Monday, February 6, 2012

Iranian Nukes, the no spin truth !


I have been blogging about this since I started Gubu World in 2008 but it really does seem that 2012 will finally be the year that the Iranian threat comes to a head. I find that the debate surrounding the Iranian threat to be full of platitudes and the commentary to be fairly lazy. So I have decided to lay it out as I see it in a clear and no spin way.

1. During the Second World War the Nazis invaded all of Europe, rounded up every Jew they could find in occupied territory and exterminated them in the most efficient and cost effective way, which turned out to be the gas chamber. Six million Jewish people were murdered this way.

2. Every Jewish family today has a story of a relative from the 1930s who used to say that you can't take this Hitler guy serious. It was believed, either through naivety or simply by underestimating humanities potential for cruelty that the Nazis either did not really mean to carry out their threat or would never obtain the capability.

3. After the Holocaust the Zionist theory of a Jewish homeland to protect the Jewish people gained enormous merit and the Jewish state was established in 1948 with one primary objection, to Never Again allow the Jewish people to be led to the slaughter by extreme bigotry and anti semitism.

4. The Islamic regime in Iran is fiercely anti Israeli. It has declared Israel to be an illegitimate state and that it should be wiped of the face of the map. The Iranian government appear to be on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity. This would give them the capability to carry out that threat either by missile launch or via a proxy terrorist group that they sponsor. This is an unacceptable security risk for Israel.

5. Those opposed to military action against Iran seem to argue that the US and Israel are war mongering and that the threat is not that severe. They often argue that the threat to "wipe Israel off the map" actually got lost in translation somewhere between English and Farsi. This may be true but no reasonable person can expect Israel to rely on just hoping that Iran does not intend to carry out their threat. Given point Number 2 there is a strong belief within Israel that the government should take the Iranians at their word when they threaten to obliterate the Jewish homeland.

Below is a provocative and disturbing video that was released last week in Israel which depict the consequences of a nuclear attack on the Jewish state.




I want to make a few crucial points. We simply cannot expect Israel to rely on the good will of the International Community to protect it. We must consider the psychological legacy of the holocaust to understand why this is so. The last time the Jewish people relied on the world for protection six million of their civilians were herded into gas chambers. Back then the Jewish people didn't have a state to resist mass slaughter. Now they do and now they will defend themselves.


It may seem like it but this is not a post arguing in favour of military action against Iran. I get angry when I see Republicans mocking Obama for not having the metal to do it as if that was the only issue. If the Iranian nuclear programme could be destroyed by military action it would have happened long ago. And even in the event of a successful strike we would no doubt see massive retaliation in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf as well as via a host of proxies which would wreak havoc on the world and the global economy. This is why I suspect both Israel and the US are working on a third option. The Israeli version of this appears to be an attempt to wipe out the team of nuclear scientists working on the Iranian programme. The Americans I suspect favour some sort of secret approach to Tehran guaranteeing an end to the nuclear programme in exchange for economic incentives. Some call this appeasement, but if successful it would represent the biggest victory in US Foreign Policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whatever approach is taken I would appeal to all sensible people to be on Israel's side on this issue. Be on the right side of history with it. Nobody wants to see another war and hopefully it won't come to that but ask yourself, would you prefer another Mid East war or another holocaust against the Jewish people on the conscience of the western world.

157 comments:

Anonymous said...

So basically your argument is: because they don't consider Israel as legitimate they should not be allowed to squire weapons? I'd love to see them (Israel and Iran) armed to the hilt and both destroy each other - a win win for us!

Ted Leddy said...

Anonymous

I would say that any Nation that doesn't recognise Israel, calls for its destruction and tries to obtain nukes should certainly be prevented from doing so.

Rob Harris said...

Good posting Ted. I agree with your take on the common apologism of the Iranian regime, and its quite sickening (a strong word but fair IMHO) to see these people bend over backwards, and then some more, to defend such a regime. It needs repeating that it wasn't just Amadinnajacket who threatened Israel with annihilation. Such sentiments go back at least to the year 2000 when Khamenei called Israel a cancer that should be removed from the region http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

BTW you might appreciate a great speech by writer Douglas Murray at Cambridge http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3dBzslDdQ_g which I saw on the anneinpt blog as he states starkly what Israel has to do.

Gary said...

Ted,

Good posting. I agree with your points but I have to say that I think the best opportunity for a successful military strike passed 3 years ago and now every minute that goes by makes success harder and more costly.

While no person in their right mind would argue with hoping the covert programs from Washington and Israel can avoid conflict -I think the moment is fast approaching when the matter will be taken out of everyone's hands.

I believe military conflict is unavoidable. I know it will be costly and devastating -and I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so.

Gary

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy. Your post raises some
profound questions.The British suffered enormously from German actions in two world wars, almost to
national extinction. After WW2 Major
Ivan Hirst took control of the town
of Wolfsburg where Volkswagens were
made.He set to work to revive the company which was handed back to the
German gov. in 1949.He has since been
honoured by the company. He epitomised the best of the human spirit. The war is over, punish the
guilty and lets get on and make a
better world.According to a recent
survey most Israelis are defined by
the Holocaust, a horrific event that happened nearly 70 years ago.
It was unique in the sense that it
was industrialised persecution but
not unique in man's inhumanity to
his fellow man.So it is important
to treat the matter seriously; to
respect the suffering and deaths
of those involved and not to use it
for propaganda purposes which only
insults their memory. That is, to tell the truth about it. This is the truth as I understand it. I can
understand why the Israeli propaganda machine would put out this paranoia. It is classic Big Brother technique. Keep the pop.
fearful as a method of control and
manipulation. But why repeat it here? To reply to your points.
Of course the Jews took Hitler seriously. If your business is painted over with 'Juden' signs and
you are forced to wear an identity
badge, then you know you are not welcome and probably in danger.
So 282,000 from Germany (nearly 60%) and 117,000 from Austria left
before 1939. More would have gone but for the immigration restrictions of countries around the world.The Nazi policy up until
1941 was for EMIGRATION not EXTERMINATION. THESE FACTS FROM THE
US HOLOCAUST MUSUEM. You omit to mention that in order to establish
the Jewish homeland, hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians were dispossessed and millions subjugated under a brutal occupation to this day. Is this then acceptable to you? Most military experts agree that a
deliverable Iranian bomb is many
years away and those in charge then
would have to be seized of a collective madness to commit suicide and in the process also
destroy the Palestinians whose plight is the source of much of
their antagonism. The REAL fear of
Israel is that it will lose its
hegemony in the region. But this
might well be a good thing, if it
is forced to make a just peace with
the Palestinians and offer hope for
a secure future for all in the region.From my own contacts, there
is a groundswell in that direction
from Jewish groups in Israel and in
the diaspora which the Israeli right wing will try to subvert with
military action.

Anonymous said...

i think its inevitable that both sides are going to square up in a massive and bloody showdown

Paul said...

'hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians were dispossessed and millions subjugated under a brutal occupation to this day.'

Guess what more lies from Builder man!

1. Israel was developed under a UN mandate which the Arabs rejected (the mandate gave more land to teh Arabs than they were due.

2. Most Arabs in 1948 left under their own volition intending to return at the behest of a conquering army and ethnically cleanse the Jews. The remainder received more rights as Arab citizens of Israel than any Arab since has received in any Arab country.

Martin Gilbert - A history of Israel.

3. Israel has repeatedly sought to make peace with the Arabs opposed to it. This has been consistently rejected. Why? Because teh sated end game of the groups opposed to it is the end of Israel completely and a majority of local Arabs support this aim even though it is unachievable.

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/15/31-opportunities-for-statehood-squandered-in-favor-of-genocide/

The majority of Arabs in 'Palestine' do not favour a peace deal with Israel they want to destroy Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493

Oh yeah and trust these guys with nukes I mean what could go wrong?

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/

The problem with your position Builder guy is that you view this struggle as being about land and/or nationalism. Therefore you believe the belligerents (on the Arab side) are motivated rationally. They are not the struggle is fundamentally rooted for them as a Jihad. If you understood Islam (which you will not reading the Guardian or watching anything by the BBC) then you would see why ultimately most Arabs wish to see Israel destroyed and it's people killed and subjugated. That is what Islam mandates for non-Muslims. (Quran Sura 9:29 for just one instance). Oh and by the way we're next! Just look at what Islamists say they want ti do to the UK, Ireland and anywhere that is not already Dar al Islam.

Oh and please stop posting puerile propagandist crap, you sound like George Galloway.

Ted Leddy said...

Rob

I actually saw that Douglas murray clip on the blog "Seraphic Secret". Murray is impressive and articulate as he makes the case for Israel.

Tony Blair nailed it when he said there is a "wretched policy of apology" toward Iran.

Ted Leddy said...

Gary

The truth is we are in the dark on Iran. For all we know both the US and Israel are taking robust covert action to halt the Iranian nuclear programme. I have heard it said that the CIA's greatest successes remain unknown.

Ted Leddy said...

Builder Man

Your comment implies that the Israelis sometimes exploit the legacy of the Holocaust to justify agressive action. I don't see it this way, certainly not with Iran anyway.

Firstly, I don't think that the Iranian nuclear threat is propaganda" or "Paranoia" for the reasons I outlined in my post.

And I don't think that Learning lessons from past examples of hatred and bigoty is war mongering. I would like you to adress the most central question in this issue which is, do you expect the Israelis to do nothing and just hope that all the bluster coming from Iran is harmless rhetoric?

I have always avoided discussions about the demographics of Palestine pre 1948 because I think people will believe what they want to believe. But just so you know I think there was a war in 1948 between Arabs and Jews and many Arabs fled East and many Jews west. Some went by force, others by choice. There is nothing new or unusual in this. It is standard when it comes to this type of ethnic conflict as has been seen in India (1948), Ireland (1922) and the Balkans (1994). So I do believe that the perception of wipdespread deplacement of Arabs by Israeli forces in 1948 is exaggerated.

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy. You used the expression
yourself 'NEVER AGAIN' in the context of an attack on Iran. That is using the legacy of the Holocaust. The number of Palestinians displaced and
their villages destroyed is a matter
of record. The reasons for the war go
back over 100 years. But one thing
remains clear. The Arabs were living in that region for hundreds of years. The Jews came from overseas and displaced them using their wealth and military force.
Nothing can change that basic fact
and is why international law supports them.Do you not recognize international law and civilised
behaviour? The conflicts you mention are still ongoing and yet to be resolved fully. So are you saying that the peace process in Ireland
should not have been started or is
it just the occupation of the Palestinians that should be left
unresolved because that suits your
Israeli friends? Let us assume that
Iran obtains nuclear weapons. Obviously Israel and the US will
maintain their overwhelming advantage.So in your scenario you
have to assume that the Iranian
leadership collectively will commit
suicide for themselves, their people and millions of others in the Middle East. History shows this is not how nuclear stand offs work - as with the USSR. Sadaam Hussein
fired rockets at Israel in the Gulf
War. At that time he had the technology to arm them with chemical weapons. He didn't - fearing nuclear retaliation. That's how it works. I don't expect Israel to do nothing. I expect it to make a just peace with the Palestinians
which will start to diffuse the tension instead of escalating it for territorial expansion. We should be concentrating efforts to
ensure that terrorist groups do not
get their hands on a nuclear weapon, instead of following policies that increase terrorist
capabilities around the world.

Rob Harris said...

Ted and Paul, more classics by Builderman in that there post!

Builderman said "The British suffered enormously from German actions in two world wars, almost to national extinction." which in context seems to be a point intended to dilute the significance of Jewish suffering as he did a while back, e.g. when citing famine in the Ukraine.

The British suffered a great deal during both wars. It was worse in WWII with the truly immense loss of 380,000 and 450,000 people in the UK but "near-extinction"?

Furthermore, numerous experts believe that Iran can build a bomb in a much shorter time.

Builderman also asserts that Iran is merely responding to Israel's antagonism re. the Palestinian issue. What rubbish. If the sympathetic States of the Middle East were concerned about the Palestinians they would treat them better. Iran's real concern is Israel's presence in Dar al-Islam.

The System Works said...

builder man: "The number of Palestinians displaced and their villages destroyed is a matter of record".

Not true. There is a huge amount of dispute in this regard.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. The point I was trying to make, through academics and commentators much more knowledgeable
than me, was that if a nation defines
itself by what happened, and was resolved, 70 years ago (however horrific), then it will taint its relations with others to its own detriment. The 'near extinction' was the Battle of Britain which, if lost,
and it could well have been, then the Nazi fortress in Europe would
have been unassailable, with no base for US forces. I am well aware that Irans attitude to Israel is multi faceted and I abhor their extremists as much as you. It's a
pity the West overthrew a secular
gov. to suit themselves. A more intelligent approach is to support
the democratic movements there by
supporting democracy in the occupied territories in Palestine.
Dealing with unpleasant regimes is
a diplomatic fact of life and bombing them rarely works and only encourages the extremists. We should apologise for supporting
Sadaam Hussein and therefore understand their need for atomic weapons but persuade them to join
an umbrella security organisation
that includes Israel and its atomic weapons. The US cant do it because of the Jewish extremists there but
Europe, if it gets its act together, might.

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy.From your links I notice that you are very proud (quite rightly) of the Irish resistance to
British occupation. Do you likewise
support Palestinian resistance to
Israeli occupation? I have tried to elicit from the pro-Israelis on this blog what is their solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict but so far
noone has had the guts to do it. I
support the international solution.
Is that yours too? Peace is the way
forward as the Irish experience has
shown. I remember talking to people
there on the day of the vote and how encouraging that was. Why not in Palestine?

builder man said...

To The System Works. The UNRWA figure
for Palestinian refugees is 711,000.
Wiki says 'around 750,000. PLUS 280,000 to 325,000 in 6 day war. PLUS
Purchases from absentee Ottoman landlords and subsequent evictions (those early settlers were so kind!),
PLUS the Golan Heights. Do you see a
pattern here? Confirmed by Jewish and
Israeli historians Benny Morris, Ilan
Pappe, Avi Shlaim etc. etc. MOSHE DAYAN QUOTE: ' There is not a single
Israeli settlement that was not built on the remains of a Palestinian village.' So who disputes this then. Is it the same
method that Israel uses to label
territory that it covets so that when it occupies it, it says 'well,
as it was disputed we thought we
might as well take it!' I am trying
to ask the pro-Israeli people on this blog what is THEIR solution to
this conflict but so far no one has
had the guts to reply. What is yours?

Rob Harris said...

Builderman, you referred to the British people going to a near extinction. A big supposition to suggest if the Battle of Britain was lost Nazi Europe would have been unassailable. It certainly would have been from the South and East, where Stalin would have likely worked more closely with Roosevelt.

You clearly do not abhor Iran’s extremists as much as I do. You are the one who has been bending over backward to defend them, even going as far as to justify their use of the Basij child martyrs during the Iran-Iraq war. Now as a typical leftie you are giving out again about the West and throw in Palestine to boot: “West overthrew a secular gov. to suit themselves. A more intelligent approach is to support the democratic movements there by supporting democracy in the occupied territories in Palestine.” ROFL

The West did not overthrow the regime there. The Afghani natives did, albeit with some help from the US. After Russia withdrew their puppet government remained for a few years. Once again I have to remind you that the forces the West opposed killed up to 2 million people and pushed a third of the populace out of the country. No wonder extremism flourished there but all you do is beat your sad old drum moaning about the West. Its no wonder people like me now look on the left with utter disgust.

“Dealing with unpleasant regimes is a diplomatic fact of life and bombing them rarely works and only encourages the extremists. We should apologise for supporting Sadaam Hussein and therefore understand their need for atomic weapons…” There is no need to apologise to Iran for anything. Leftists such as yourself claim Iran hates the West due to the intervention in the 1950’s. The British supported intervention after Mossadegh nationalised British oil there but the Iranian clerics also sought http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2012/01/response-to-ron-paul-did-us-policy-make.html his removal, with rule to be taken by the Shah, who was legally entitled to do so anyway as head of state. Whatever the reason for their extremism, they are extremists as of now. Diplomacy has been exhausted and there is no other option but to destroy their infrastructure with as little harm to human life as is possible.

“… persuade them to join an umbrella security organisation that includes Israel and its atomic weapons. The US cant do it because of the Jewish extremists there but Europe, if it gets its act together, might.” Jewish extremists indeed. That’s borderline like your claim on Eirael that the Jews control British foreign policy. Of course the US could do it but it’s a daft idea. Iran would never join a regional organisation that includes Israel. Even if they thought it a good idea privately, it would be a humiliating clime down after their war-like existentialist rhetoric and military development for well over a decade.

You stated to Ted: “I have tried to elicit from the pro-Israelis on this blog what is their solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict but so far noone has had the guts to do it.” More nonsense. I have repeatedly told you what I thought the solution could be when you pretended I hadn’t. Broken-record-itis anyone?

Ted Leddy said...

Builder Man

"The Jews came from overseas and displaced them using their wealth and military force".

If they displaced them using their wealth that would make them the least agressive colonisers in history. I don't believe that any of the white settlers that conquered the American continants or Australia ever purchased any of the land they took from native Americans or aborigines. I'm pretty sure they just nicked it. But I don't hear you calling Canada, Cuba, USA, Brazil, Chile or Australia an illigitimate settler state.

Look, I am not hear to defend every Israeli action. I have no doubt that some Jewish settlers, particularly the Hagannah and the Stern Gang were capable of committing atrocities against local Arabs but I think you'll find most countries are formed in controversial circumstances. This fact doesn't continue to invalidate Israel as a nation.

I have to ask, is your main point, considering the topic of this post, that in the face of an Iranian threat to anihilate Israel the Israelis rather than defend themselves (as they were unable to do in 1941-45) should in fact stand down their military and withdraw from the West Bank in order to make the Mullahs in Tehran less angry.

"So are you saying that the peace process in Ireland
should not have been started"

Absolutely not. I support the peace process between Israel and Palestine and oppose all rejectionists on both sides.

You points about a nuclear stand off have some flaws. It is unlikely that Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel. It is much more probable that they would enable a terroist group to do so.

