jewish Community I know is far different to you and that is why I fear your influence over them.

what am i now, dr evil? i can’t believe on the basis of what you say that you actually have an acquaintance beyond the denizens of JfJfP and the jewish socialists group.

As I recall when the religious influence in the IDF was highlighted you were quiet!

sad to say, i do not sit around all day waiting to post on PP. besides, you just mentioned it – and i just gave my opinion. but no, that’s not good enough, is it?

Also I would be grateful if your could explain to me what I am supposed to say everytime I speak in my community of the need for peace and understanding, to condemn terror when I get told that British Jewry doesn’t speak out against Israel’s actions so why should we?

maybe condemning terror is not the answer. perhaps we should be starting by actually building some relationships and social capital, not an adversarial campaign based on an argument 3000 miles away. you’re finally asking a decent question here, one that admits you don’t have all the answers, just as i don’t have all the answers. ask them questions back:

1. what do you mean by british jewry?
2. what do you mean by speaking out?
3. when you say “israel’s actions”, what do you mean? the army? the settlers? the government? the nation as a whole? do you understand the relationships there?
4. why do you think that “israel” would listen to “british jewry”?
5. what influence do you think british jewry has on israel?
6. why do you think they don’t?
7. why does it have to be public – who is the real audience? israel – or you?

What reply do I give when I see it as well time and again all I hear is we must stand behind Israel so why shouldn’t the Muslim community stand behind the Palestinians? What reply do I give?

ask more questions:

1. what do you mean by “the muslim community”?
2. what do you mean by “stand behind”?
3. what do you mean by “the palestinians”? hamas? mrs ghassam in gaza city with 14 kids? the PNC?
4. how are you actually going to help “the palestinians”? what do they need?
5. how will you know that your help is effective?
6. what would “peace” look like?
7. what should “palestine” look like?

This is why I am saying to you that there must be calls for justice and criticism where needed of Israel and not the Mel approach of uncritical support because its leading to problems.

all i can say to you is that there is such a dialogue and if you are unaware of it then perhaps it is not a dialogue that you are part of. maybe it’s a conversation we need to have with ourselves. maybe the question of the palestinians is a conversation you guys need to have with yourselves.

b’shalom

bananabrain

‘if the diapora won’t bring pressure on Israel then why woudl Israel change its policies.’

This has got to be right. There is the view that the diaspora can be more right wing than Israeli citizens on matters concerning Israel.

What reply do I give when I see it as well time and again all I hear is we must stand behind Israel so why shouldn’t the Muslim community stand behind the Palestinians? What reply do I give?

This is why I am saying to you that there must be calls for justice and criticism where needed of Israel and not the Mel approach of uncritical support because its leading to problems.

Staying quiet is bringing a similar response on the Muslim side and it just brings more problems.

So tell me what do I say?

How can it not be propoganda when you and the Israeli spokepeople quote from the same sheet? An Israeli spokeman will use propoganda but if as you claim you are neutral then you wouldn’t.

“but you have to insist on my signing up to a pointless and, moreover, tendentious series of condemnations which do nothing in my opinion to further the cause of peace. you then call that “objectivity”. codswallop.”
It does further peace because it illustrates that people like you in influential positions are pushing for peace. Its not about signing up its about acting as a check and balance.

“i don’t remember you being crowned king of defining what “most people’s standards” are. which people? defined by who? and who defines what a “decent israeli” is? you? you sound like one of those trotskyist types who defines “the good of the people” as being the same thing as “whatever i and my chums in the politburo define as the good of the people”.”
So you are saying most Israelis don’t want a two state solution?

“how does my joining in with a chorus of condemnation that nobody apart from a sort of international marriage-of-convenience between lefties and muslims is interested in? how does me giving you a nice warm self-satisfied feeling bring peace to the middle east, imran? tell me, because i really want to know. i fail to see how increasing the amount of pompous self-congratulation in the blogosphere does anything to get the palestinians and israelis out of the firing line.”