You are also assuming that the Iranians are rational actors. Perhaps collective national suicide appeals to elements of the regime. At any rate I believe that Sadam was far more rational than the Mullahs. He always had self preservation at the top of his agenda.

I am very proud of the circumstances surrounding Irish independce which I believe to be entirely noble. However I believe militant Republicanism during the Northern Irish troubles was deeply flawed as it got caught up in the sectarian madness of it all. The same is true in the Middle East. Palestinians are entitled to resist Israeli expansion but the objective of most militant groups does not appear to me to be about liberating East Jerusalem as it is about liberating Tel Aviv. We all know the blueprint required for a successful Israeli Palestinian peace process. Once that is pursued you will find that I and this blog will be more supportive of the Palestinain cause and more opposed to Israeli policies which invalidate the viability of a Palestinian statehood.

Rob Harris said...

Ted wrote: "I have to ask, is your main point, considering the topic of this post, that in the face of an Iranian threat to anihilate Israel the Israelis rather than defend themselves (as they were unable to do in 1941-45) should in fact stand down their military and withdraw from the West Bank in order to make the Mullahs in Tehran less angry."

I don't know about yourself but whenever debating the threat of a nuclear Iran with those that bend over backward to defend the place, more often than not they bring up how terrible Israel is. That was witnessed that at length with Builderman. Its not all that terribly relevant to the topic so its odd it comes up constantly.

I get the impression that the inference is that Israel ought to be wiped off the map. No doubt such people will deny that point but why use it as a counter to an extremist regime obtaining a bomb when Israel have never threatened them with destruction? Furthermore a nuclear Iran will surely trigger a hugely dangerous WMD arms race in the Mid-East, which will hardly benefit the Arab people either so again why lash out at Israel over its supposed treatment of the Pals?

The System Works said...

builder man: There's no way every Israeli town was constructed on the ruins of an Arab settlement. Tel Aviv was built from scratch on sand dunes, in common with many Israeli kibbutzim and towns. I saw extensive film footage of what existed in the Jezreel Valley, where I lived for a while, prior to its development by Jewish settlers. There was literally nothing in most of it. Ilan Pappe is not a serious historian, and his 'books' differ markedly from the other sources you've named (as they would to those more to the right like Efraim Karsh). UNRWA also engages in pro-Palestinian advocacy as part of its mandate, and has a vested interested in inflating numbers for funding purposes and so on.

The use of language is also important. For instance, when we talk of 'destroyed villages', what does that mean? The anti-Zionist brigade wants the image of the Haganah and IDF razing a village and expelling its inhabitants to stick in people's minds when they use such terms. Yet this in reality includes villages and towns that were abandoned well before Jewish soldiers got to them and were subsequently cleared or redeveloped after the hostilities. The Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut once conducted a survey among refugees and their descendants that found about 70% of Palestinian Arabs who fled never saw a Jewish soldier.

Benny Morris notes in '1948' that only two Arab villages were wrecked between Nov. 1947 and the Haganah offensive in April of 1948. Yet this period still saw hundreds of thousands of Arabs leaving.

The System Works said...

All this of course, is beside the topic of the post. You have just hi-jacked the comment boxes to have a go at Israel.

Paul said...

Builder Man - Are you going to address the points made by myself and others that most 'Palestinian' Arabs favour the destruction of Israel? Their continuous rejection of peaceful overtures is evidence of that.

Also are you going to address the points made by historians such as Martin Gilbert that completely refute the claim that the Arabs were expelled by the Israelis at that time? You know what you won't of course.

builder man said...

To Paul. 1. Actually the Jews, although a minority, received more
land.Here is an analogy. The number of Muslims in the UK is reaching 5%.
Most are integrating well but there
are some loonies nasty ones who get a
lot of publicity.But let's say their
numbers reach 40% and there is agitation to turn the UK into an Islamic Caliphate. There's a lot of antagonism now but can you imagine
how violent resistance to this might emerge? How do you think the
Palestinians felt as they saw this
happening to their country? 2. Martin Gilbert is not an impartial
historian.The testimony of Palmach
veteran Amnon Neauman destroys his
version. It was a war zone so naturally some people left.But many
others were forced out. I've no doubt the Arabs harboured nasty thoughts about the Jews given the
scenario described by Neauman. The
massacres, the ethnic cleansing and the general barbarity of the Jews.
However I would not accuse them of genocide and international pressure
favoured them leaving a minority of
Arabs in place. True Arab states do
not have a good record on democracy
but the Israeli Arabs do not have the same rights as the Jews. Read
'The Other Side of Israel' by ex
Zionist Susan Nathan. 3. Just as we
in the UK would have wanted an end
to an imposed Caliphate, then yes of course the Arabs wanted an end to Israel and be able to return to
their homes. But the majority now accept a 2 state solution which Israel does NOT want.I always take other views seriously so I have looked up your links.Both sides are
setting pre conditions for talks. Israel says the Palestinians as a JEWISH state, a change of the goalposts as they have already accepted its right to exist.This would deny Palestinians in Israel of any rights. Israel is like a burglar who has stolen your house and all the goods in it, killed a
few relatives and then offers you back an old sofa and a mangle as long as you announce what a law abiding, upright citizen they are!
If a survey quoting Hamas doctrines
which even Hamas doesn't insist on
any more, it is predictable that
you will get this sort of response.
But it did indicate that the majority want normalisation, peace and jobs and once that is achieved,
attitudes will change. As Moshe Dayan said 'Why are we surprised that they hate us' - considering what we've done to them - my summary of the rest of his quote.
Khamenei is laughable. How does he
propose to launch this all out attack on the overwhelmingly
superior military force in the region? But it is nasty and should be condemned by world opinion. I like the libertarian thoughts from WND and when I've got time, I'll look again, Anyway, thanks for the
intro. I'm trying to get others to tell me what their solution for the
Israel/Palestinian conflict is, but so far no one has had the guts to tell me. What is yours?

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy. The wealth came from the Rothchilds and others which enabled the Jews to buy the farms from absentee Ottoman landlords at
inflated prices. They then evicted the peasant farmers who had lived
there for generations. They lost their homes and their livelihoods and
their dignity and finished in squalor
or working for peanuts for their new masters. Ring a bell with the Irish
experience? Nice people those early
Jewish settlers.You are right -all
those colonising countries (including the UK)nicked the land.
As Tutu said 'we had the land when
the white man came with his bible.
When we turned around we had Christianity and the white man had
the land!'But they for the most part have acknowledged their crimes.Israel has not and more
importantly IS STILL DOING IT! If you support the peace process then
presumably you support the international solution and are against Israel occupying Palestinian land which negates it.
I'm pleased to hear it.What you might be overlooking is that expansion has always been Israel's agenda but they think in terms of
thousands of years. Their policy is 'dunum by dunum.'They have already stolen the mandated Palestinian land, Sheeba Farms from Lebanon, Golan from Syria and Sinai(returned
with a too good to miss deal with the US). Now the West Bank - dunum by dunum.I don't assume rationality of any political leaders from Blair
to Bush et al.They all have too much power but strangely enough the Iranian power structure is quite complex and less inclined to madness. N. Korea are not the best
example either of rational thought
but suicide is a difficult step!
Nasty people always emerge in conflicts.I remember reading The Informer when he tells of 2 IRA men
who ambush an off duty policeman
walking his dog. One goes off to shoot him, returns and then goes back when there is another shot. The second one asks 'what was that for?''The dog.' The answer is to resolve the conflicts.

Rob Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Harris said...

Builderman(n) states: “Martin Gilbert is not an impartial historian.The testimony of Palmach veteran Amnon Neauman destroys his version. It was a war zone so naturally some people left.But many others were forced out.”

I see Builderburg wheel out "THE Palmach Veteran" yet again - one man who gave his version of events to a virulent anti-Zionist group. As I said before his assertion has to be tested before given credence. No doubt many other Palmach Veterans would disagree with him such as this chap http://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/West-Hempstead-hostsPalmachveteran,1732?content_source=&category_id=26&search_filter=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&list_type=most_viewed&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=&sub_type=&town_id= but the only difference is that they don't have a singular "THE" in front of them, which looks like an award given by Buildersacks.

What Builderschnitz means by Martin Gilbert not being an “impartial historian” is that he doesn’t agree with what Buildermann wants to believe, namely that the Jews were a bunch of filthy butchers slaughtering poor innocent Arab-Palestinian families. On the old Ghadaffi post, after ages of arguing, I got him to concede, albeit very briefly, that there was brutality on the other side before in the same breath going on about Jews raping women! Few deny that there was some savagery on both sides but the pro-Palestinians want to pretend the Jews were the real bad guys!

Excellent historians like Benny Morris acknowledge the violence on the Israeli side but they put it in the context of the times. Morris also acknowledges the Mufti and other leaders told many Arabs to leave so the eight armies invading Palestine could wipe the place clean. There was a vicious existential sectarian conflict on both sides, one which the Arabs initiated, and there was no doubt they would do anything other than drive the Jews into the sea, as Arabs did to Jews elsewhere in 1948, when they began a campaign of making the region Judenrein with massacres and expulsions of the ancient Jewish populace all over the Middle-East. Then the head of the Arab League openly threatened http://www.meforum.org/3082/azzam-genocide-threat mass genocide in 1947 toward the future Jewish state. It was an existential war of survival for Jewish people there but Builderstein et al want us to think otherwise.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman said: “The point I was trying to make, through academics and commentators much more knowledgeable than me, was that if a nation defines “itself by what happened, and was resolved, 70 years ago (however horrific), then it will taint its relations with others to its own detriment.”

I could reply rudely to this faux-naif question but I feel there are times when one ought to throttle back or risk turning into a bully. Let me say this as simply as I can. The Holocaust resulted in the death of 1/3 of the world’s Jewish populace: 17 million down to 11 million. Most Jewish people lived in Europe at the time, almost ten million down to 3.5 million. Thus two thirds of European Jewry was extinguished. Thus After the event there continued to be anti-Semitic violence in parts of Europe like Poland. Since that time there has been a concerted effort to deny and deligitimise the Holocaust like no other event in History. This is being done with the intention of revisiting that sort of violence on Jews.

Thus, contrary to what you suggest by stating it was “resolved”, genocidal anti-Semitism has not gone away. In fact since the millennium it has greatly increased, to such an extent that Jewish people across Europe are often afraid to wear clothing that identifies their ethnicity. A huge number of people today believe the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that Hitler and company advocated. In the UK during the War in Gaza, anti-Semitic incidents jumped three-fold. There are frequent reports of Jewish students being intimidated in universities, which is telling because Uni’s are supposedly a zone of free ideas etc.

I doubt the Holocaust “defines” Israel. The Holocaust is just the climax of a millennium of violence. It is that violence which defines Israel. That is why Zionism, which was a secular a-religious movement, existed the century before the Holocaust. To put the persecution of over a millennia into perspective, Jews in the Roman Empire made up ten percent of the populace (7 million) by the first Century AD. Using average population progressions, that means there should be around a quarter of a billion Jews living today. There are just over 13 million. I hope that satisfies your curiosity although I doubt it will.

Paul said...

Rob, that is an excellent reply that puts to bed much of Builderbollocks hysteria. Nowhere did he at any time effectively refute the referenced point made by myself that most Arabs do not want to see a two state solution. They want to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic entity. Something they wish for the remainder of the world incidentally. Those that do favour a two state solution seem only to be doing so in order for that to be a stepping stone to further attacks against Israel as indicated in the surveys by the Jerusalem Post and others.

For what it's worth my solution would be to support a two state solution, one that guarantees Israeli security. There can be no 'right to return' for those misleadingly called Palestinian. They do not have a legal, practical or moral case for that. There is also the near certainty that whatever Arab state is created will seek to further attacks upon Israel regardless of whatever peace deal is signed. This is essentially because of Islam and the unwillingness to tolerate a Jewish state in what is perceived as 'Dar al Islam'.

So the west would need to devote resources to protect Israel. Sadly of course only the US would do that, Europe has an appalling record concerning Jews and Israel look at its history. But then Europe has stopped fundamentally sticking up for western values a long time ago.

The System Works said...

An interesting take on traditional Jew-hatred in Shia Islam in the National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290715/iran-s-final-solution-israel-andrew-bostom?pg=1

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.All the Iranian millions are extremists? I would never suggest that of Israelis in spite of their gov. actions because I
know personally it's not true. Lumping people together because of the actions of a few is what Hitler
did to the Jews. I think you are
confusing Iran with Afghanistan at one point. As to alliances in the
future, who would have thought 20 years ago that Albania would be in
NATO?You are underestimating the
support that a free Britain was able to give the USSR. I knew people who served on the Artic Convoys to Murmansk. The Russians
never forgot and honoured them years after. I couldn't find your
Palmach veteran but I did find the
Jewish Star which appears to be a
rabid right wing newspaper of the
'Israel can do no wrong and anyone
who criticises it is anti-Semitic
and evil' category. I agree that in
conflicts there is usually savagery
on both sides but it was the Jews
who came from overseas to inflict it on the indigenous pop.Everyone wants a place where they feel safe
but you will never get it by dispossessing and subjugating others. Why don't you listen to impartial voices. This is Jewish/American journalist I.F.Stone, in Palestine at the time.'It was a moral tragedy that in making a home for the remnants of the Holocaust we were drawn into
a war in which we had to make a
kindred people homeless, a people
who had done us no harm. Had the
Arabs won, the guilt would lie on them; we won,so the guilt lies on us.'I would never deny the Holocaust - the evidence is overwhelming. But up to 7 million
Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazis and as many again of other
groups.It was industrialised murder
and in that sense unique in history.Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself can be
found at http://www.haaratz.com/misc/article
...225%2C2_227%2C. Scenario: A group of people in one country, using their wealth,decide to buy and then conquer the land of another people claiming prior historical links, evict tenants,
emasculate their culture and then
aggressively subjugate them. Ring
any bells with the Irish experience? Surely no true Irishman
could support Israel without spitting on their own history?

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “All the Iranian millions are extremists? I would never suggest that of Israelis in spite of their gov. actions because I know personally it's not true. Lumping people together because of the actions of a few is what Hitler did to the Jews.” – What a cheap debating tactic by bringing up Hitler’s slaughter of the Jews. Point out exactly where I stated all Iranians are extremists?

Builderman says: “I think you are confusing Iran with Afghanistan at one point.” - Another obfuscation, point out where I was doing that.

“As to alliances in the future, who would have thought 20 years ago that Albania would be in NATO?” – a totally irrelevant obfuscatory point. Albania threw off its communist yoke by that point.

“You are underestimating the support that a free Britain was able to give the USSR. I knew people who served on the Artic Convoys to Murmansk. The Russians never forgot and honoured them years after.” – more cheap obfuscation by strawmanning your opponent. I never said Britain didn’t help the USSR a good dela. Your contention was that if Germany took Britain, Europe would be impossible to overcome. My response was that there were other areas of entry.

“I couldn't find your Palmach veteran but I did find the Jewish Star which appears to be a rabid right wing newspaper of the 'Israel can do no wrong and anyone who criticises it is anti-Semitic and evil' category.” – nonsense, a cheap stunt to criticise the newspaper that carries the story. All it did was report The Jewish star is a perfectly legitimate community newspaper. I suspect you are being dishonest about finding the links because I told you already to copy the link and a further bit of text into a text file, and from there the link will be reproduced in its entirety. Here is another article that quotes other veterans http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/57745/the-enduring-legacy-israels-%EF%AC%81rst-%EF%AC%81ghting-force of which there are many others available.

Builderman states: “I agree that in conflicts there is usually savagery on both sides but it was the Jews who came from overseas to inflict it on the indigenous pop.Everyone wants a place where they feel safe but you will never get it by dispossessing and subjugating others.” – If the latter was true then it is funny how the Islamic empire expanded through brutal subjugation isn’t it? Secondly, the Arabs initiated this onslaught. Thirdly, the Jews are the indigenous people of Israel. They are indigenous because that definition includes dispossessed people who still have strong cultural ties with their homeland. The Arabs aren’t as indigenous to nearly as much of an extent, their culture belonging more closely to that of the surrounding regions that are culturally indistinguishable to Arab culture in Israel.

You lot pretend Jews hadn’t been in Israel since biblical times. Rubbish. There was a sizeable Jewish population for a millennia afterward, which became marginal by the first millennium due to their frequent persecution from Muslims and Christians. Jews started to return a few centuries later, centuries before any sort of Zionist ideology existed simply to return to their “homeland”.

Builderman states: “Why don't you listen to impartial voices. This is Jewish/American journalist I.F.Stone, in Palestine at the time.'It was a moral tragedy that in making a home for the remnants of the Holocaust we were drawn into a war in which we had to make a kindred people homeless, a people
who had done us no harm. Had the Arabs won, the guilt would lie on them; we won,so the guilt lies on us.'” – it is funny how you regard “I.F. Stone” as an impartial voice. Too funny by half. This man was a hard-core apologist of http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12007 Stalin. As I said before, when you mention “impartial” sources, that merely means they agree with you. Like many lefties, he simply turned against Israel because it became closer to the US from 1967 onward.

builder man said...

To Paul. I can assure you that for the Palestinians it is about the land being stolen from them every day. But still by joining One Voice where both
sides work together they are showing
the way forward. I think you are focusing too much on the negative portrayal of islam and forgetting the
majority who do not share those views. The Grand Mosque of Paris by Karen Gray Rvelle and Deborah Durland DeSaix tells of the Muslims
who saved Jews in WW2. And in Albania and Kosovo Jews were protected from the Nazis. This when
other religions were ambivalent.
And at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation you will find:'UNTOLD STORIES OF SOLIDARITY BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND JEWS FOR UN HOLOCAUST
MEMORIAL DAY - SARAH JOSEPH OBE.
Remember too that member of the Israeli GOVERNMENT has called for a
SHOAH on the Palestinians.

The System Works said...

builder man: Your impression of Zionist wealth is more down to stereotyping and after the fact Arab grumbling than reality.

The Zionist movement had its support base among poorer Eastern European Jews, not initially on wealthier and more assimilated western European Jewry (despite Herzl being secular, socialist and living in Vienna). The wealthy Jewish establishment was often afraid of Herzl's ideas leading to accusations of dual loyalty and hampering Jewish social mobility and integration. Herzl hadn't much support among the wealthy Jewish population in Hampstead, but the working class recent immigrants of the East End loved him. Thus he was able to declare 'The East End is ours!' at a massive Zionist rally there. The Rothschilds did not immediately hop on the Zionist bandwagon unlike Montefiore, and were divided on the matter prior to becoming significant patrons. The Zionist movement had a large number of supporters and sympathizers, but it was in fact a poor movement in its early stages.

The System Works said...

builder man: "Remember too that member of the Israeli GOVERNMENT has called for a
SHOAH on the Palestinians".

A misleading assertion, very typical of the Islamist/leftist way of arguing. The quote from deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai was:


‘The more Qassam (rocket) fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger disaster (“shoah”) because we will use all our might to defend ourselves'.

Shoah in Hebrew means disaster, and while mostly used to refer to the Holocaust (especially in the definitive form of HaShoah) in can be used to refer to say, and economic catastrophe ('shoah calcalit').

Whatever the wisdom of Vilnai's words, the way the Islamist/leftist crowd jumped on it while consistently giving Iranians like Ahmadinejad the benefit of the doubt in terms of their quotes is very illustrative of something.

Rob Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Harris said...

Builderman states “I would never deny the Holocaust - the evidence is overwhelming. But up to 7 million Ukrainians were murdered by the Nazis and as many again of other groups.It was industrialised murder
and in that sense unique in history.Holocaust is the primary way Israel defines itself”

That is rubbish, Israel defines itself as a principally Jewish nation. Seven million Ukranians dying is the highest estimate so it is an unlikely figure. The statistics are difficult to assert since Russia and the Ukraine were part of the same entity at the time. Up to 25 million people in the USSR died, and in any case the vast vast majority of that was due to war rather than orchestrated genocide. You and others like you obfuscate the particular intent of the Holocaust by comparing these deaths through conventional warfare.

Builderman: “Scenario: A group of people in one country, using their wealth,decide to buy and then conquer the land of another people claiming prior historical links, evict tenants, emasculate their culture and then
aggressively subjugate them. Ring any bells with the Irish experience? Surely no true Irishman
could support Israel without spitting on their own history?”

More rubbish that taps into the stereotype of Jooz being hugely wealthy when so many going to Palestine had little if not nothing. You basically deny Jewish heritage and their ethnic-cultural tie to that land, have an issue with Jews settling where they want and buying things. Palestine was 80% Miri land, which is publicly owned land. Also how the fuck did the Jews “emasculate Arab culture”? Israel actually made Arabic one of the two official languages of state, and prevented Jews from worshipping on the Temple Mount as a sign of respect.

Furthermore, the Irish experience is just as close to the Jews as the Palestinians. It is the British who pushed the Irish into a diaspora scenario, much as the continual colonialism did to Jews in Judea.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. On your earlier comment on antisemitism in uk, there
are pro Israeli propaganda groups at play here. But if you go to: www.axt.org.uk/essays/Lerman.htm you
will find Rabbi David Goldberg tell
you that it is SAFER to be a Jew here
than a Muslim. Also at www.thejc.com/
comment-and-debate/columnists/62259/good-talk-useful-anyway. you will discover about a donation of £5000 from the
East London Mosque to the synagogue
next door for their new roof. I know that you and others on this blog like to whip up divisions in
order to slander Islam and Muslims
but the reality is that the MAJORITY try to see each others point of view.The indigenous people
of Palestine. In antiquity Palestinians claim to be descendants of the Canaanites who
had a 2000 year history BEFORE the
Israelites. But that is not really
relevant to the modern era. This
starts with the Zionist plan to invade
Palestine in 1897 when the Jews were 5% of the pop. and owned 1% of
the land. And these few are supposed to be the indigenous people? The clue is what the Zionists called their programme and
what was put on all the collecting
boxes in the diaspora. The Jewish
COLONIZATION Association. As once
the only colony in Europe, I can't
see how any true Irish person can
support Israel unless they spit on
their history.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. On your earlier comment on antisemitism in uk, there
are pro Israeli propaganda groups at play here. But if you go to: www.axt.org.uk/essays/Lerman.htm you
will find Rabbi David Goldberg tell
you that it is SAFER to be a Jew here
than a Muslim. Also at www.thejc.com/
comment-and-debate/columnists/62259/good-talk-useful-anyway. you will discover about a donation of £5000 from the
East London Mosque to the synagogue
next door for their new roof. I know that you and others on this blog like to whip up divisions in
order to slander Islam and Muslims
but the reality is that the MAJORITY try to see each others point of view.The indigenous people
of Palestine. In antiquity Palestinians claim to be descendants of the Canaanites who
had a 2000 year history BEFORE the
Israelites. But that is not really
relevant to the modern era. This
starts with the Zionist plan to invade
Palestine in 1897 when the Jews were 5% of the pop. and owned 1% of
the land. And these few are supposed to be the indigenous people? The clue is what the Zionists called their programme and
what was put on all the collecting
boxes in the diaspora. The Jewish
COLONIZATION Association. As once
the only colony in Europe, I can't
see how any true Irish person can
support Israel unless they spit on
their history.

Rob Harris said...

Cheers Paul. I think the key to Builderman’s stance on Israel is obsessive demonisation. That’s why he brings the topic up in every post on here, and intensifies that aspect in already existent arguments.

Indeed the Arabs have rejected a two state solution since the Peel Commission in the 1930’s. Israel was to return a most of the land they took in 1967 merely in return for peace. This offer was made the same year but the response was the “three no’s” in Khartoum. The Arab world even took a chance with annihilation when they invaded Israel again in 1973, a time when everyone knew they had the bomb.

Hamas want to see Israel become part of the old Caliphate no less! Lol. Its quite right to say that the PA and other moderates see the two-state solution as a two-stage solution. I Indeed a highly publicised survey http://eirael.blogspot.com/2011/09/survey-palestinian-extremism-alive-and.html last year found that 66% of Palestinians said a two-state solution should only be a interim solution but Al-Guardian et al made out that the statistics supported Palestinians seeking peace because a similar amount said they favoured talks.

I agree that a two-state solution is the only game in town. The so called right to return makes a mockery of any solution because it nullifies the principally Jewish identity of Israel, which was the bone of contention in the first instance. The right to return is predicated on the notion that unlike all other UN refugees, Palestinians going down through the familial line have the right to return. The UNRWA has a notoriously liberal definition of refugee which relates to a two-year migrant worker, and claims of refugee status often appear to be accepted at face value. There was also immense legal and illegal Arab immigration into Palestine during the mandate, especially from Egypt, and cross migration through Palestine (including proto-Jordan) to the areas of greatest economic activity. The latter part of this article http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoking-gun-arab-immigration-into-palestine points especially that out but incompleteness of records makes it hard to estimate scale other than that it was very substantial, and notable that many Palestinians have names of Egyptian origin.

Notably loads of pro-Palestinians today want the complete nullification of Israel with a one-state solution which would lead to an instant Rwanda type situation but perhaps worse.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.The basic history of the Zionist movement is that Herzl recruited wealthy Jews like the Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee landlords, paying inflated prices, bribing officials and evicting tenants. Those going there may have had nothing but the back up
was substantial. The British, amongst
their many crimes, may have pushed the Irish into emigrating, but
eventually, thanks to the IRA and other resistance movements, gained
their independence. Much like Hamas
and Hezbollah see their role as
resisting Israeli occupation. These
conflicts are ugly to see but are
you decrying the Irish resistance
movements because of their tactics?

Rob Harris said...

Builderman says: “The basic history of the Zionist movement is that Herzl recruited wealthy Jews like the Rothschilds to buy the land from absentee landlords, paying inflated prices, bribing officials and evicting tenants. Those going there may have had nothing but the back up was substantial.” It is well known Jews bought land in Palestine but that is a load of shit as system works said. I suggest you provide a reliable source the claim, and by that I don’t mean those stupid fucking conspiracist websites.

“I know that you and others on this blog like to whip up divisions in order to slander Islam and Muslims but the reality is that the MAJORITY try to see each others point of view.”

Nevermind the basic history. The basic truth is that you are a child who screams when the anti-Semitism word is used in conjunction with anti-Zionism, yet here you play the “Islamophobe” card here. How very pathetic, and how very funny that you are so blind you actually thinks you can see both sides of the issue. I showed restraint in not calling you an anti-Semite, when you clearly are one, when you stated that the Jews control British foreign policy, and harm your country. You made that assertion http://eirael.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-basic-untruths-and-omissions-in.html?showComment=1316781623317#c5128780624135885218 in the comment section:

“All racism is completely unacceptable, but the figures are clear.There is much more Islamaphobia than anti-Semitism. There ARE Jewish groups who attack our society and they do by the use of their wealth and influence. Our human rights legislation was recently amended to suit Israel by their efforts. That is an attack on our democracy.”

Builderman states: “The British, amongst their many crimes, may have pushed the Irish into emigrating, but eventually, thanks to the IRA and other resistance movements, gained their independence. Much like Hamas and Hezbollah see their role as resisting Israeli occupation. These conflicts are ugly to see but are you decrying the Irish resistance movements because of their tactics?”

There you go, you are legitimising Hamas and Hizbullah, two organisations that wish to commit a mass genocide, and completely destroy Israel. Hamas seeks to kill all Jews the world over, and you have the fucking cheek to compare them with the IRA. I have frequently been critical of the IRA asshole. The original IRA that gained independence for Ireland were a very different group to the Provisional IRA of today. They were not angels by any means but they still fought to a large extent using conventional warfare. They actually went as far as to prevent attacks against Protestants, for example in Cork in 1922 when a significant number were shot dead in sectarian violence, they actually put a stop to it.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. I said the West overthrew the secular Iranian gov. You said no it was the AFGHANI natives(!)(mujahadeen?). Hence the
confusion. You said the Iranian clerics also wanted to remove Mossadegh. Exactly. So why did we assist them which brought in Islamic
fundamentalism? I thought you referred to all Iranians as extremists but I accept your refutation. Nevertheless, cheerleading for war from a safe dugout is not attractive.The case
for an actual threat to Israel has not been made. Bombastic and venal
language should be seen for what it is and only react to real threats.
The present situation in the Falklands is a case in point where
intelligent diplomacy can achieve
a reasonable outcome.

builder man said...

To Paul. It's true that many Palestinians have become disenchanted
with the 2 state solution as they see
themselves ending up with a series of
bantustans and hardly a state at all.
They see as a better option to become
citizens of a greater israel when they could be the majority. Then we will see the Israelis true commitment
to democracy.

The System Works said...

builder man: "In antiquity Palestinians claim to be descendants of the Canaanites who
had a 2000 year history BEFORE the
Israelites".

This claim is a comparatively recent trend, and not supported by any evidence.

'Palestinians' have been identifying as Arabs for a long time now, and the more I hear them talk about connections to Canaanites, Philistines or even the Jews of antiquity the funnier and more desperate it sounds. I spoke to a Palestinian Arab man once who boasted about the Bible and 'discovering' his people were the Canaanites. He believed his people were always being kicked around by Jewish invaders ever since that nasty Abraham came over from Iraq only to have his kids take over all of Canaan. I asked him if, following this, he would wish for Palestine to sever its connection with the Arab League, given his people are Canaanites, not Arabs. He didn't want to respond to that.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. When all arguments fail, use the anti-Semitism smear. What do you say then to all the Jews
and Jewish groups who support my point of view? Jews for Justice for
Palestinians here in the UK is just
one that we see on demos supporting
us. Ah, of course, you have a Zionist
epithet for them I suppose. Self-hating Jews?

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “You said the Iranian clerics also wanted to remove Mossadegh. Exactly. So why did we assist them which brought in Islamic fundamentalism? I thought you referred to all Iranians as extremists but I accept your refutation.” - Islamic fundamentalism wasn’t an issue in the 1950’s or do you also expect the West to have crystal balls.

“Nevertheless, cheerleading for war from a safe dugout is not attractive.The case for an actual threat to Israel has not been made. Bombastic and venal language should be seen for what it is and only react to real threats. The present situation in the Falklands is a case in point where intelligent diplomacy can achieve a reasonable outcome.”

I am not cheerleading for war. You are the one bending over backward to defend a tyrannical Iranian regime, even in their use of children to walk over bombs or fight armed professional soldiers with walking sticks. You also legitimise the most debased terrorists in the world, and I’m the cheerleader?

Neither am I gifted with a fucking mind-reading machine to know what threats are intended and what are not. Diplomacy has been tried for years, and the Iranians blatantly took the piss. Is there any actual end to the depth of your stupidity or is it just abject intellectual dishonesty?

The System Works said...

builder man: Now you've fallen into the classic logical fallacy, claiming 'Jew X agrees with me on Israel so I must be correct'. This ignores the fact that many of your favorite Jews are utter lunatics, as in the case of Neturei Karta, who are frequently displayed like prize cattle on anti-Israel demonstrations: http://thesystemworks.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/the-hypocrisy-of-the-anti-zionist-left-relations-with-neturei-karta/

Look closely at the political affiliations of the prominent anti-Zionist Jews (outside Neturei Karta) and you can see just how non-reflective they are of the Israeli and Diaspora population. For example:

Ilan Pappe: Communist, ran for the Knesset on the Communist Party ticket

Noam Chomsky: 'Libertarian Socialist' (anarcho-communist).

Norman Finkelstein: Communist, heavily influenced by Chomsky

Tony Greenstein: Communist

Gilad Atzmon: Communist, lunatic

Jacqueline Rose: Post-modernist psycho-babbler, probably Communist

Naomi Klein: Socialist, anti-globalazation activist.

I could go on.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “When all arguments fail, use the anti-Semitism smear. What do you say then to all the Jews and Jewish groups who support my point of view? Jews for Justice for Palestinians here in the UK is just one that we see on demos supporting us. Ah, of course, you have a Zionist epithet for them I suppose. Self-hating Jews?”

More stupid pro-Palestinian canards from an abject fucking liar. I already said I refrained from calling you an anti-Semite, even when you made those statements which were clearly anti-Semitic.

So me a favour and stop lying. I didn’t call you an anti-Semite for criticising Israel. That is a complete strawman. I cited the comment which had nothing to do with criticising Israel. You also cited an ample number of conspiracist far-right anti-Semitic websites, when suggesting Zionist world government views, and your efforts to minimise the significance of the Holocaust are another pointer.

The vast majority of Jews the world over actually support Israel. That is a cast Iron statistical fact. There are plenty of self-hating Jews like there are plenty of minorities that dislike their identity. Why would Jews be excluded by that phenomenon. Many Jews against Israel are not self-hating. I never suggested they all were but those like Tony Judt clearly were when he blamed Israel for increased anti-Semitism, rather than the perpetuators of these crimes.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “On your earlier comment on antisemitism in uk, there are pro Israeli propaganda groups at play here. But if you go to: www.axt.org.uk/essays/Lerman.htm you will find Rabbi David Goldberg tell you that it is SAFER to be a Jew here than a Muslim. Also at www.thejc.com/.”

How easy it is for you to dismiss a factual assertion as “pro Israeli propaganda”. The details http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=167969 of the findings were covered in the mainstream media and politicians like Gordon Brown addressed the findings. All you did as way of rebuttal was invent an accusation of propaganda, cite a Rabbi who is a well known for denying serious anti-Semitism exists, and not being able to deal http://hurryupharry.org/2010/11/24/rabbi-david-goldberg-mugged-by-reality-again/ with extremism, and cite a Jonathan Freedland opinion piece who again has little connection with reality http://cifwatch.com/2011/11/13/jonathan-freedland-to-israel-i-love-you-i-love-you-not/ as many have noted. It shows you have no respect for the truth. Well done.

OMG!! A £5000 donation from an East London Mosque to the synagogue next door for their new roof. Golly gosh, the Muslims must all be lovely to the Jooz so!!! Lets just forget about the rampant anti-Semitism http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/1703/uk-anti-semitism-muslim-schools in Islamic schools.

Buildersnitz states: “In antiquity Palestinians claim to be descendants of the Canaanites who had a 2000 year history BEFORE the Israelites. But that is not really relevant to the modern era.”

In fact it isn’t relevant at all. The Palestinian- Canaan connection is a total fiction that was disproved archaeologically. The Canaanites were effectively the same culture as the Jews themselves, the story of Canaan is based on a very ancient myth.

Builderman states: “This starts with the Zionist plan to invade Palestine in 1897. And these few are supposed to be the indigenous people? The clue is what the Zionists called their programme and what was put on all the collecting boxes in the diaspora.”

Nice talk, using the word “invasion”. When you talk of Palestine you of course talk about the entire region including Jordan. Secondly, Arabs wouldn’t have owned much more land than the Jews. At least 80% of the land was classified as Miri under Ottoman rule which means the State owned it.

As I already fucking well said, indigenous people are also displaced people. The Jews were a displaced people who were unable to settle elsewhere in safety for extended periods of time. That is why Israel was created, far more so than any religious reason, and why it ought to exist today.

I spoke with an old Jewish man who lived in Dublin as a child during WWII. He said the Irish kids would say to him “Get back to Palestine Jewman” as an insult. It was understood even after centuries that Jews were from Palestine rather than Europe. That is what indigenous means, quite literally ‘from’.

Builderann states: “The Jewish COLONIZATION Association. As once the only colony in Europe, I can't see how any true Irish person can support Israel unless they spit on their history.”

Cut the bullshit out about Ireland. The Jews were pushed out over a millennia by colonial (pagan, Christian and then Islamic) endeavours. The Irish experienced the same but had the fortune to get it back before the Irish presence was completely lost in Ireland. Thus the Irish share many similarities with Jews, and early nationalists also agreed with Zionism, which was the return of the Jewish nation.

t said...

builder man: 'Colonisation' of Ireland by Britain and colonisation of part of the historic land of Israel by Jewish nationalists are completely different things. The Jews sought to find freedom and build a country in the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish civilisation. The international community for the most part recognised these claims. The Jews did not go to the land at the behest of the Tsarist or British Empire, flying the flag on their behalf and seeking to add to their imperial possesions. They flew their own flag, and came with little in the way of firepower, from societies that rejected them or that they no longer wanted to be a part of. These were the powerless, from all corners of the earth devoted to a vision and the well-being of their fellow Jews.