This is nonsense and with respect if both sides can’t admit wrong, injustice and simply revert to defensive positions then how does that move them forward.

Ok so don’t join in, so by being mute then how does your methodology move things forward?

If there is no check or balance of Israel by people like you then what will make Israel stop and make peace. Today they have said they intend to carry on taking more land and has anyone said anything so how does that further peace?

How does staying quiet bring peace because that policy hasn’t stopped settlement activity has it now?

“yet again you reveal just how little you understand the community. did you check what happened in the board of deputies chair elections, imran? do you hear the conversations that i hear, the disgust with the t-shirts, the impatience with the settlers, the rude remarks about israeli hard-headedness? that is one thing. however, if you think that netanyahu and lieberman are sitting around waiting for the UK BoD, let alone the jewish chronicle or the limmud conference to pass judgement on their defence policy you are utterly clueless. it matters what the americans say – and i’m not even talking about AIPAC here. look at the budgets, because it is the bottom line that is going to make the difference, not some self-indulgent one-page ad in a newspaper signed by a bunch of leftie actors and academics.”

Frankly you are talking complete nonsense and it shows. As reported and I quoted here the BoD elections as reported by the JC reaffirmed that no criticism of Israel was going to be made and that Israeli politicians were welcome to visit the board. These behind the scene discussions you allude to are not what is being reported by the Jewish Communities own media.

Where such things happen in the Muslim community you are the first to criticise it and now its oyur own community you are using the old trust us line that things are being discussed which is at odds over the statements being made by the BoD. Are you then saying the BoD is lying?

You are clueless in the fact that if the diapora won’t bring pressure on Israel then why woudl Israel change its policies.

In the past 40 years what has staying silent done to make Israel change course?The settlement acticity and colonisation of East Jerusalem has increased not decreased. So you are advocating a continuation of a policy that is failing daily, monthly and yearly.

Its nonsense and you can’t see that the everytime building a failure to condemn such things brings the tensions we see.

“it is a vague offer and so hedged about with preconditions that it is all but meaningless. it is a jumping-off point, not a final deal – and it doesn’t include iran, who hold the purse strings and the keys to the ammo dumps for hamas and hizbollah – or syria.”
Then why can’t it be negotiated or why can’t Israel come back with a counter offer? Why can’t the diaspora come back with a counter offer? WHy just sit there and say its not good and here is a counter offer.

Iran will be neutralised by peace not by avoiding peace. By saying it doesn’t include Iran highlights you lack of understanding – the deal is accepted by the OIC of which Iran is a member. Iran would lose big time by derailing any deal so they have said they will abide by any peace deal the Palestinians make.

A peace deal would then expose Iran’s position and if it carried on then it would be exposed and then dealt with.

“yes, it’s got nothing to do with the fact that the egyptians are doing feck-all to help the palestinians as per usual except to use them to focus the anger on the street away from the dictatorship and onto the zionist whipping boy. do you remember sandmonkey, imran? i do. i wonder what’s happened to him in mubarak’s prison system?”
No doubt and I’ve said this to you before. But as I said this to you before the biggest winner of peace is Isreal. The zionist whipping boy can stop getting a whipping by pursuing peace.

“i can see ‘em all right, i just don’t give the same weight to my wishful thinking as you do to yours.”
Your wishful thinking is all about support and that wholesale support is being abused to carry on with settlement activity and ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem.

“yeah, you clearly know so much about the attitude of the israeli right (there’s only one, is there?) don’t you? you should try dealing with a real hard-arse hardalnik some time. go pick a fight with the people on the arutz sheva forums, why don’t you?”
Oh please this is another standard propoganda line – we have to deal with the Israeli right and they are so tough. They wouldn’t be so tough if people stood up to them.

If people won’t stand up to this bully then it won’t stop.

This is the same bullshit used by people like Bibi – we have the right to deal with.

Why then is the BoD choosing to stand up to the BNP but scared of standing up to the Israeli Right?

“in the words of john mcenroe, you cannot be serious. *jaw drops*”
Of course I am serious. How much do the Arabs spend on even promoting themselves, their religion and the Palestinian cause. If you knew about such things as you claim then you’d know that even in Jewish circles there is a joke that each time the Arabs need to do some promotion they set up a number of committees, who then rarely ever deliver a strategy and the whole project dies away. They also joke that getting a decision from them is painfully slow.

“yes, clearly the indy and the guardian and the bbc are all in thrall to the dreadful clutches of memri. deary deary me.”

The BBC actively quotes from Memri and many discussion on Newsnight, BBC News etc. actively quote Memri and you know this so please don’t try and make out otherwise.

Sky News, Fox News, NBC, CBS, ABC etc all quote Memri.

The right wing press all quote Memri so why the denials?

“that’s funny, i have al-jazeera on my sky box and every arabic speaker i know watches it. press tv (ok, it’s iranian, not arab) is advertising on the tube.”
These are new projects and Al-Jazeera is hardly pro-Palestinian its neutral and doesn’t have the reach into the circles of Power in the UK and USA that Memri does.

How many MP’s will listen to PressTV compared to Memri briefings?

Why deny the reach of Memri when it supplies its briefings to so many on Capitol Hill?

Does Press TV or Al-Jazeerah do that? Nope.

This is classic whatabouterry from you to divert the fact that Memri has substantail reach into the corridors of power where decisions are made.

You are so biased you can’t bring yourself to admit the power and reach of Memri and the grave danger of their biased work being used to set the agenda – unless of course you approve of their aims and agenda?

“what are you now, a lawyer? you asked for clarification, i gave it. i still think he’s dovish, because i clearly define “dovish” differently from you. if you think aaronovitch is not dovish then clearly the definition of “objective” you are working to is, as i have previously pointed out, not one i recognise.”
Yes I am As I said Aaronovitch himself says he isn’t dovish so you take on his position is quite revealing. Aaronovitch at one time was dovish but his own experiences took him in the same direction as Mel.

“i suppose the hizbollah rocket arsenal, the pakistani bomb, the syrian chemical and biological weapons facilities, the egyptian and iranian nuclear programmes, those are all there (to quote omid djalili) because they have a really powerful power shower? that’s to say nothing of the hordes of fanatical guerrillas armed, trained, educated and equipped with funds from iran, saudi and the gulf, those were just created in the name of performance art, were they?”
Oh yes a real danger, rockets that are crude, cehnical and biological weapons that are a fraction of the size and less sophisticated that Israels. Nuclear programmes that as you well know are for civilian purposes as they are not producing military grade material are a really hyped danger that your Israeli Embassy manual is telling you to say pose a military threat!

So tell me how Egypt and Iran’s CIVILIAN NUCLEAR programmes are a danger when they CANNOT in their present state be used for military means?

Also then tell us which country in the region has active nuclear weapons despite lying and saying they won’t introduce them to the region?

Armed guerrilas who have crude weaponary. That isn’t to excuse them but its hardly a major threat to such a powerful army as Israel’s.

Come on be serious a couple of fanatical idiots with crude weapons hardly constitute an threat to end the state of Israel.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with you that Iran needs to be stopped but the best way to end Iran’s influence is peace.

Also please don’t make hype where there isn’t any, Egypt, Pakistan and Iran have nuclear programmes which are of no threat to Israel and trying to imply they are is factually incorrect and simplymaking hype for Israel.

“yes, it must be that i’m on the payroll, isn’t it? it couldn’t possibly be that you’re talking absolute bollocks?”
Even if I am talking bollocks your position matches closely the hype of the Israeli Embassy and you utter the same nonsense. From them its understandable but from you who claims to be objective its a contradiction.

“imran, this is a pointless exercise from the outset, that is what i am saying to you. i have little confidence in your judgement at this point because you appear to be saying that i am a liar and a right-wing apologist on the payroll of the israeli embassy. i don’t see a great deal of point in continuing to discuss it if you can’t deal with the basics of dialogue.”
I knew you’d never do this. You want one sided criticism of the Palestinians alone. It isn’t a pointless excerise because if we cannot be honest about injustices then how do we move forward?