The System Works said...

Oops... Last comment there was actually mine

Paul said...

Does anyone else think Builderman is bit of a cunt? Or am I being unfair?

builder man said...

To Rob harris and The System Works.
Ben Gurion quoted by Nahun Goldman
in The Jewish Paradox:'I would never sign an agreement with Israel.It is normal, we have taken their country.They see but one thing;we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?' Says it all.
Interesting guy was Goldmann. Tried
to get peace by talking to 'terrorists' and was accused of
high treason for his pains.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. I said emasculation
of Palestinian culture not Destruction. Here's how:
1. Restriction of movement preventing cultural events.
2. Villages destroyed. Imwas was there in biblical times.
3. Banning 'resistance' music.
4. Banning of Nakba rememberence.
5.Archealogical sites decimated. See UNESCO report.
6.AP designated books looted from
Palestinian homes.
7.Destruction of historic sites in Nablus. See Amnesty.
8.Destruction of olive groves, icons of Palestinian culture. Some
are 1000 years old and still producing olives.The first said to be planted by the Canaanites, the
forebears of the Palestinians.
9. Constant harassment:'Police disperse 'Palestinian Culture Festival' at http://www.haaratz.com/news/police-disperse-palestinian-culture-festival-events-1.272577.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Influence of Jewish groups in US. From Washington Jewish Week: The Jewish 99% group
protest at the elitist Jewish groups and their wealthy financial backers
that support US policies that oppress Palestinians.
Great to see a new generation of Jewish people standing up for the
decent principles of their beliefs.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris and The System Works.
This is from an American Jewish website:www.jewishmag.com/145mag/herzl_hechler/herzl_hechler.htm
Herzl courted the nobility of Europe for support including Kaiser
Wilhelm, the progenitor of WW1 and the deaths of millions, and was prepared to be subservient to a German Protectorate.The influence of the Jews in the corridors of power was substantial. Sir Samuel
Montague was asked about Palestine.
He said 'and what do the Jews want
with a State of their own? Do they
not already govern nearly all European nations?'Many millions had
been spent by Barons Hirsch and
Rothschild in colonizing Palestine
and Herzl had a few wealthy backers
AND collecting boxes in the diaspora. The boxes were labelled
'For the COLONIZATION of Palestine.' At the first Zionist
congress in Basle, they came from
all over the world. You had to be
RICH to travel and stay abroad.
Another clue: The wearing of TOP
HATS was obligatory!

builder man said...

To Paul.Swearing at people with the
language of the ignorant is of great sustenance for there is no clearer evidence that their arguments are invalid.

builder man said...

To 't'. But Palestine WAS NOT the Jewish National Home, it was the Palestinians. When in 1897 the Zionists decided to invade Palestine (by constant unlawful
immigration), the Jews were only 5%
of the pop. and owned only 1% of the land. The region is also the
cradle of Christian and Muslim
civilisation, and they have an equal historic claim.The Jews were
able to build up their superior firepower including arms factories,
during the British Mandate. The Jews who went to Palestine may have
been powerless but the Zionist
organisations which supported them
was wealthy and had powerful friends in the US and elsewhere,
which highlighted the natural sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. But now Israel is one of
the most reviled countries in the
world because of its oppression of
the Palestinians and the vast majority of people in the world
agree.

The System Works said...

builder man: Herzl courted the Kaiser, courted the Pope and courted just about everybody he could. He never did achieve anything with those two.

I had to laugh at the rest of the drivel you put out.

The System Works said...

builder man: The land of Israel is the Jewish National Home. Christians and Muslims are not national groups or ethnicities, and Palestinian national identity was not really formed by the time of organised Jewish immigration, which you dub 'invasion'. Many Arabs in the region saw themselves as from a southern province of Syria. Indeed, there were pogroms and riots in 1920 in response to the fact that Faisal's scheme to create a Greater Syria including Palestine under his rule failed.

builder man said...

To The System Works. Please go on with your list of intelligent Jewish people opposed to Israel's policies. I am pleased to see it is growing!

The System Works said...

builder man: Are you actually calling Gilad Atzmon and Neturei Karta intelligent?

Though I wouldn't make you the judge of intelligence, given your laughable comment about top hats in a formal congress in the late 1800s. Again, your words are more informed by stereotypes and Arab propaganda than the facts.

In Britain, Herzl's support came from poor immigrants rather than the elite of Anglo-Jewry: http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/lifestyle-features/31077/zionisms-hated-hero

The System Works said...

builder man: I'll wager Birthright Israel is far more successful than some Jewish branch of the Occupy Movement, which is probably composed mostly of spoiled brats, just like the rest of the it.

builder man said...

To The System Works. What is the extent of the Land of Israel then?
Can you enlighten me and assign the claim for this?
What you call drivel came from an
authoritative Jewish source. So many
people on this blog are disparaging
Jews and Jewish groups that I fear it
is becoming anti-Semitic.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris When the 'Israelites'
were 'pushed out',they were a disparate lot, a bunch of warring tribes. Some converted to Christianity, some were bandits and
a few maintained a rabbinic code -not
a nation. The Irish, on the other hand, had a cohesive Celtic civilisation, unfortunately contaminated by the Catholic Church,
but nevertheless, at its roots still
highly civilised. Why you denigrate your own history I cannot fathom.

Rob Harris said...

Thank you Builderman for your five idiotic comments. Fuck knows why you persist in firing off this shit when you are refuted time and time again. I suspect you just want to win a shouting match.

Numero uno: “Ben Gurion quoted by Nahun Goldman in The Jewish Paradox:'I would never sign an agreement with Israel.It is normal, we have taken their country.They see but one thing;we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?' Says it all. Interesting guy was Goldmann. Tried to get peace by talking to 'terrorists' and was accused of high treason for his pains”

The quote http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=6&x_article=1521 actually first appeared years after Ben Gurion’s death. Firstly, it is likely a paraphrase.

Secondly, he is not saying the Jews stole someone else’s country but in the attributed quote he is trying to look at the Arab perspective – hence he states “Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs.” – which you conveniently leave out.

By the way many pro-Palestinians actually misattribute him almost constantly such as your own Ben White who has invented quotations attributed to him at least twice.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “I said emasculation of Palestinian culture not Destruction. Here's how:
1. Restriction of movement preventing cultural events. 2. Villages destroyed. Imwas was there in biblical times. 3. Banning 'resistance' music. 4. Banning of Nakba rememberence. 5.Archealogical sites decimated. See UNESCO report. 6.AP designated books looted from Palestinian homes. 7.Destruction of historic sites in Nablus. See Amnesty. 8.Destruction of olive groves, icons of Palestinian culture. Some are 1000 years old and still producing olives.The first said to be planted by the Canaanites, the
forebears of the Palestinians. 9. Constant harassment:'Police disperse 'Palestinian Culture Festival' at.”

It is quite comical how you cite clear incitement such as banning “resistance music” which is an extension of their suicidal death cult. The fucking Nabka events are also a cause of a significant degree of violence. Israel actually treats archaeological sites with a great deal of care. UNESCO are a bunch of fucking liars. They claimed http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/152656 Rachel’s Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs belonged to the Palestinians as well as the Jews. An utter joke.

The harping on about Olive Groves is a joke. In actual fact settler agriculture is targeted by Palestinian farmers a great deal but it is never mentioned http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/10/16/yisrael-medad-the-us-state-department-defends-palarab-olive-trees-condemns-such-actions/ - you cite them as an aspect of their culture but olive trees http://www.jpost.com/PromoContent/Article.aspx?id=191369 are an even more ancient aspect of Israeli culture too. Ever heard of the Mount of the Olives? lol

The Canaanites are not the forebearers of the Palestinians. That is pure myth making just like Arafat co-opting the name “Palestinian” for the Islamic Arabs of the region when Palestinians were anyone living in Palestine. That is all the rewriting of fact just like a Roman Emperior renaming Judea “Syria-Palestina” after Israel’s old arch-enemies the Philistines who disappeared from history circa 700BC.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “Influence of Jewish groups in US. From Washington Jewish Week: The Jewish 99% group protest at the elitist Jewish groups and their wealthy financial backers that support US policies that oppress Palestinians. Great to see a new generation of Jewish people standing up for the
decent principles of their beliefs.”

There you go, pure anti-Semitism at work, right up your alley, echoing 1930’s Nazi Germany:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGHhlEvN3d8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQDxnZlicas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iy5vHV09UU

The System Works said...

builder man: What is the extent of the Land of Israel then? Can you enlighten me and assign the claim for this?

The geography question is actually a matter of rigorous historic and theological debate, but it is largely irrelevant. Since the time of Ben Gurion, mainstream Zionists do not envisage a Jewish state or mass settlement in the entire area of Eretz Israel, which includes much of Jordan, bits of Lebanon, Egypt and Syria. Even among the hawkish of the Religious Zionist sector, that acquisition is seen as a matter for the Messianic Age, not a modern day political imperative.

Now if you are talking about a claim to the land or at least part of it by the Jewish people, that right is simply evident from the fact that the Jewish nation is a nation. In recent times some have disputed this (such as the Marxist expert in the history of French cinema, Shlomo Sand). It was also an identity the founders of the Reform Movement in Germany notoriously tried to shed, but that effort failed and the Reformists back-peddled on it for the most part.

Nevertheless, such claims denying Jewish peoplehood have no basis in history or tradition. Jews are first and foremost a national group, being described as a 'nation' (goy) or people ('am') countless times in the Tanakh. In fact, the Hebrew word for religion ('dat') is a Persian import picked up later, around the time of the Persian conquest of Babylon and never used in the Torah or most of the Bible I believe.

If one wishes to reject the notion of Jewish peoplehood and accept the argument of the Marxist Mr. Sand, then one is essentially saying that a book such as 'The Kuzari' (a work written around the year 1140 by a Medieval Spanish rabbi that dwells extensively on the idea of Jewish peoplehood) is a modern-day forgery, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In fact, the author of that work, Judah HaLevi, is often seen as a proto-Zionist. He wrote poetry about the Land of Israel and considered it ideal for Jews to try and settle there, which he did himself though he died soon after he arrived. Jewish proto-Zionism goes back a long time. Nachmandides, also in Medieval Spain, considered it a religious obligation for Jews to try and conquer as well as settle the Land of Israel. He spent the last years of his life there rebuilding the Jewish community shattered by the recent Crusades. Many of the synagogues and schools he established survived for centuries and up to this day. His work remains an inspiration for the Religious Zionist community, who see him as one of their great fore-bearers and theological justifiers.

Of course, one has to move beyond a Christian or non-Jewish paradigm to really appreciate this, but that is not actually difficult given the bare facts.

A fascinating book I picked up on a visit to Cambridge last year is 'Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism' by David Goodblatt.

Contrary to the widespread view that nationalism is a modern phenomenon, Goodblatt argues that it can be found in the ancient world. He argues that concepts of nationalism compatible with contemporary social scientific theories can be documented in the ancient sources from the Mediterranean Rim by the middle of the last millennium BCE. In particular, the collective identity asserted by the Jews in antiquity fits contemporary definitions of nationalism. After the theoretical discussion in the opening chapter, the author examines several factors constitutive of ancient Jewish nationalism. He shows how this identity was socially constructed by such means as the mass dissemination of biblical literature, retention of the Hebrew language, and through the priestly caste. The author also discusses each of the names used to express Jewish national identity: Israel, Judah and Zion.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Elements-Ancient-Jewish-Nationalism-Goodblatt/dp/0521101670/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Rob Harris said...

Builder said “Herzl courted the nobility of Europe for support including Kaiser Wilhelm, the progenitor of WW1 and the deaths of millions, and was prepared to be subservient to a German Protectorate.The influence of the Jews in the corridors of power was substantial. Sir Samuel Montague was asked about Palestine. He said 'and what do the Jews want with a State of their own? Do they not already govern nearly all European nations?'Many millions had been spent by Barons Hirsch and Rothschild in colonizing Palestine and Herzl had a few wealthy backers AND collecting boxes in the diaspora.”

I have asked you to provide an authoritative source for your most contentious claims. You have failed to do so. There was nothing wrong with putting a couple of million into helping the Zionist project, and in fact your source says it didn’t even do a lot of good. Neither is there anything wrong with seeking political support from the leaders of various countries. Is that not what non-Jews do all the time? I suggest you take you anti-Semitic goggles off. They are making you look like a fool.

The definition of a colony is a region ruled by another state or run independently. It is not necessarily some sort of effort at empire as the term has come to be used by the left since the modern era. You don’t have to take my word for it http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colony – perish that thought!

The horseshit you speak reeks of it. Quoting some figure claiming that the Jews control Europe is indicative of your own anti-Semitism. Some wealthy Jews had it good but the majority of Jews were treated like fucking filth. After conflict in the Ukraine circa 1917, 100,000 Jews were slaughtered. In Poland, where the largest Jewish population was in Europe, Some Jewish people thought the Germans would treat them better than the Poles. In many countries mass genocide of the Jewish population started before the Germans even arrived.

The System Works said...

Rob: The fact that builder man treats as profound a notorious and blatantly anti-Semitic quote by Montague is very telling.

The perception of Jewish power has always been at odds with reality. However, claiming to 'take on' this alleged power or hinting at it can give one radical credentials or an air of bravery. What builder man demonstrates is one of the most damaging forms of Jew-hatred in history. Goebbels was able to tell large audiences in 1944 that Jews were the only people profiting from the war, when he knew most of Europe's Jews had been shot, gassed, burned and starved without much opposition - even after Jewish Americans lobbied Roosevelt to do something as early as 1942. Jewish representatives were not even able to get America to fill its stated quota of Jewish refugees before America entered the war.

In fact, any ruler throughout history that wished to spill Jewish blood like water could do so with relative ease, until the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty.

Yet it continues. Look at the Jews of Sweden today, who are victims of about half of the hate crimes in the country. They are harassed by a bigoted Muslim community composed of more recent arrivals: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-reluctantly-abandon-swedish-city-amid-growing-anti-semitism-1.301276

This is not likely to earn much attention due to the great success of the Islamophobia industry, which has greatly exaggerated the problem of Islamophobia in the West to the extent many believe it has overtaken hatred of blacks or Jews. Of course, this isn't true most places. See for example the FBI stats on hate crimes in America or the situation of most European countries, where Muslims are more likely to commit hate crimes, particularly against Jews or homosexuals, than be a victim of one. Look at the great success Islamic and left-wing interests have had in white-washing Islamic history in relation to colonialism, imperialism, Jew-hatred and the slave trade.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: When the 'Israelites' were 'pushed out',they were a disparate lot, a bunch of warring tribes. Some converted to Christianity, some were bandits and a few maintained a rabbinic code –not a nation. The Irish, on the other hand, had a cohesive Celtic civilisation, unfortunately contaminated by the Catholic Church, but nevertheless, at its roots still highly civilised. Why you denigrate your own history I cannot fathom.”

Paul called you a name and to be honest he isn’t far off the mark judging by your efforts to try to stir shit up by suggesting I am treating my culture with contempt. How sad. On a few forums I have defended Irish culture, including to Israeli’s who think here is an anti-Semitic cesspool. During the Dark Age, Ireland was the cradle of Western Civilisation in a number of senses, and had quite an impact on the world before it was harmed by successive invasions.

BTW the Irish aren’t Celtic. I studied archaeology at university, and there has not been sufficient evidence found of a Celtic invasion. The Irish are an ancient people who came to Ireland over 10,000 years ago, and remained largely unaffected by other populaces until the Vikings en masse came in the 9th Century. The earliest British populace are likely the same although that’s more speculative.

I am not a romanticist however. Some Irish were slave traders, and the country was at war with hundreds of mini kingdoms. At one point in history, anyone who left their designated kingdom was beyond the protection of the law. They could be slaughtered without recourse. Not such a nice place, and to cast the Jews in the worst possible light as you did only reinforces our view on your “attitude”. Obviously there would be some conversion but estimated population increases takes that into account.

The System Works said...

builder man: I overlooked your comments on the Celts. Your point about Jews not being a nation is easy to debunk (see my comments above), but that comment of yours really shows that your grasp of history is laughable. It is now widely known that the Celtic peoples never made up the majority of the Irish gene pool, and more likely it is Iberian peoples related to the Basques. Ireland will no doubt go on regarding itself as a Celtic nation. Genes or not, its all about historic self-perception

Rob Harris said...

To SystemWorks: Indeed Montagu was a hysterical fool when it came to the topic http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Montagu_balfour.htm – he tried to make out the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine would lead to their expulsion elsewhere. He watered down the Balfour Declaration which resulted in the British establishment subsequently being able to argue that they had the right to stop Jewish immigration into Palestine to appease the oil-rich Arabs, at the time when the Jews were fleeing mass persecution. The British might well apologise for that if it didn’t leave the Arab world in uproar. He also seemed to be a self-hating individual as well. Its an easy accusation to make but he justified anti-Semitism in his remarks about it being easy to see why the British would want the Jews out.

There is no denying the Jewish people are a particularly capable group. Anti-Semities portray them as evil greedy power-mad individuals but if we look without prejudice, there were Robert Maxwell’s of this world hardly outweigh the good others have done. Quite the opposite. The achievements in academia, the arts, the sciences leave me in no doubt that if anything these people should be regarded as an asset to the human race, in much the same way as the Ancient Greeks were, rather than the blight they are portrayed as. Yet even that would betray the reality that most Jewish people do not achieve more than the “goyim”. The Rothschild’s et al were a presence but anti-Semitism has continuously exaggerated their importance to the detriment of reality. Jews made up only a tiny percentage of the establishment in Europe and elsewhere. The vast majority were pretty average, for example the shtetls in Eastern Europe where the great majority of Jews lived were hardly a paragon of wealth, prestige…

You’re quite right to say that the anti-Semitic far-right and far-left (often a misnomer since these essentially national socialist advocates possess both stances) and that these people like to present themselves as radical truth tellers, freedom fighters (funny how so many news websites that are anti-semitic use the word “free) when in fact they are base individuals motivated by genocidal hate.