I didn’t say you were a liar but I don’t see you as a champion of a just peace and I do see you as someone who just blindly follows the lines of Israel.

We can’t deal with the basics of dialogue if the dialogue is one sided. You expect and demand criticism of terror from the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims and won’t do the same yourself.

“look, i don’t post here under my real-world name for work-related reasons and i don’t appreciate your tone, it is somewhat threatening. i also think you should be steering clear of the issue of “revealing secret identities” if i were you. what i have to say here are real opinions and they are based on a closer acquaintance with the jewish community than you obviously have. you are so far from the centre you can’t even come to terms with the fact that i’m not actually right wing.”
I didn’t ask for your name – I asked for your position and I predicted you’d hidebehind I can’t reveal my position as it affects my identity which is exactly what you did.

The Jewish Community I know is far different to you and that is why I fear your influence over them. They are for peace, for greater dialogue between Muslims and Jews which is what I dearly want. Your position is for all that on Pro-Israel terms which is a long trem danger and that worries me. I see you as a barrier to better relations and peace based on your own statements.

How can my tone be threatening when all I am asking for is your position?

I’d say your position and rhetoric is threatening.

“i don’t accept your right to dictate the terms of dialogue and engagement. objectivity is, as i have already said, irrelevant and, moreover, your own continued attempts to appear objective are really not working.”
Says the man who is not objective. How difficult is it to admit injustice? I did it but I’ve never seen you do it. You wanted to sit down with Lieberman and you excused a Senior Chief Rabbi’s call for ethnic cleansing and yet when a Muslim extremist comes here you are so vocal and always say they are danger to your personal existence.

“again with imputing positions to me that i do not hold. i will claim what i like – there are people here who understand me a lot better than you do. you have not the least clue and that is rather sad considering how long you’ve been posting here.”
I find it sad that in all the time you’ve been posting here you make wild claims about the positions you hold and yet your own statements and actions are a direct contrast to your claimed positions.

“i’m not mute at it. i’m just not joining the high-kicking respect party chorus line along choreographed by busby galloway.”
You are mute when you won’t even make criticism under an assumed name which you use here.

I’m not asking you to make unwarrated criticism of Israel what I am asking is that you follow the same thing with regards to Israel that you are askign Muslims to do with regards to extremism in our community. You want Muslims to be vocal and speak out about extremism in the Muslim community which I back but then you are failing to do the same in your own community.

“i’ve been quite clear about my criticisms (the piece above about the settler lobby trying to subvert the army into fighting a religious war is a particular case in point in which i think you and i are in complete accord), but i don’t think anyone here apart from you is actually disputing that, but you are quite obtuse in that regard. what i won’t do is ask “how high?” when you tell me in that high-handed fashion to jump.”
As I recall when the religious influence in the IDF was highlighted you were quiet! So how do people knwo that you are in accord with people who disagree with this.

The best way to combat extremism and terror is to acknowledge it and its effects in each community. How does that happen when people excuse one and get hysterical about the other?

Ah the victim card being played again.

it’s got nothing to do with the victim card. this is simply you, yet again, failing to comprehend that your opinion about what constitutes “objectivity” is itself a biased opinion and, further, to continue to maintain against any logic that objectivity is something both attainable and desirable. this is a massive set of quite unwarranted presumptions and one which i wholeheartedly dispute. referring to my opinions as “propaganda” is a case in point. you don’t like them, so you’re calling them propaganda. i could, perfectly easily and with good reason, dismiss your opinions in the same way. i don’t, because it’s a pointless conversation. you have failed to convince me and so you have resorted to rhetoric.

I’ve actually been more objective than you can ever be.

well, hurrah for you. i hereby award you the nobel prize for objectivity and the mrs joyful prize for raffia work. congratulations. now what?