Indeed Sweden has turned into Malmo is a cautionary tale. Jewish people are leaving many parts of Europe. In the Netherlands police are posing as Jews to bring out those attacking them. A substantial number of Jews have left France as well. Yet all people do is screech about “Islamophobia” like Builderman, who thinks he can use the Islamophobia card on here liberally, which prompted me to point to his explicitly anti-Semitic comments, to which he replied that it was a smear to stifle debate.

The stark issue here is that hatred toward Jews outside of Israel is increasing, often driven by the left, whilst they are causing no trouble. By contrast, whilst the majority of Muslims are not involved with terrorism and what have you, numerous people within the Islamic community display a contempt for the nation in which they live which justifiably causes anger – why should it not? Many surveys and other indicators illustrate a worrying trend toward extremism (e.g 1/3 of students think attacks like 7/7 were justified), for which it is just to express concern. Yet these concerns are smacked down with the Islamophobia charge, again often by the left. It is an extremely sinister game these people are playing.

builder man said...

To The System Works.The early permanent inhabitants of Palestine
were Palestinian by definition, an
identification going back to antiquity.Although Israel does not have a RIGHT to exist - the Israeli
leadership knows this and so has to
bang on about it constantly to convince others of the lie and probably themselves too - it does have a REASON to exist because of the centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust.Madagascar, Argentina and
Uganda etc.as places of refuge were
considered by the early Zionists.
The early PERMANENT inhabitants of
Britain were the Britons as are the
Palestinians in Palestine - the indigenous people.Israel is a concoction made up by Zionists going around the world looking for
'Jews' in order to maintain a demographic majority, and has a
resonance with the Nazis pursuing
their Aryan purity.Another word for
'ethnicity' is of course 'race.'
There are concerns that Israel is
becoming a racist State.See Gideon
Levy who we should all respect and revere for his courageous journalism. www.haaratz.com/misc/article-print-page/ethopian-students-affair-shows-prevalent-racism-in-israel-1.8578?trailingPath=2.169%2C2.225%

builder man said...

What is most important in Palestine
is the consequences for human beings,
whatever their origins. It grieves me
just as much to see a little Israeli
girl with her head stoved in because
she was in the wrong place and came
into contact with someone full of hate, as it does the many Palestinian
child victims of 'Cast Lead.'What an
apt description.So just as most Palestinians could be persuaded to
accept a 2 state solution, then
Israelis should be persuaded to do
likewise, through positive stories
arising out of the conflict though
they don't seem to be popular on
this blog. A story of a little
Palestinian boy shot by the Israelis and whose father donated
his organs to Jews as a gesture of
peace.jmm.aaa.net.av/articles/16277.htm. Scenes from the film at video.pbs.org/video/1519516899/
Gene Roddenbury, whose ashes (some)
are due to be launched into deep space this year,creator of Star Trek, was a visionary. When Captain
Kirk ever came back to our future
Earth, the first question he asked
Spock was 'Do they still use money
here?' Says it all.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Ben Gurion like I.F.
Stone is admitting the Jew's guilt.
The quotation was taken and recorded
by a Zionist Jew. Is this yet another
Jew that you wish to disparage? And
the 99% Jews are also anti-Semitic?

builder man said...

The System Works. Thank you for your views on national identity. You have
obviously researched antiquity thoroughly. But you haven't answered the critical question of today. What
is the extent of the Land of Israel?
Does it include the Golan Heights, the Sheeba Farms, the West Bank, all
of Jerusalem? I quoted Montague because he was Jewish and this was from a Jewish website.You surely
cannot deny the political influence
in the US and the UK that goes far
beyond numerical representation?
How do you explain legislation so
favourable to Israel? Not to mention the Balfour Declaration, the cause of all the trouble. Facts
are facts and smears thrown around
tend to be from those who have lost the argument. Anti-Semitism or any other form of racism is abhorrent.
I am often approached by racists
because of my pro-Palestinian stance and they are given short shrift. That is not what we are about.This is a statement I have
made before on this post but is worth repeating. 'I regard the Jews
as a gifted people who have enriched the whole world in every
sphere of human endeavour.'My own
words sincerely put on our publications about the oppression
of the Palestinians.

builder man said...

To The System Works. It is obvious
that the vast majority of anti-Semitic incidents in Sweden, though
deplorable, are the result of the
Israeli atrocities committed during
'Cast Lead', attested to by Israeli
soldiers themselves in 'Breaking the
Silence' and Goldstone.Sweden saved
many from the Holocaust and were thanked for it with the assassination
of Count Bernadotte, a Swedish
diplomat and personal saviour of
thousands of Jews, - murdered by
future prime ministers of Israel.

builder man said...

WHAT I LEARNED FROM THE BBC TODAY.
Online News Magazine.
The story of Townsend Griffiss, the
first American pilot to die in Europe
after the US entry into the war, one
of 30,000 USAAF personnel to lose their lives in Europe. Tragically he was killed by friendly fire, shot down by a Polish RAF pilot over the English Channel.
NEVER FORGET.

The System Works said...

builder man: Many Islamic countries are human rights nightmares. Yet I rarely see people burn a mosque in this country in anger at that fact. If this was happening en masse, would you be so keen to justify it?

Ted Leddy said...

Sorry guys

I have been very busy the last couple of days and didn't have the time to contribute to this conversation. I will do so tomorrow.

Also, lets show builder man the respect he deserves. It's not easy being a liberal and arguing the Palestinian cause on this blog so lets keep things civil.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: Ben Gurion like I.F. Stone is admitting the Jew's guilt. The quotation was taken and recorded by a Zionist Jew. Is this yet another Jew that you wish to disparage? And the 99% Jews are also anti-Semitic?”

A total strawman comment illustrating yet again your rank dishonesty. I quoted a source pointing out that the quote did not appear for years after Ben Gurion’s death. I’m not saying, and never said, Nahun Goldman was motivated by anti-Semitism. Kindly stop lying. The phrase clearly suggests he was trying to look at the Arab perspective rather than claim it was any kind of truth. That meaning is clear enough when he states: “Sure, God promised it to us, but WHAT DOES THAT MATTER TO THEM? Our God is not theirs.”

Secondly, I.F. Stone is not a legitimate source. Once again this man was a hard-core apologist of Stalin http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12007 - In case you didn’t hear: Stalin is the biggest mass murderer of all. Are you going to Hitler-apologising cite Holocaust-deniers as well?

Your suggesting he “admitted the Jew’s guilt” makes ti a collective guilt for all Jews. He was not involved in Israel. He cannot admit the guilt of those he was not involved with. It is to conflate all the Jews as one entity, and constitutes an anti-Semitic comment.

It is a fucking joke that you blame Israel for the actions of anti-Semites in Sweden. You are actually justifying anti-Semitic crime. I am glad to see that the mask has fallen from your persona, and you have been revealed to be a hate-filled individual.

“'My own words sincerely put on our publications about the oppression of the Palestinians.” – what organisation are you a member of, and furthermore for the sake of transparency because you know our names, what is your full name?

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “Sweden saved many from the Holocaust and were thanked for it with the assassination of Count Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat and personal saviour of thousands of Jews, - murdered by future prime ministers of Israel.”

That is untrue Begin was one of the leaders of the organisation behind the killing of Bernadotte, and that was because he essentially sold an independent Israel down the swanney. Even the modest solution of UN Resolution 181 was deemed too generous for Bernadotte, and he left the future of any possible Israeli state down to an Arab say so, which in effect nullified it. You also exaggerate his import in saving Jews. He was a leader of the Red Cross, and transferred around 15,000 inmates of internment camps to Swedish hospitals. A few thousand Jews were among them. He did his job. Give him a medal.


Builderman states: “The early permanent inhabitants of Palestine were Palestinian by definition, an
identification going back to antiquity.Although Israel does not have a RIGHT to exist - the Israeli
leadership knows this and so has to bang on about it constantly to convince others of the lie and probably themselves too - it does have a REASON to exist because of the centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust.”

Total obfuscation as per usual. I have already told you repeatedly, and it is a matter of historic record, that Judea was renamed “Syria-Palestina” in the second Century A.D., and the second Jewish revolt brutally put down. As I said repeatedly, the Palestinians were simply anyone who lived in Palestine, Zionist Jews called themselves Palestinian too, and the pro-Zionist Jerusalem post in the pre-Israel era was called the Palestine Post. This is behind Gingrich’s point of view. The notion of the Palestinians being a distinctive Arab people, culturally different to the Arab culture of the surrounding regions, was a myth making developed by Arafat, the same individual who called Jesus the first Palestinian martyr. He co-opted a name for his own needs, and acknowledged this is in fact a pan-Arab conflict.

Israel has both a historic right to exist and an ever present need to exist because of people like you.

Builderman states: “The early PERMANENT inhabitants of Britain were the Britons as are the
Palestinians in Palestine - the indigenous people.Israel is a concoction made up by Zionists going around the world looking for 'Jews' in order to maintain a demographic majority, and has a
resonance with the Nazis pursuing their Aryan purity.Another word for 'ethnicity' is of course 'race.'”

Again with the cheap Nazi pro-Palestinian smears, and yet you and your ilk have the nerve to object when anyone who disagrees raises the issue of anti-Semitism?

To be a Jew is first and foremost a cultural-religious issue, not one of race. There are black Jews and Arab Jews. Many Jews are indistinguishable from their Arab neighbours so give the race issue a rest.

The System Works said...

Rob: It was the Lehi, not Begin, that was responsible for the Bernadotte assasination, which shocked and deeply embarassed the Zionist leadership at the time. Bernadotte's popularity may have been decreasing, but the Israelis also realised the damage that could result to thier efforts at the UN because of it. The Lehi was completely crushed as a result.

Rob Harris said...

SystemWorks: You are quite right. Begin was with Irgun rather than Lehi. It was Shamir who was involved with ordering Bernadotte's assassination.

Builderman exaggerates: "Count Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat and personal saviour of thousands of Jews, - murdered by future prime ministers of Israel."

It was just one future prime Minister - Builderman wants us to believe it was almost the Israeli establishment or israeli people as he inferred previously but ironically Bernadotte was assassinated because they weren't part of the establishment:

"During the war, Lehi distanced itself from government control. Shamir, Eldad and Yellin-Mor authorized the assassination of the United Nations representative in the Middle East, Count Folke Bernadotte during a truce. Bernadotte was seen by Shamir and his colleagues as an Anti-Zionist and "an obvious agent of the British enemy".[9] Lehi also feared that Israel would agree to Bernadotte's peace proposals, which they considered dangerous, unaware that the provisional Israeli government had already rejected a proposal by Bernadotte the day before. The Israeli provisional government forcibly disbanded Lehi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir

The System Works said...

Rob: The Lehi was a very radical and violent movement, but also pretty tiny in numbers. They had maybe 500 fighters at their height, and many of their arms were stolen from the Haganah, which is one of the reasons they were considered a thorn in the side by the likes of Ben Gurion. In fact, the Haganah co-operated with the British in actions against the Lehi. Their leader, Yair Stern, was killed by the British in one of his hide-outs after a probable tip-off from the Haganah.

Of course, the behavior and outlook of this extreme and tiny splinter sect is used to demonize all of Israel and Zionism today.

builder man: Palestinians are Arabs in language, culture and most likely in the gene pool. Some Palestinian Arabs can trace their ancestry to the initial Islamic conquest of the region, such as the Nusseibehs, Husseinis, Khalidis and other prominent families (who are often seen as the equivalent of Palestinian Brahmins). Arabs come from the Gulf of Arabia, and are not native to the Near East or North Africa. They spread all over what is today called the 'Arab world' via commerce and conquest. Arab Muslims have been one of the world's most effective groups of colonizers and imperialists, completely eradicating native peoples and cultures, like the Berbers throughout North Africa. The root of the conflict in Darfur is persecution of native animists and Christians by the Arab Muslim colonzers. However, most commentators refer to it as a 'tribal conflict' as opposed to an anti-colonial struggle because its generally accepted only white westerners can be colonists.

builder man said...

To The System Works. Mosques have
been burnt in the West Bank by fanatical settlers imported deliberately by the Israeli gov. I
agree with your comments on Islamic States and that's why I try to change
things by subscribing to the Iran Liberty Ass. etc. Don't think I'm
overwhelmed with admiration for the representatives
of the Palestinians either (nor are
my Palestinian friends!). It is the
PEOPLE, like any people anywhere,
who deserve peace and justice and
that is what I work for. On the origin of the Palestinians, the genetic evidence is that they are
indistinguishable from Jews but not
closely connected to Arabs! Their
history in the region goes back to
pre-Judaic times. See:
epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/
01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html. Any doubt that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors of the Land of Palestine
are dispelled here. Are you able to
give me a reply as to what you regard is the Land of Israel now?
I find that the pro-Israeli groups
are keen to avoid a truthful answer. I constantly put forward on
this blog stories about reconciliation and ideas for peace.
Why don't you support Palestine's
claim for statehood at the UN which
would massively encourage the peace
process?

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. The 'prison terms' of
the terrorist assassins were derisory
because they had such popular support
and then they later elected the terrorist
Shamir as P.M.!Then the terrorist
Begin who blew up the St. Davids Hotel killing 87 was ALSO elected
P.M! The Israelis just love terrorists provided of course they
are THEIR terrorists. Ben Gurion
talked of God's promise. If my God
promised your property to me, would
you let me take it? If so, please let me know! My God is very flexible! My name is public knowledge on my email address given
to this blog. O.K.?

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy. Thanks for the thought
but I don't mind at all the uncivil
language because it usually indicates
a failed argument.

The System Works said...

builder man: Congratulations on dodging a hypothetical question about Islamophobia.

Are you aware nationality and ethnicity is about far more than genetics? The fact is, Palestinian Arabs have not until more recent years demonstrated the traits of a unique nationality.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “To Ted Leddy. Thanks for the thought but I don't mind at all the uncivil language because it usually indicates a failed argument.”

Of course I’ll respect Ted’s wishes but quite honestly your rambling absurdly off-topic comments annoy me a lot. I have actually debated with strongly pro-Palestinian people before without being rude. The rudeness on here is in part due to your contempt for the truth where you demonise Israel and the West unrelentingly, how you strawman (misrepresent) the views of others, your obvious hatred for these people, and how you draw Israel into virtually every discussion in an effort to demonise it.

Builderman states: “The 'prison terms' of the terrorist assassins were derisory because they had such popular support and then they later elected the terrorist Shamir as P.M.!”

As I already pointed out, it was with Bernadotte’s assassination that there was a public outcry and Israel cracked down on Lehi. The group disbanded soon after. Shamir was elected prime-minister almost forty years later after he had in the meantime served the nation itself with distinction.

Builderman states: “Then the terrorist Begin who blew up the St. Davids Hotel killing 87 was ALSO elected P.M! The Israelis just love terrorists provided of course they are THEIR terrorists.”

The King David Hotel was repeatedly warned of the bomb but didn’t evacuate. It was in part a legitimate target because the British Military Authority Headquarters were there. The police and the Palestine (Jerusalem) Post were also warned in the so it was staff stupidity that led to so many dying.

Again that was over thirty years later. Begin was in many ways a hero who fought the Nazi’s as well. What of De Valera, a member of the IRA and the most senior statesman Ireland has ever had to date?

Builderman states: “Ben Gurion talked of God's promise. If my God promised your property to me, would you let me take it? If so, please let me know! My God is very flexible!”

Ben Gurion wasn’t talking of property but a region that was taken from his people by the colonisation of foreign empires, several pagan (Romans, and Persians), two Christian (the Byzantines and the Crusaders), and successive Islamic empires too numerous to mention before the Jewish presence became peripheral. It seems the Jews suffered the consequences of colonialism more so than most. Thus it is clear you are quite OK with colonialism as long as it is done by the side you identify with.

Builderman states: “My name is public knowledge on my email address given to this blog. O.K.?”

If your name is public knowledge then you will have no problem providing it on this blog. What is your full name, and what organisation are you connected with? You brought the latter up several times so as in a court of law it is just to address the matter.

The System Works said...

builder man: all this isn't to say Palestinian Arabs have no right to self-determination in the territories they predominantly occupy. I am simply arguing the point on identity as the subject interests me.

The fact is that the Jews are a nation with national claims, and deserve independence in a portion of that land without being demonized as aliens and thieves. Especially given the Arab conquest which has bequeathed much of Palestinian identity (language, faith and ethnicity (if not genes)). Isn't it funny how some leftists get all 'blood and soil' when it comes to Palestinian advocacy?

As for the Land of Israel question, I cannot give you a definitive answer as it is a matter of dispute as I said before. Generally, the Kingdom as it existed under the United Monarchy is regarded as being most reflective of the actual borders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early-Historical-Israel-Dan-Beersheba-Judea-Corrected.png

Rob Harris said...

Builderman states: “On the origin of the Palestinians, the genetic evidence is that they are
indistinguishable from Jews but not closely connected to Arabs! Their history in the region goes back to pre-Judaic times. See: epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html. Any doubt that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors of the Land of Palestine
are dispelled here.”

Notwithstanding the obfuscation of your support, and apologism, for the Iranian regime against the West and Israel, You of course misrepresent the findings of the article you linked which are thus:

“The overall conclusion is that the female Jewish line deviates a lot more from the Palestinian heritage than the male line, but the heritage is still there. So that's the good news. Jews and Palestinian Arabs are blood brothers - although this close genetic relationship probably stems from pre-Judaic times, rather than any more recent conversion of Palestinian Jews to Islam.”

You lie about the connection between the Arabs and the Palestinians. It actually states that the Jews and the Arabs are essentially one people in genetic terms. This has been known for over a hundred years, hence their classification as “Semities”. It says the Palestinian connection to the Arabs is absolute in racial terms. Myself and SW were referring to ethno-cultural terms, when discussing who are indigenous to the region, not racial terms. You were the one to bring up the latter to smear Israel.

Furthermore, it is interesting that you say the Palestinians and Jews are the same people, yet Jews are not indigenous to the region but Palestinians are. I reckon you have shot yourself in the foot there.