At least I put down what I saw as a viable peace solution which was good for Israel and the Palestinians which you agreed with in a previous thread. However when I asked you to put down your position you refused so who is objective!

so, you’re saying that a viable peace solution which i agreed with in a previous thread, requires me to “put down my position” again? why don’t you just read the thread again if it makes you happy? that is what ticks me off, that it isn’t enough for you to be happy with broad outlines (as if it makes any difference what you and i agree) but you have to insist on my signing up to a pointless and, moreover, tendentious series of condemnations which do nothing in my opinion to further the cause of peace. you then call that “objectivity”. codswallop.

No by most people’s standards including most decent Israelis.

i don’t remember you being crowned king of defining what “most people’s standards” are. which people? defined by who? and who defines what a “decent israeli” is? you? you sound like one of those trotskyist types who defines “the good of the people” as being the same thing as “whatever i and my chums in the politburo define as the good of the people”.

The simple fact is that if either side needs full hearted criticism then it shouldn’t be avoided – tell me with your avoidance of full hearted criticism what do you achieve apart from continuing a sad situation.

how does my joining in with a chorus of condemnation that nobody apart from a sort of international marriage-of-convenience between lefties and muslims is interested in? how does me giving you a nice warm self-satisfied feeling bring peace to the middle east, imran? tell me, because i really want to know. i fail to see how increasing the amount of pompous self-congratulation in the blogosphere does anything to get the palestinians and israelis out of the firing line.

an uncritical community that stands by and is mute to abuses and refuses to act as the necessary check and balance that Israel needs.

yet again you reveal just how little you understand the community. did you check what happened in the board of deputies chair elections, imran? do you hear the conversations that i hear, the disgust with the t-shirts, the impatience with the settlers, the rude remarks about israeli hard-headedness? that is one thing. however, if you think that netanyahu and lieberman are sitting around waiting for the UK BoD, let alone the jewish chronicle or the limmud conference to pass judgement on their defence policy you are utterly clueless. it matters what the americans say – and i’m not even talking about AIPAC here. look at the budgets, because it is the bottom line that is going to make the difference, not some self-indulgent one-page ad in a newspaper signed by a bunch of leftie actors and academics.

The offer is withdrawl to 67 borders for peace.

it is a vague offer and so hedged about with preconditions that it is all but meaningless. it is a jumping-off point, not a final deal – and it doesn’t include iran, who hold the purse strings and the keys to the ammo dumps for hamas and hizbollah – or syria.

The situation with Egypt which you are desperately trying to invoke is a cold peace due to the lack of progress towards a wider peace.

yes, it’s got nothing to do with the fact that the egyptians are doing feck-all to help the palestinians as per usual except to use them to focus the anger on the street away from the dictatorship and onto the zionist whipping boy. do you remember sandmonkey, imran? i do. i wonder what’s happened to him in mubarak’s prison system?

Your lack of understanding highlights that you can’t see diplomatic protests at Israel’s actions and lack of progress.

i can see ‘em all right, i just don’t give the same weight to my wishful thinking as you do to yours.

The reason you hate Egypts approach is because you subscribe to the Israeli Rights attitude rather than the peace attitude you claim to advocate.

yeah, you clearly know so much about the attitude of the israeli right (there’s only one, is there?) don’t you? you should try dealing with a real hard-arse hardalnik some time. go pick a fight with the people on the arutz sheva forums, why don’t you?

The Arabs may have the money but they don’t spend it.

in the words of john mcenroe, you cannot be serious. *jaw drops*

you are now in denial about the influence and reach of Memri with regards to news organisations, politicians etc.

yes, clearly the indy and the guardian and the bbc are all in thrall to the dreadful clutches of memri. deary deary me.

The Arab media’s circulation is local

that’s funny, i have al-jazeera on my sky box and every arabic speaker i know watches it. press tv (ok, it’s iranian, not arab) is advertising on the tube.