Moreover, you have repeatedly cited that famous Israeli basher and inventor of fact, Shlomo Sand, to say Jews have no tie with the region. Yet here you say they do, albeit inadvertently. This fact merely proves how disingenuous you are, in your continual efforts to deny the Jews a nation state.

builder man said...

hsFor those on this blog who find the
idea of reconciliation in the Israeli
- Palestinian conflict difficult to
contemplate perhaps should consider
the story of a prominent surgeon from
Gaza who worked in Israel saving Israeli lives. During the first days
of Cast Lead an Israeli shell destroyed his home and 3 of his daughters were murdered.(The shell
was deliberately aimed).The grieving father refused to react as
most of us lesser mortals would
react. He wrote a now world famous
book: I SHALL NOT HATE. He is now
in contention for a Nobel Peace
Prize. See report at www. guardian.
co.uk/books/2011/feb/26/not-hate-gaza-doctor-abuelaish-review.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman, you have been repeatedly told by those that support Israel on here that there is support a two-state solution. You are the only one on here lambasting one side exclusively, and then you talk about “reconciliation”? Pass the barf bag, this is as bad to you comparing yourself with Mandela on Eirael. Peace is not aided by always blasting one side and ignoring the evident wrongdoing of the other.

Here for example Builderman somehow knows the shell was “deliberately aimed” to kill Dr. Abuelaish and his family because he uses the word “murder”. Firstly there are contradictory stances on what http://www.honestreporting.ca/news_article_name/59823StarDeliberate.aspx happened. I don’t know much about Abuelaish but he seems to be an impressive figure who worked in Israel as a doctor for years. Even he said the strike http://israelity.com/2009/01/20/a-tragedy-of-the-gaza-war/ could’ve been a mistake so quite how Builderman and many other pro-Palers know it was murder is hard to divine.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.The St. Davids Hotel bombing. No warning was received to the person who could have evacuated,
virtually impossible in such a short
time anyway. See www.youtube.com/watch?v+4ZHHTjuv5jc.
These 'warning' excuses have been used by terrorists many times. Making
excuses is the plea of the coward and
the liar. Irgun attacked civilians elsewhere with letter bombs and on
7/1/1948 they rolled a barrel bomb
into a group of civilians waiting
for a bus in Jerusalem (at the Jaffa Gate) and killed 16.A report
of their activities:' The Irgun are
the SS of the new state.The shopkeepers are afraid of raids by
Irgun and the Stern Gang. These young toughs have cleaned out most
private houses of the rich and started to prey on the shopkeepers.'Yet these atrocities are CELEBRATED in Israel. Like I said before the Israelis love terrorists as long as they are THEIR terrorists.Criticism of Hamas
and Hezbollah (which I do) is not
valid from you or the Israelis. At
least they have the object of
resisting occupation. On Ben Gurion. Why bring God into it then?
He/She/It has been used extensively
to justify the colonisation of Palestine.

builder man said...

To The System Works. GENETICS -NATIONALITY - ETHNICITY.
You said 'The Palestinians did not
show traits of a unique nationality'.
This is the experience of all colonised peoples. e.g.The Native Americans, because the nation state was a European invention, and the native peoples connection was with the entire Earth and didn't give any
importance to boundaries until the
colonizers came.I agree that ideas of genetics, nationality and ethnicity are subjective and in the
end nonsense. There is only one race - the human race. I am of German extraction but have no doubts about which side to take in
WW2 because it was so obvious who was right.It is the same in Palestine. If the Jews who had
emigrated there had attempted (as
Einstein wanted) to integrate with
the Palestinians instead of colonising (their word) the region with all sorts of ethnic and religious claims to areas where the
Palestinians had lived for centuries, then conflict might have
been avoided. But it is clear who is right in this conflict - the indigenous people NOT the usurpers
from overseas.

Rob said...

Builderman writes: “These 'warning' excuses have been used by terrorists many times. Making excuses is the plea of the coward and the liar.”

You would do well to heed your own words not to make excuses for terrorists yourself then. For example, I’m sure we all remember on here how much you defended Iran, when Khomenei acknowledged their support for Hamas and Hizbullah.

Furthermore, it is pathetic to suggest warnings are the plea of the coward and the liar. How would the British have liked it if the IRA never used warnings? In Omagh the atrocity was one of the worst because there was no proper warning of the bomb. It suits you right down to the ground to describe warnings as “excuses” of “cowards” etc. because Hamas do not use any, a group you apologise for.

Builderman writes: “Criticism of Hamas and Hezbollah (which I do) is not valid from you or the Israelis. At least they have the object of resisting occupation.”

You have offered a little bit of mealy mouthed criticism here and there but put in perspective it means nothing other than it being an ass-covering exercise. Why? Because you have repeatedly called Hamas etc. a resistance movement as you do here, whilst simultaneously smearing Israel with the “terrorist” charge (as here), and continuously demonising the Jewish nation. You’re not fooling anyone bud.

Builderman writes: “On Ben Gurion. Why bring God into it then? He/She/It has been used extensively to justify the colonisation of Palestine.”

In some circles God has been used but Zionism is fundamentally a secular movement and always was. Again he was portraying the stance as Arabs would have seen it to understand their perspective.

Rob said...

Part Deux - Builderman writes: “The St. Davids Hotel bombing. No warning was received to the person who could have evacuated, virtually impossible in such a short time anyway.”

In the clip Shaw comically says “I don’t want to comment on the story except to say it is absolutely untrue, that no warning was made to me or any member in the building or reached us in any way whatever, and even if I had have done, even supposing I had received it, I could not in the time available have evacuated the building…” – even taking his words at face value indicates obfuscation.

Firstly it is absurd to suggest a hotel could not have be evacuated in half an hour as your clip suggests. It was a modern hotel and there would surely have been reasonably efficient evacuation procedures in place since it was the headquarters of the British Military Authorities in a time of conflict. Begin explicitly blamed Shaw at the time because a warning had apparently been delivered to his office by a policeman. There was also an all clear report given so the warning must have reached the military.

At http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/bombing_of_the_king_david_hotel.htm it says: “For years the British denied that this was true. However, in 1979 evidence was presented to the House of Commons in London that Britain had received a credible warning. A former British Army officer based at the hotel admitted that he had heard other officers joking about a threat that had been made to the hotel.”


Builderman’s other bilge is just uncited waste but he writes: “Yet these atrocities are CELEBRATED in Israel. Like I said before the Israelis love terrorists as long as they are THEIR terrorists.”

Again with the accusations that killings were celebrated at the time by the Israeli public, as with Bernadotte’s. Cite to me where these events were celebrated AT THE TIME as you have repeatedly claimed. Don’t quote one of your batshit insane pro-Palestinian conspiracist sites either.

The System Works said...

builder man: "These 'warning' excuses have been used by terrorists many times"

What about at Dresden?

Ted Leddy said...

The fact that some future Israeli leaders had shady pasts with paramilitary organisation prior to independence is not something I would make a big deal of. The front benches of both the Fine Gael and Fianna Fail parties right up until the 1960s consisted largely of former gunmen. I think you'll find it's not that unusual with relatively new countries.

In my view all these groups, Stern Gang, Lehi, Hagannah all used terrorist tactics to achieve their aims. The key is that in the 1948 the new Israeli government took them on, even using force to make them recognise the authority of the state.

This is in sharp contrast to the Arab states who over the decades have consistantly used terror groups to do their dirty work.

Builder man. You are perfectly entitled to higlight what you percieve to be Israeli belligerance. But it seems to me upon reading your arguments that you are committed to deligitimising the wider Israeli nation. In my view this makes peace harder to achieve and encourages hard liners on both sides to avoid compromise. I know many leftists who seem to think that if all the peoples of the holy land were incorporated into one state there would be peace. This is not realistic and is more about promoting Marxist ideology (ie workers on both sides should unite together against their capitalist opressors) than it is about proposing a genuine settlement. I will always confront those on both sides that reject the two state approach. I consider people who constantly try to argue the illegitimacy of Israel as being in that category.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. I have constantly praised those Israelis like One Voice
who are courageously attempting peace with the Palestinians.How can one say
anything positive about successive
Israeli govs. bent on destroying the
peace process with evictions in E.
Jerusalem and breaking up the West
Bank into bantustans with Israeli only roads and settlements. Shelling into civilian areas is likely to cause civilian deaths.
On your link the Israelis claim
gunfire from the house which Dr.
Abuelaish denies. Who would you believe? My original statement stands.

builder man said...

The Falklands.Up in the news is a parallel with Israel/Palestine. The
Argentinians claim a HISTORIC LINK
with the islands and so they must be
theirs! However, the vast majority of the people who live there regard
themselves as British. Luckily for
them they have someone to defend them
from an Argentine attack, or, as the
Argentinians would put it, a return
to their promised land.The ironies
here are that there are more British in Buenos Aires than in the
Falklands! And the Argentinians have shown little interest in living in the
windswept desolate islands. Only the British and the sheep found them attractive! Though there is a
wild natural beauty. Sensible diplomacy could sort it out.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. When have I defended
the regime in Iran? How many times do
I have to say I SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION. You have no reply to the
Irgun attacks on civilians. I said they are celebrated now. They have a
musuem in Israel. Bernadotte's assassins were celebrated at the time.

builder man said...

To The System Works. As you probably
know the actions on Dresden were
highly controversial and the chief architect 'bomber' Harris was heavily
criticised.It was a form of terrorism
I agree because it was deliberately
aimed at civilians when it wasn't
necessary for national survival. Because a state sanctions it doesn't
give it legitimacy.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “I have constantly praised those Israelis like One Voice who are courageously attempting peace with the Palestinians.”

Builderman, you frequently praise those that agree with you, especially Jews. This is part of the old pro-Palestinian tactic of citing and praising Jews that agree with their stance, which mischaracterises the mainstream Jewish stance in order to undermine the importance of Israel being the Jewish national home, leading to the “meme of the disaffected Jew”, and it distances any potentially legitimate claim of anti-Semitism being a motivation for the pro-Palestinian criticism because critics are quoting Jews.

One Voice are another group that ignore the real causes of the conflict. Whilst they sound moderate in comparison to some anti-Israel organisations, their whitewashing of Palestinian incitement to hatred http://frontpagemag.com/2011/11/22/one-voice-too-many/ is extremely telling.

Builderman writes: “How can one say anything positive about successive Israeli govs. bent on destroying the peace process with evictions in E. Jerusalem and breaking up the West Bank into bantustans with Israeli only roads and settlements.”

Here you are again with the typically vague propagandistic accusations that do not pan out. Israel is not trying to break up the West Bank into Bantustans. That is typical demonising apartheid language. Israel has left the Sinai and Gaza – over three-quarters of the land it took in a war that it did not start. It uprooted well established settlements to do this. It has shown a repeated willingness to leave the West Bank other than for some mutually agreed land-swaps in 2000 and 2008. The Palestinians walked away. The evictions in East Jerusalem in the main apply to Jewish owned land taken by Jordan and given to Palestinians after they evicted the Jews from the Eastern part in 1948. The Palestinians refuse to pay a paltry ground rent for these properties leading to eviction after years of twoing and frowing.

Furthermore, I never suggested you be positive about Israeli governments. It is your unrelenting demonisation I object to, as above. I suggest you look the word up if you are unfamiliar with it.

Builderman writes: “Shelling into civilian areas is likely to cause civilian deaths. On your link the Israelis claim gunfire from the house which Dr. Abuelaish denies. Who would you believe? My original statement stands.”

Your statement only stands in your own mind. Why would you call it “murder” when Dr. Abuelaish said it could have been a mistake? The activity the IDF targeted was subsequently found in a report to come from the adjacent buildings as the Honest Reporting link states so it seems to have been error.

Shelling in civilian areas will of course cause civilian deaths. That has never stopped conflict taking place in such zones, especially when terrorists dig themselves in to the civilian populace. Israel had to strike at Hamas or face unrelenting assaults at border towns. Gaza is a region with a high population density of around 4,000 per square mile. Israel could have carpet bombed Gaza in five minutes to sort the issue like some countries, and gone home. More than half of those killed in Gaza were members of Hamas as even Hamas attested in September 2010 which illustrates that IDF took a very significant amount of care in avoiding civilians, more care in fact than pretty much any other nation in the world.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “When have I defended the regime in Iran? How many times do I have to say I SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION.”

You have said on a few occasions that you support the opposition. However, your intent speaks louder than those words because you have bent over backward to minimise the viciousness of the Iranian regime, its extremism, and dismiss the overt genocidal intent toward Israel. You pretend AmmaDinna is just a fool or a puppet whose words shouldn’t be taken seriously, when the opposite is clearly the case. Then your relativisation of Iran’s use of Basij child martyrs was quite shocking and despicable.

Builderman writes: “You have no reply to the Irgun attacks on civilians. I said they are celebrated now. They have a musuem in Israel. Bernadotte's assassins were celebrated at the time.”

I have asked you repeatedly to cite credible sources that state Bernadotte’s assassination was celebrated at the time by the Israeli masses. You have failed to do so even though this is an event that has had a great deal written about it. The truth is that the Israeli government’s actions and condemnation in Israel pretty much ended Lehi http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Bernadotte_Plan.htm as a group by rounding them up. Similarly the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing of the King David.

You pretend to only be critical of the Israeli government but I think your tactic here is to portray the Jewish people of Israel as somehow inhuman. Yet (as Ted also pointed out) Israel’s Arab neighbours provided immense support for Palestinian and non-Palestinian (Hizbullah) terrorists, prior to Israel’s foundation and constantly since. These events are celebrated by the Palestinian authorities, the Arab regimes in the broader Middle-East and the people themselves, in the most depraved ways. Consider the joyous exult displayed after a whole family and a three-month old baby were butchered http://www.jewishpost.com/news/jewish-family-butchered-by-palestinian-murderers.html last year. They were butchered http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/palestinian-authority-tv-airs-show-praising-attackers-who-killed-five-members-of-jewish-family-as-he.html by heroes of the Palestinian Authority.

As Ted said, new countries are formed out of conflict. It tends to be of an ugly sectarian nature. Neither side is filled with glory in this respect as I noted on my blog but you ONLY bang on about the Jews…

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy.You claim to want peace based on a 2 state sol.-so do I. That
necessitates Palestine being a viable
state i.e.to conform to the international community's scenario.
The West Bank, Gaza and capital in
E. Jerusalem. Successive Israeli govs. policies have negated that with
evictions of Pals. and Judaization of
E.Jerusalem and splitting up the West
Bank into a series of bantustans. The Israelis obviously do not want
a viable Pal. state and will never
make a just peace.They justify their continued expansion on the
concept of the Land of Ancient Israel which they constantly promote.Some in the echelons of
power believe that should include
parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and
most of Jordan.If peace is to be
achieved, then world opinion should
be convinced that Israel's 'legitimacy' is based on a falsehood. By using factual evidence, and there is plenty of it,most are already convinced, but the powerful Western blocs as yet
are not.(The govs. not the people).
This does not mean that millions of
Israelis (or even one)should have to move.It would just mean that more equal conditions would prevail
in peace negotiations.I understand
that this is a pro-Israel blog and
you promote Israel on it but it is
totally disengenuous to pretend that there is a recipe for peace here. If you wanted to be more even
handed why not also promote a Pal.
area, say Bethlehem? You could show Manger Square and all the walls and
checkpoints surrounding it.

builder man said...

To Ted Leddy. The IRA gunmen who were
later in gov. were legitimate freedom
fighters. It was the Brits who were the occupiers and the terrorists. I
often used to go into Clonmel where I
was told the Brits torched the town
then.The Irgun's objective was to remove the Brits., who were there
legitimately as custodians of the Mandate,so that the Palestinians
would have no defenders.They were
true terrorists and the idea that
Jewish terrorism ended with the Israeli state does not hold water.
The terrorists moved into gov. and Israel became a terrorist state.
Some examples:
1.Blanket bombing of civilian areas of Beirut.
2.Shabra and Shatila Massacre.
3.Attack on Qibya 1953. 69 civilians killed.
4.Cast Lead - Goldstone report.
5.Attack on Gaza flotilla.
6.In 2011 Israel killed 180 Palestinians including 21 children.
7.Attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 AMERICANS and injured over 100.It was hushed up giving
credence as to how Israel controls
the US Gov.Israel's pretence at a
'mistake' is dismissed TO A MAN by
the crew.See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS-Liberty-
incident. Explain that one then.
Dr. Lev Grinburg from Ben Gurion
University:'The goal of the Israeli
gov. is not security but the occupation and subjugation of the
Palestinian people. As Israelis in opposition, support for the gov. is
jeopardizing our struggle. Awakening of world public opinion
is needed to save our lives and our
hope in a better future.' So what
Israeli do you support? Grinburg or
Netahanyu? Peace or more war? Your
answer will determine the reality
of a genuine quest for peace.

The System Works said...

builder man: Would you care for a list of Palestinian and other Arab state attacks on Israeli and Jewish civilians? Or some information about Arafat and the PLO's murder of Christian civilians in Lebanon (see, for instance, the Damour Massacre). You'll find there are few angels in the conflict, and a higher proportion of Israeli casualties are civilians and women.

Recently Norman Finkelstein did an interview with a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel movement and chastised them for their lies about Israeli settlements (he claims they do not at present make the two-state solution impossible), inflating the number of descendants of Palestinian refugees and lying about their true intentions in regards to Israel. He referred to the movement as a 'cult' full of 'leftist posturing' that has invented victories and is disturbingly in thrall to Ramallah.

For your information, back in 1948 the Legion from Jordan and the Egyptian army shelled civilian targets, destroyed sacred Jewish sites and were involved in the massacres of civilians. The Legion was, by the way, armed, trained and led by the British. Glubb Pasha, Norman Lash et al denied for years there was ever a massacre of civilians and surrendered soldiers at Kfar Etzion, and after the war Glubb was honoured with a KCB. However, many members of the Legion acted with chivalry during the war that was indicative of their sound training by excellent British officers. However, the Legion's shelling of Jewish Jerusalem was a low point (one hospital took in 1000 civilian casualties in a fortnight) as was the destruction of the Hurva Synagogue, the most important and sacred Jewish building in the Old City (one Foreign Office official said the incident would rankle in the hearts of world Jewry for a long time).

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.If Israel wants to leave the West Bank, why is it still
building there; taking most of the water(see Amnesty report) and destroying Pal. livlihoods? We know
why it left Sinai; American pressure
and a deal too good to miss. Gaza
settlements were impossible to defend. If some land in E. Jerusalem
belongs to the Jews, what about the land in Israel that belongs to the
Palestinians. Are you suggesting a
swap? Dr. Abuelaish didn't say it
WAS a mistake; he asked why don't
the Israelis admit it if it was.
Not quite the same as you said. As to Honest Reporting, you must be kidding. It's byline is 'defending
Israel' Pure propaganda. I criticise Israel because it is the
aggressor and occupier and has all
the power. I'm not into attacking
the defenceless or sucking up to the powerful. Incidentally what is
your explanation for the attack on the USS Liberty then? That should
be a good one.

The System Works said...

Ted: "I know many leftists who seem to think that if all the peoples of the holy land were incorporated into one state there would be peace. This is not realistic and is more about promoting Marxist ideology (ie workers on both sides should unite together against their capitalist opressors) than it is about proposing a genuine settlement".

Absolutely hit the nail on the head there. I find that after Communists lost the economic argument (esp. after the Marx's predictions about the class warfare in the West never came to pass, and the collapse of the Soviet Union) they moved into other areas to advance their agenda. The first was 'Third World Liberation' and especially the anti-Zionist movement. The second was the massive cult and hoax of Environmentalism. Today 'equality' and 'inequality'as talked about in the Spirit Level has become the left's new 'theory of everything' as described by Christopher Snowdon, but this may a more quickly passing fad.

In the recent controversial interview given by Normal Finkelstein in London, he hinted that the pro-Palestinian movement in the West is the descendant of the Maoist movements he was a part of in his college years. He used fairly strong terms to criticise the Palestine Solidarity camp, calling it a self-deluding "cult" that lies all the time and adopts hypocritical and sneaky tactics:

http://vimeo.com/36854424

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “If Israel wants to leave the West Bank, why is it still building there; taking most of the water(see Amnesty report) and destroying Pal. livlihoods?”

Same old pro-Palestinian canards in response. It illustrates you have been fed the BDS/PSC manual, which you adopted without question. Israel is not building in the West Bank. Jewish settlers and building companies are. Here is a shocker for you – Israel has not recognised a new settlement since http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043101789714506.html#project%3DSETTLERS0110%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive the mid 1990’s at the time of Oslo II.

The Amnesty report is another of their farces, exactly up your alley, and designed to fit in with a PACBI boycott campaign at the time. They made a great number of patently false claims, including the claim that Palestinians are under the WHO standard. They are very far above it. Israel actually provides more water than required under the OSLO II agreement http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_amnesty_s_water_report_timed_to_support_latest_israel_boycott_campaign and never even contacted the Israeli water authorities for their perspective - how pathetic.

Builderman writes: “We know why it left Sinai; American pressure and a deal too good to miss.”

That is a lie that you repeated on the other post on this blog which I thoroughly debunked. The US made big commitments for money but for both sides to sign the deal. Israel actually got the far less impressive part because the money the received was based in late 1970’s oil prices for the highly productive Israeli oil fields that they developed there so in the long term they made a major economic loss as they knew they would. Fuel security was especially important for Israel at this time so the loss was two-fold. The territory, which is several times larger than Israel itself, provided vital strategic security if another invasion occurred. Israel gave all that up for peace. Egypt gained that territory back, the oil fields, and a great deal of aid that made them a substantially military power than Israel. Israel obviously made this deal for peace with Egypt, a fact that doesn’t fit your idiotic demonising agenda.

Builderman writes: “Gaza settlements were impossible to defend.”

Absolute bullshit. Israel under Sharon chose to leave unilaterally as a gesture toward getting the peace process back on the road. Everyone knew at the time that it was a big military risk because there were some attacks from Gaza itself that would of course be very likely to worsen. It divided Israeli society itself. Leaving made it worse as people feared but it was done as an effort of peace. It is cheap to suggest otherwise, and of course yet more of you bullshit where every gesture by Israel has to be bad.

Rob Harris said...

Part Deux - Builderman writes: “Dr. Abuelaish didn't say it WAS a mistake; he asked why don't the Israelis admit it if it was. Not quite the same as you said.”

I’m sorry to say this but it seems you are a bit simple. If he said why didn’t the Israeli’s admit it was, then it means he thought it was a mistake. There you go, done and dusted buddy boy.

Builderman writes: “As to Honest Reporting, you must be kidding. It's byline is 'defending Israel' Pure propaganda. I criticise Israel because it is the aggressor and occupier and has all the power.”

I have never suggested Honest Reporting isn’t pro-Israel. Clearly it is but is it pure propaganda? In the piece I cited for example, they didn’t go along with the notion the IDF saw firing from the house, did they? The article looked at the issue in depth. I didn’t cite it to refute but to state there are alternative views. There is nothing wrong with websites having an interest in forwarding a given issue. 99% of all websites on the net are like that including the pro-Palestinian ones. If Honest Reporting has made any factually incorrect assertions or published hate material, as the sites you quote often do, then let me know. Otherwise do be quiet and take your medicine since you are the one who brought the matter up.

Builderman writes: “I'm not into attacking the defenceless or sucking up to the powerful. Incidentally what is your explanation for the attack on the USS Liberty then? That should be a good one.”

Your inference is that I suck up to the powerful. Be a man and deliver the insult directly. Don’t worry, I can take it. Firstly, if I am sucking up to the powerful, do you think Israel has substantial power in Ireland? Secondly, how am I attacking the defenceless? You are the one demonising Israeli’s with every single trumped up pro-Palestinian myth under the sun. Israel is used as the whipping boy by “humanitarians” as yourself, and an excuse for Islamic extremism by fanatics. No other country is bashed more in the international arena. They are strong militarily but certainly not otherwise.

The USS Liberty probably wasn’t deliberately targeted by Israel but it is hard to say for sure. The official reports exonerated Israel and McGonagle did also. Certainly pro-Palestinians like yourself use it as a weapon to try to make Americans hate Israel more. What I want to ask is this: Do you have any sense of compunction? Why are you bringing up the USS Liberty as well? Has you desire to bash Israel not been satiated enough already? Furthermore, do you want Ted to give you the keys to the blog?

Rob Harris said...

Ted, just to take up a small few of Builderman’s responses to yourself: “7.Attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 AMERICANS and injured over 100.It was hushed up giving credence as to how Israel controls the US Gov.Israel's pretence at a 'mistake' is dismissed TO A MAN by the crew.”

The Liberty is his new hot topic, seems he has tired of THE Palmach Veteran – poor old chap. It is a flat out lie to say everyone of the crew support that contention.

Builderman writes: “The Israelis obviously do not want a viable Pal. state and will never make a just peace.They justify their continued expansion on the concept of the Land of Ancient Israel which they constantly promote.Some in the echelons of power believe that should include parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and most of Jordan.”

This is another flat out lie and an astonishing one even by his standards. Prove the Israeli government is constantly promoting the expansion of Israel to that of the “Land of Ancient Israel or “Eratz Israel?

The Iranian regime said exactly the same thing about Israel on many occasions, and the notion that Israel is at war with the Islamic world has used as a justification for their increasing belligerence. It is also the rallying call of Islamists so it is extremely telling that Builderman makes that assertion too.

Builderman writes: “If peace is to be achieved, then world opinion should be convinced that Israel's 'legitimacy' is based on a falsehood.”

This assertion exactly mirrors the trend of the pro-Palestinian camp to delegitimise Israel. Note how the BDS campaign say they want Israel to conform to international laws but they all pretty much without exception want a one-state solution which everyone knows means the end of Israel itself and the probable expulsion or genocide of the Jewish people. Just look at how the Christians are treated in the nearby regions. Lebanon was once a majority Christian nation – no longer. Syria had an almost 50% Christian population. It is now 4%. And these pro-Palestinian cunts want a “bi-national” state for Israel, when the Jews are hatred to a considerably greater extent than Christians? Rwanda was also a bi-national state. Their stance has to be borne by more than leftist-ideology. Despite protestations to the contrary, I suspect Builderman wants the same “bi-national” state solution or why delegitimise Israel?

Builderman writes: “If you wanted to be more even handed why not also promote a Pal. area, say Bethlehem? You could show Manger Square and all the walls and checkpoints surrounding it.”

Even handed indeed! How about Builderman considering the fact that the 80% Christian population of the town of Bethlehem (circa 1994) has gone down to 15% since the Palestinian Authority took over?

builder man said...

Here is an exact summary of my position by Avraham Burg, Speaker of
the Knesset 1999-2003.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/15/comment.
Another highly distinguished Jewish
voice for peace. Any comments?

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. The USS Liberty.This
incident is a marker for Israel's military power and political influence, particularly over the world's most powerful country, the US, and was attested to by 260 completely independent and impartial
witnesses. (the survivors).The facts.
The Liberty was a technical research ship equipped with state of the art
monitoring devices, and was in
international waters north of the
Sinai penisula. On the morning of
8th June 1967 visual contact between the ship and the IAF was
made and identities confirmed and
relayed to Israeli HQ.Later that day it was attacked by UNMARKED Israeli aircraft and torpedo gunboats which killed 34 Americans and injured 180.At this time Israel
was at war with 3 Arab States but still had the spare firepower for
this old,lightly armed ship. Later,
Israel claimed a 'mistake' but
senior US officials disagreed and
so did the crew.Their view is at
www.usslibertyveterans.org and www.
gtr5.com/index.html. They also allege Israelis machine gunned the
liferafts. See www. usatoday-com/news/opinion/omicinski/081.htm
Various reasons have been put forward for the Israeli actions.
1. in a war zone any monitoring of
radio signals was a danger to Israel. 2. The conquest of the Golan Heights would be put in jeopardy. 3. The attacks and killing of UN personnel; the massacre of Egyptian POW's (Israeli
soldiers testified that they were
made to dig pits and then shot them),
could have come to light earlier
and triggered US intervention. The
most amazing outcome was that President Johnson gave orders to the 6th fleet nearby not to assist or retaliate. According to Dean Rusk, Sec.of State, in his memoirs,
Johnson said 'I don't care if the boat sinks, I will not embarrass
Israel.' Now that's real power over
a US president. How much has changed?

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Bethlehem. The Christian pop. in Israel has also dropped. The PA insists that the mayor and dep.mayor are Christian. I don't doubt that in conflict situations there are problems between
Christians and Muslims but the MAIN
problem is the Israeli checkpoints and settlements that make normal life
impossible. The Christians can more easily move abroad and you can't blame them. For the Israelis it means less Palestinians which suits their occupation plans. See www.christianpost.com/news/there-will-be-no-more-christians-in-bethlehem-in-20-years-claims-israeli-priest-65586/

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. West Bank Settlements.
Jewish settlers and building companies not Israel? If illegal will
they be demolished? Quick enough to
tear down the Palestinian ones. From
Wiki: In 2004 234,000 Settlers, in
2011 350,000. Growing at 5-6% per annum. PLANNING permission given by
IDF. Usual Israeli trickery and obfuscation.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman, I can’t believe you are banging on about this. You are like a dog sniffing for any little weakness, or tittle-tattle of which the USS Liberty surely is, to bash Israel, rather than trying to weigh issues out on both sides. It says more about your clearly hate-filled attitude toward Israeli’s than it does about Israel itself. There has been huge damage done by friendly fire over the years. The following year a fleet of four US ships and two smaller craft were attacked by US aircraft during the Vietnam war, one was sunk. Incidents of allies attacking each other is higher again. There aren’t any conspiracy theories and claims of cover-up all over the net even years afterwards unless it’s the JEWS.

Builderman writes: “The USS Liberty.This incident is a marker for Israel's military power and political influence, particularly over the world's most powerful country, the US, and was attested to by 260 completely independent and impartial witnesses. (the survivors).”

Absolutely incorrect. Not all the survivors actually qualify as witnesses to the event in its entirety, neither did they all attest that Israel had deliberately attacked the ship, and furthermore the event has been hijacked, and hugely promoted by pro-Palestinian activists like yourself because it is an attempt to hurt Israel’s reputation in the US. Furthermore, it’s not proof of anything regarding the US. That’s pure irrationalism on your part. You cannot posit that X is proof of Y if X hasn’t been established firmly.

Here for example you expect me to go through all the details of the day. What is expected here? To provide an alternative view and argue for another few posts? Get fucking real. The reality is that the incident has not been firmly established to have been an attack. I said I had an open mind on the issue.

Builderman writes: “The facts. The Liberty was a technical research ship equipped with state of the art
monitoring devices, and was in international waters north of the Sinai penisula. On the morning of
8th June 1967 visual contact between the ship and the IAF was made and identities confirmed and
relayed to Israeli HQ. Later that day it was attacked by UNMARKED Israeli aircraft and torpedo gunboats which killed 34 Americans and injured 180.At this time Israel was at war with 3 Arab States but still had the spare firepower for this old,lightly armed ship. Later, Israel claimed a 'mistake' but
senior US officials disagreed and so did the crew.”

Firstly you obfuscate as to what the Liberty was. It was in essence a ship designed to spy on the communications of other countries, including their military. It shouldn’t have been there spying on its supposed allies, which you make out are in control of US foreign policy. Secondly, it is a white-wash to say it was in international waters. It was in a war zone, and Israel had asked the US to keep away.

Wiki has a reasonable page on the issue, which you quoted already: “General Yitzhak Rabin (then IDF Chief of Staff) informed Commander Ernest Carl Castle, the American Naval Attaché in Tel Aviv, that Israel would defend its coast with every means at its disposal, including sinking unidentified ships. Also, he asked the U.S. to keep its ships away from the shore or at least inform Israel of their exact position. With the Liberty in international waters and gathering intelligence, the United States did not provide any information about its location.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Rob Harris said...

Part Two.

Thus the Liberty was clearly identified at one point in logs but the situation was one of confusion as is so often the case in war, especially a frantic one as the Six Day War was. To quote wiki again:

“At about 5:45 a.m. Sinai time (GMT +2), reports were first received at Israeli Central Coastal Command (CCC) about the Liberty, identified by pilots as a destroyer and the vessel was placed on the plot board using a red marker, indicating an unknown vessel. At 6:03 a.m. that morning, the Nord identified the ship as a U.S. supply ship, though the marker was only changed from the red 'unknown ship' to a green 'neutral ship' at 9 a.m., when CCC was ordered to do so after naval command inquired as to the marker's status. Also around 9 a.m. an Israeli pilot reported that a ship north of Arish had fired at his jet after he tried to identify the vessel, and naval command dispatched two destroyers to investigate. These destroyers returned to previous positions at 9:40 a.m. after doubts emerged during debriefing over the pilot's claim of receiving fire. When the Nord landed and its naval observer was debriefed, the ship was further identified as the USS Liberty based on its "GTR-5" markings. The ship was removed from CCC's plot board at 11 am, due to its positional information being considered stale. […] At 11:24 a.m., IDF General Staff Headquarters received the first of several reports that Arish on the Sinai coast was being shelled from the sea. Israeli troops in the city had seen a massive explosion and noticed two unidentified ships offshore. Though the explosion was probably the result of a burning ammunition dump, the Israelis were unaware of the fact, and both Israeli and Egyptian sources had reported shelling of the area by Egyptian warships the previous day.”

Indeed, one of the pilots that hit the ship spoke up in 2003 http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/8491_Pilot_Who_Bombed_USS_Liberty_Talks that he couldn’t identify it bit that it seemed to be a military vessel since there were Egyptian vessels in the area. The movements resembled Egyptian tactics and the Egyptians often disguised the identity of their ships.

The Israeli government advised the US to keep all naval vessels at a safe distance from the coastal areas of Israel and Israeli operations, to which they had agreed. Apparently that communiqué didn’t reach the Liberty. An ammo dump at El Arish exploded, the Israeli's had no idea it was not hostile in origin and a scout spotted a ship off the coast within shelling range. Why also would the Israeli torpedo boats have asked the Liberty to identify itself if this was an intentional attack. To draw the US into the war as the BBC suggested? Bullshit because the war was pretty much won at that stage. Neither has there been any real proof provided Israel massacred Egyptian prisoners or we would hear more about it.

Builderman writes: “The most amazing outcome was that President Johnson gave orders to the 6th fleet nearby not to assist or retaliate. According to Dean Rusk, Sec.of State, in his memoirs, Johnson said 'I don't care if the boat sinks, I will not embarrass Israel.' Now that's real power over a US president. How much has changed?”

I googled that quote with and without quotation marks. It only goes to batshit conspiracist sites and extreme pro-Palestinian sites. Thus I cannot treat that quote with any seriousness until you cite a good source. The CIA's own internal memo http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0001359216/DOC_0001359216.pdf on the Liberty incident, was only declassified in June of 2006. To quote from the relevant segments of the memo:

“Thus it was not until 4:12 pm (9:12 am Washington time) that the Israelis became convinced that the Liberty was American. This was about 44 minutes after the last attack on the ship and the attack had apparently been called off, not because the ship had been identified but because it seemed to be sinking.”

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “Bethlehem. The Christian pop. in Israel has also dropped. The PA insists that the mayor and dep.mayor are Christian. I don't doubt that in conflict situations there are problems between
Christians and Muslims but the MAIN problem is the Israeli checkpoints and settlements that make normal lifeimpossible. The Christians can more easily move abroad and you can't blame them. For the Israelis it means less Palestinians which suits their occupation plans.”

Thank you very much for the puff-piece. They are standard anti-Israeli fare every Christmas in the international media, which pro-Palestinians like to make a meal of.

I like how you excuse the terrorism of Christians in the Middle East. You offer what is in all honesty a pathetic objectionable excuse, “oh they are able to move abroad more easily than Muslims” – excuse the language but what horseshit. As I pointed out already, the entire region has lost vast swathes of the Christian populace. This is a criminally underreported matter in the West, but pro-Palestinian groups http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/07/blaming-israel-for-the-middle-easts-christian-exodus/ again try to blame Israel, whilst apologists like you only make this vicious oppression all the harder to address.