That is not what you said in your statement and you know that. You said he was dovish full stop not compared to Mel. Nice try but your own words give away your position.

what are you now, a lawyer? you asked for clarification, i gave it. i still think he’s dovish, because i clearly define “dovish” differently from you. if you think aaronovitch is not dovish then clearly the definition of “objective” you are working to is, as i have previously pointed out, not one i recognise.

The Islamic world has nowhere near the military strength and it doesn’t have the nuclear, biological, chemical and many other capabilities of Israel. Numbers are useless as is wealth without military power. Its just more spin from you.

i suppose the hizbollah rocket arsenal, the pakistani bomb, the syrian chemical and biological weapons facilities, the egyptian and iranian nuclear programmes, those are all there (to quote omid djalili) because they have a really powerful power shower? that’s to say nothing of the hordes of fanatical guerrillas armed, trained, educated and equipped with funds from iran, saudi and the gulf, those were just created in the name of performance art, were they?

Tell me are you an Israeli Embassy Staff Member because only they come up with this type of nonsense.

yes, it must be that i’m on the payroll, isn’t it? it couldn’t possibly be that you’re talking absolute bollocks?

Tell me if I have missed any injustice to Israelis and if its fair I’ll say so here.

imran, this is a pointless exercise from the outset, that is what i am saying to you. i have little confidence in your judgement at this point because you appear to be saying that i am a liar and a right-wing apologist on the payroll of the israeli embassy. i don’t see a great deal of point in continuing to discuss it if you can’t deal with the basics of dialogue.

So now lets see you do the same or are you going to hide away behind you can’t do that because it would reveal your secret identity in the community or will we get a half hearted response.

look, i don’t post here under my real-world name for work-related reasons and i don’t appreciate your tone, it is somewhat threatening. i also think you should be steering clear of the issue of “revealing secret identities” if i were you. what i have to say here are real opinions and they are based on a closer acquaintance with the jewish community than you obviously have. you are so far from the centre you can’t even come to terms with the fact that i’m not actually right wing.

Lets see the objectivity now? Time to put up or shut up.

i don’t accept your right to dictate the terms of dialogue and engagement. objectivity is, as i have already said, irrelevant and, moreover, your own continued attempts to appear objective are really not working.

An apologist who can’t bare to admit any injustice can’t claim to have no hatred to Palestinians per se.

again with imputing positions to me that i do not hold. i will claim what i like – there are people here who understand me a lot better than you do. you have not the least clue and that is rather sad considering how long you’ve been posting here.

the same Bananabrain who is mute at the conditions of the Palestinians

i’m not mute at it. i’m just not joining the high-kicking respect party chorus line along choreographed by busby galloway.

Bananabrain despite his continual failure to condemn Israel’s excesses which he said he won’t do.

i’ve been quite clear about my criticisms (the piece above about the settler lobby trying to subvert the army into fighting a religious war is a particular case in point in which i think you and i are in complete accord), but i don’t think anyone here apart from you is actually disputing that, but you are quite obtuse in that regard. what i won’t do is ask “how high?” when you tell me in that high-handed fashion to jump.

douglas:

I can talk, fairly sensibly I’d have thought, about stuff like punctuated equilibrium in evolution, cosmic background radiation as a measure of the age of the Universe, and other stuff that believers in any religion are uncomfortable with.

i’m not uncomfortable with any of that stuff.

b’shalom

bananabrain

World Agenda: Israel’s war effort gains religious imperative

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6360126.ece

“During the Gaza war this year, Schmuel Kaufman, a military rabbi from a West Bank settlement, used to stride between the Israeli soldiers’ tents and urge them to fight what he deemed an “obligatory war” ordained by ancient scripture.

“It’s a holy war to protect women and children from the south of the country after a long period of endurance on our side,” he told The Times. “The commander of the battalion asked me to blow the shofar [a ram’s horn] every time before going into the fighting. I’m blowing the shofar while 500 soldiers stand behind me praying. They went in wrapped in holiness.”

Rabbi Kaufman and many other religious soldiers attributed Israel’s very low casualty rate in the month-long conflict to the newfound religiosity of its Armed Forces. In recent years, the army has become more devout, with an increasing number of recruits from religious and nationalist groups, including settlers.”
…
“But anti-settlement groups, such as Peace Now, warn that the national-religious movement has now become so strong in the military that no future government will dare to use the army in evacuating the increasing number of settler outposts that have sprung up across the West Bank, which they say explains the reluctance of the Ehud Barak, the Labour Defence Minister, to take such a politically explosive task.

One religious paratrooper who fought in Gaza and who asked to be identified only as Ilan, said that leaders of religious and settler communities encouraged their young people to join the army and to work their way up the ranks. The new recruits attend special pre-military seminaries, known as hesder yeshivas, to prepare them for army service. Most of these are in the occupied West Bank, which Israelis call Judea and Samaria.”

[047:004] “So, when you meet (in fight – Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause) those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden.”

So the order is to take captives when the war is running but to free them or ransom them once the war is near its end. I think this order combined with the general instructions on slavery appear to show that freeing captors is the preferred method and if not then ransom them and free them once the ransom is paid.

I’d say you need to talk to a knowledgable scholar about your issues.

But again from what I have read the institution of slavery was to be abolished slowly under the system of Islam. I have also read that the companions appointed someone as part of the Muslim Treasury to buy and set fre slaves using the funds in the Muslim Treasury.

He, and his alter ego munir, are really, really good on what Muslims should be, rather than what Muslims actually are.”

Yes and the same applies to you and the systems you support.

You simply want rhetoric so you can sit proudly. Slavery in Europe has been driven underground but not eradicated and you want statements from Muslims without trying to sort out your own issues.

Women are traffiked in huge numbers for the use and abuse worldwide so it isn’t just an issue for Muslims which is what you’ve made it and from there its just becomes another one of your excerises which frequently occur to bash Islam and Muslims which rarely happens with such venom or regularity to other faiths whom you stand shoulder to shoulder with as you blindly ignore their excess.

All the Muslims here have done is explain that Islam has a methodology for ending slavery. If Muslims carry on and ignore the guidance then of course we are all to blame.

So by that token do you blame yourself for the human traffiking that occurs to Scotland or do you excuse yourself by the fact you have a bit of rhetoric to say you don’t approve?

Its all window dressing you want similar to this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6497935.stm

rather than practical steps.

By the same measure did Blair apologise for leading this country to war and does that mean all of democracy is to blame?

For the absence of doubt, I think Europeans were just as guilty, so no whataboutery, please!”

This of course is the same Bananabrain who is mute at the conditions of the Palestinians which also defy all human rights but then again you don’t attack him do you but you love attacking Muslims. Strange standards you hold.

Can you not understand that despite the rhetoric slavery hasn’t ended in Europe and its still going on. But you won’t address that because its easier to bash the Muslims and sit on your perch.

Every time here you charge in to have a go at Muslims but you never hold others to the same standards and you are as ever a typical Islam-Hater.

Even on this thread you’ve had a go at Muslims but stand side by side and shoulder to shoulder with Bananabrain despite his continual failure to condemn Israel’s excesses which he said he won’t do.

Then you have the fecking gall to say Muslims wn’t say slavery is wrong and start attacking us. It is a convienient double standard.

What you can’t understand is that Islam accepted slavery existed and set about to make the position of the slave better and encouraged Muslims to set slaves free. That itself is an acknowledgement that slavery is to be eradicated and not merely driven underground.

Surely in the process of encouraging freedom for slaves is a recognition itself that slavery is to be ended. What is the point of rhetoric you can’t back. We have Bananasplit saying he is for peace but then thats window dressing as it changes nothing.

No its the companions who wrote down hadith and which verses of the Qur’an they related thus the knowledgable scholar is able to interpret a decision based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.

So for example driving a car within the speed limit isn’t something that is in the hadith but if someone asks then the hadiths about the welfare of people for example can be interpreted to apply in this case. Equally many of the decisions taken today are based on the interpretation of hadith by knowledgable scholars and I don’t mean normal mosque imams.