Furthermore, you have lied about the Christian population dropping in Israel. It is actually larger than ever. The Christian population has increased approximately four-fold in Israel in the last fifty years http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_sad_plight_of_christians_in_the_middle_east.html by contrast since the PA took over from Israel the Christian populace went from just under 30% http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bethlehem_exodus_jH6iVNuarsPLBceXPzHO6I to less than 8% in twelve years. This is due to widespread intimidation of Christians, who are driven from the land, discriminated against for employment, kidnapped, desecration of places of worship, etc.

Builderman wrote: “West Bank Settlements. Jewish settlers and building companies not Israel? If illegal will they be demolished? Quick enough to tear down the Palestinian ones. From Wiki: In 2004 234,000 Settlers, in 2011 350,000. Growing at 5-6% per annum. PLANNING permission given by IDF. Usual Israeli trickery and obfuscation.”

I think any trickery and obfuscation is on your part. Wiki is an open platform, which makes it unreliable, so you need to provide the link to the actual page so the source it cites can be evaluated. The figures seem inflated to say the least. The settlements aren’t illegal. The Mandate text explicitly allows for close Jewish settlement throughout the region. Neither is it illegal according to the Geneva Convention because there is no “transfer” of populations from a central governmental authority. It is all 100% voluntary. As I’m sure you know Israel has had a great influx of immigrants especially from Russia. Many of these people have gone to the settlements since there are housing shortages in Israel itself. Israel has and has displayed a willingness repeatedly to dismantled settlements as pointed to in 2000 and 2008. The Palestinians walked out of these deals. End of story buddy.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.Israeli expansion plans. Minister Yigal Allon.' The natural border of the country is the Jordan River, can only be established
if Israel keeps the West Bank.'
Ben Gurion.'We shall accept the boundaries today but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations; no external factor will be able to limit them.'
'In the Bible there are all kinds of
definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limits.' From 'The First Israelis'
by Tom Segev. Begin 'Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of israel. All of it.
And for ever.'
On a demo, a little girl (about 10)
came and stood in front of me with
her arms folded. 'What you are doing is wrong' she said.'Why's that?''The land belongs to the Jews.''And what about the Palestinians?''They have to move out'and with that she stomped off.
I admire her chutzpah but it shows how ingrained is the idea that the
Palestinians are expendable.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Gaza. From wiki.
Dov Weisglas, Sharon's chief of staff: 'The significance of the
disengagement plan is that you freeze
the peace process, and prevent the
establishment of a Palestinian state.'

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Sinai. Desperate to get an Israeli agreement, apparently
the US intimated a closed eye to
their actions in the West Bank. 'Sinai traded for West Bank.'See
isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/
Charleslu.html. The US guaranteed
Israel their latest weapons, enormous
financial aid and total security. Topped it up with a promise to supply
all Israel's oil needs for fifteen
years. See www.intersectionsinternational.org/
files/RJ_LandforPeaceLessonsfromIsraelsWithdrawlfromSinai%20Egypt.pdf
To pacify Egypt the US promised to
oppose any annexation of E. Jerusalem. I wonder what happened to that promise?

The System Works said...

builder man: The Liberty incident has given rise to a number of conspiracy theories, which you have predictably laid out.

However, none have withstood serious historical scrutiny or even make much sense.

Israel did little to hide from the Americans its progress in the Sinai or its intentions in regards to the Golan.

Jordan was already hors de combat by June 8th.

No evidence was ever found that Israel conducted mass executions of Egyptian POWs.

Indeed, with the obsessive concerns Israelis had for US opinion and the very real fear of increased Soviet intervention on behalf of their enemies, the Israelis would have little incentive to antagonise its one Superpower friend. Don't forget that this was also a conflict with a Cold War flavour.

The Israelis ceased firing when the mistake was confirmed and offered to assist the ship. The same evening a flood of apologies came into America from Israeli officials as well as offers to pay for the damage and compensation for the sailors, which indeed occurred.

Ironically, the logic of these arguments were employed by some Arab and Soviet commentators who asserted that the Liberty had actually been spying for Israel and was only mistakenly attacked.

builder man said...

I have just come across the story of Arna Mer-Khamis. What a remarkable woman. Born Jewish, she
fought with the Palmach in the War of Independence. There is a photo of her with a rifle on her back and
sharing bread with a poor Palestinian. Later she protested at
the way the Palestinians were treated and was imprisoned by the
Israelis. She founded the organisation Care and Learning for
the hundreds of child prisoners in
Israeli jails. The dvd ARNA'S CHILDREN tells some of their stories as they grew up and confronted the Israeli occupation.
As I said before on this blog, the
Jews are a gifted people and many
are compassinate. Her story reminds
me of the IDF soldiers who were
appalled at the destruction of Imwas and the inhabitants turfed out into the wilderness with little to eat or drink. When a group of Palestinians with children
tried to return, the IDF were ordered to stop them but at least
they went and found water for them
from their officers who said: 'Why
are you bothering? Ther're only Arabs.' And most IMPORTANTLY they
recorded their observations for posterity.

builder man said...

To The System Works. USS Liberty.
You were not there and nor was I. But
these people WERE and they are convinced that the Israelis KNEW it
was an American ship and the rest is
a cover up. See www.usslibertyveterans.org and
qtr5.com/index.html.
So NO conspiracy theories but unadulterated ISRAELI MURDERS knowing
that there would be no repurcussions
from America. The compensation was
derisory, especially given the annual US contributions. After
disparaging many authoritative
Jewish voices, it seems you have now
moved on to American patriots.
El Arish massacre. At http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/bamford.html are reports from various
authoritive sources including quotes from israeli soldiers who
witnessed the events. Unlike Adolf
Hitler, I do not regard the Jews as
any different from the rest of us.
In the Mau Mau times in Kenya,
SUSPECTED 'terrorists' were buried
alive in large pits. I 'know' this
to be true because I knew well one
of the soldiers who witnessed it.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “Israeli expansion plans. Minister Yigal Allon.' The natural border of the country is the Jordan River, can only be established if Israel keeps the West Bank.' Ben Gurion.'We shall accept the boundaries today but the boundaries of Zionist aspirations; no external factor will be able to limit them.'”

Obviously there are some that want to take the West Bank or at least keep the areas. That isn’t news to anyone. You stated Israel wants to take Lebanon, Egypt, parts of Syria, and most of Jordan: “Some in the echelons of power believe that should include parts of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and most of Jordan.” – the echelons of power would be the present government, and its most senior political figures today. It is clearly a lie used by extremists against Israel.

Builderman wrote: “'In the Bible there are all kinds of definitions of the country's borders, so there's no real limits.' From 'The First Israelis' by Tom Segev. Begin 'Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of israel. All of it. And for ever.'”

Begin said that but big deal. You take it out of context and the era to which it belongs. He said it in response http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/defense.html to the UN partition of Palestine when Jerusalem would be lost to Israel. The portion allotted to the Jews was also small so it can be seen as a young idealists reaction. Secondly he didn’t mean it when he was a senior politician at the heart of power in Israel as he handed back a piece of land several times the size of Israel itself, an area that was part of Eretz Israel. It was not something he believed or he simply wouldn’t have done it.

Tom Segev is a notorious anti-Israeli historian who attempted to blame Israel for starting the Six Day War http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=4&x_outlet=98&x_article=1339 so any speculative opinion he has on apparent Israeli expansionism is worthless.

“On a demo, a little girl (about 10) came and stood in front of me with her arms folded. 'What you are doing is wrong' she said.'Why's that?''The land belongs to the Jews.''And what about the Palestinians?''They have to move out'and with that she stomped off. I admire her chutzpah but it shows how ingrained is the idea that the Palestinians are expendable.”

So you cite a petulent child as part of your evidence. How absurd. Children are well known for saying extraordinary things in a very blunt fashion. There is a comedy on the BBC about that very issue.

Once again I request that you provide your name on here and which organisation you are a part of. I will keep doing so because you know our names on these blogs, test all your Israeli-bashing theories on us which expends a great deal of time, and refer to your activities and the organisation you’re a part of.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “Sinai. Desperate to get an Israeli agreement, apparently the US intimated a closed eye to their actions in the West Bank. 'Sinai traded for West Bank.'See isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/Charleslu.html.

I see you pulling out opportunistically more links that don’t actually say what you claim they say. In fact they back up my stance – not yours. To quote the thesis more comprehensively:

“Why did Israel surrender the Sinai Peninsula? History indicates that Israel understood precisely the security ramification of the Sinai. By the War of Attrition (1969) Israel recognized that it would no longer be allowed to carry out pre-emptive strikes, and that more than before, the Sinai’s depth would provide security (Sachar 1981, 1996). Even though it understood the material security brought by the Sinai, Israel surrendered the Peninsula for the promise by both Egypt and Israel to recognize the rights of each state’s territorial integrity and survival. This was the basis of the peace that has existed between Israel and Egypt, but it would never have occurred had Israel or Egypt not moved from an identity of mutual animosity to one of mutual peace. That is, Begin would never have been able to trade the Sinai for the West Bank and conclude a peace with Egypt unless Israel and Egypt had already made a mutual identity shift from enemies to co-habitants.”

The article makes it clear that the Sinai was critical for Israel’s security, yet it made peace. The nations did so by a fundamental shift from a state of being enemies to allies. The word trade in this context is slightly ambiguous but it seems clear that it means Israel was able to make peace with Egypt without pulling out of the West Bank. It has nothing to do with the US having a “closed eye” with regard to the West Bank”. Rather it was a peace deal between two distinct nations, where the territory of one was returned by the other in return for assurances of peace. The issue of the West Bank was a broader issue requiring a pan-Arab peace deal with Jordan and Syria especially. Israel could hardly pull out of the West Bank without assurances from either party and recognition of their right to exist as with Egypt.

Builderman wrote: “The US guaranteed Israel their latest weapons, enormous financial aid and total security. Topped it up with a promise to supply all Israel's oil needs for fifteen years. See www.intersectionsinternational.org/files/RJ_LandforPeaceLessonsfromIsraelsWithdrawlfromSinai%20Egypt.pdf”

Wrong again. The US only guaranteed Israel’s supply of oil in the aftermath of the OPEC crisis, not to actually provide it or buy it. Thus the fact that Israel lost a very substantial amount of economic wealth still stands. They provided Egypt with almost as much financial aid, the return of highly productive oil fields, and the territory itself. Israel got the less attractive aspect of the deal. It did so for peace.

Builderman wrote: “To pacify Egypt the US promised to oppose any annexation of E. Jerusalem. I wonder what happened to that promise?”

The US has its Embassy in Tel Aviv, which is the norm for those nations objecting to Israel’s presence in East Jerusalem, and neither does it register citizens as being Israeli that live in East Jerusalem that are applying for visas etc. Furthermore it supported peace processes that split East Jerusalem. Neither has it recognised the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1981. Once again you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman, how fitting to cite Avraham Burg, the chappie who wrote a book called “Hitler’s Victory”.

“Avraham Burg's book Hitler's Victory, published last year in Hebrew, has now been released in English with a more neutral title - The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from the Ashes. Some of the most offensive remarks appearing in the Israeli edition were also toned down. Paradoxically, the Hebrew version of Burg's book caused barely a ripple, for the simple reason that most Israelis simply wrote him off. His tirades against his country and nation were so primitive and offensive that Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit roasted him, alleging that his book reeked of "loathing of Israeliness." Even Burg's leftist allies like Yossi Beilin dissociated themselves from him.” http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=126092

“Another highly distinguished Jewish voice for peace?” The article notes that Burg was a corrupt politician who tried to win the leadership of the Israeli Labour party by slight of hand, and was forced to resign in a highly publicised case of voter fraud, although http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/middleeast/20burg.html?pagewanted=all “Mr. Burg pointed to a process that began in 2001 when he ran for leadership of the Labor Party and lost in a tight race that he says was stolen from him through back-room deals.” White-washing the truth perchance?

He soon reinvented himself as an aggressive anti-Zionist – “distinguished” indeed Builderman!

This is another refutation of his book which has of course been extremely popular with pro-Palestinians http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=5711841&ct=6636005

His article is a stupid dishonest piece, e.g. this gem: “Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated… Note this moment well: Zionism's superstructure is already collapsing like a cheap Jerusalem wedding hall.”

Funny the claim that Israel is latterly responsible for Palestinian terrorism, when his mother’s family were murdered in the 1929 pogrom as his wiki page notes. Note the callous way in which he refers to the deaths as a result of the restaurant suicide bombers (“in order to ruin our appetites”) and the deaths of people at the wedding, which were then big contemporary events at the time of the article.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. USS Liberty. I notice
you have not quoted the people who were ACTUALLY THERE.They have 2 websites which I gave you.I was not
there and nor were you. I prefer the
evidence of those present and they are convinced the Israelis KNEW it was an American ship.This is confirmed by an Israeli pilot who refused to fire despite orders from HQ AFTER he made a positive identification. See http://www.
washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm. He was arrested on return to base.Adlai Stevenson tried to get a
new enquiry when campaigning for
Gov. of Illonois. Jewish and Israeli interests strongly opposed
him and he lost putting off any
politicians who might have thought the same.The compensation was meaningless as Congress payments to
Israel were increased to cover them.Very buisnesslike those Israelis! Your remarks about the ship being too close are classic Israeli tactics - blame the victims! I should have seen that one coming! So after disparaging
Jewish voices you don't like, you
are now doing the same to American
patriots. But it's not going away.
See www.ifamericaknew.org/us_ints/ul-widow.html.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Bethlehem. 'Emigration is because of the conflict.''hostility is due to Israel's occupation.' See www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20091208_lineamenta-mo_en.html. They also mention the role of the nutcase Christian Zionists from America excassivating
the situation. And are you saying checkpoints, walls and settlements are making life easier?
West Bank.ISRAEL TO ACCELERATE SETTLEMENT BUILDING IN WEST BANK.
From www.unhcr.org/refWorld/docid/4ec50438c.html. Can the Palestinians build next to the Jews there?Not likely is it if planning is from the IDF?

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Avraham Burg. Oh my God not another dishonest politician!
Must be unheard of in Israel? At least he had a plan for peace. Much
of what he said is true. It's called
a 'swamp' of injustice which eventually erupts in violence.
However I'm glad that the Palestinians are moving towards a
Gandhi like resistance and relying on world opinion to change things.
What land did Ben Gurion hand back?
Have I missed something?
Israel DID start the 6 day war. Otherwise how did they manage to take out the entire air forces of
3 countries? And one of the reasons
for stopping any monitoring from
the Liberty.
I haven't seen Obama remonstrate with Netanyahu to get out of E.Jerusalem. The US said it would OPPOSE but guess what - the Jewish
lobby would not allow it.
Sinai. The Israelis did gain a lot
-the first Arab state to recognise it was a watershed moment.However,
some hard men do sometimes produce
results and a peace in that area did prevail - I accept that. But if
the repercussions make things worse
for the Palestinians in the West Bank, then it will have been a failure.
P.S. I'm pleased to see you are a
Steptoe fan!

Rob Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Harris said...

Builderman, Sorry if this upsets Ted but you act exactly the kind of individual Paul called you. All you do is spew forth on favoured Israeli bashing topics, flinging shit without addressing hardly a thing said in return to you unless it favours your stance. By contrast I have addressed in considerable detail every single point you have made both to me, and others on here. You ignored almost every single point I made in relation to the Liberty. Now all of a sudden I have to quote people that were there, when I have quoted greatly from the wiki page you cited, pointed to Captain McGonagle’s testimony, the CIA etc.

Builderman wrote: “USS Liberty. I notice you have not quoted the people who were ACTUALLY THERE.They have 2 websites which I gave you.I was not there and nor were you. I prefer the
evidence of those present and they are convinced the Israelis KNEW it was an American ship.”

Builderman says the same shit to SystemWorks. Note that this was made after he brought the issue of the Liberty up repeatedly to Ted as well. Yet when both of us provided solid material to indicate Israel didn’t attack the ship deliberately, all of a sudden Builderman says “oh we weren’t there”! Yet he wasn’t there either, and selectively believes what he wants to believe, and acted as if he was there when acting as if a deliberate attack was a cast iron fact!

Many people that were there have jumped on the pro-Palestinian bandwagon, with quite a few on the flotilla to Gaza for example so they are not at all impartial. Secondly these witnesses were only party to one element on the ship itself. The fact that they made up lies about Israel firing on lifeboats only attests to the fact of an agenda. I noted before that a number of these same people believe far-right conspiracies so there is clearly bad feeling stoked up by the far-right who latched onto this event. An example of this is articles like “The TRUTH About the Evil jew Attack on the USS Liberty” online.

Builderman wrote: “This is confirmed by an Israeli pilot who refused to fire despite orders from HQ AFTER he made a positive identification. See http://www.
washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm. He was arrested on return to base.”

This is patently bullshit. The very same article was reprinted with permission by the notorious anti-Semitic website http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-uss-liberty.html – and the American Educational Trust which runs that website http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=220 is an anti-Semitic organisation that used words like “cancer” “viruses” and “bacteria” to Israeli’s and those that defend Israel.

Builderman wrote: “Adlai Stevenson tried to get a new enquiry when campaigning for Gov. of Illonois. Jewish and Israeli interests strongly opposed him and he lost putting off any politicians who might have thought the same. The compensation was meaningless as Congress payments to Israel were increased to cover them.Very buisnesslike those Israelis!”

You obviously got that piece of bumfluff from http://www.ussliberty.org/adlai.htm – the website run by Jim Ennes who is an anti-Israel extremist. His book contains a vast number of absurdities as illustrated http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp at this website, which quotes his work extensively.

BTW what is your name and what organisation are you a part of?

Rob Harris said...

Part Two - Builderman wrote: “Your remarks about the ship being too close are classic Israeli tactics - blame the victims! I should have seen that one coming!”

More total shit. You haven’t an ounce of fucking honesty in your continual misrepresentation of my points. I said that Israel had warned the US not to go too near due to conflict. The US acknowledged that but apparently the ship didn’t receive the message so it wasn’t their fucking fault at all.

Builderman wrote: “So after disparaging Jewish voices you don't like, you are now doing the same to American patriots. But it's not going away. See www.ifamericaknew.org/us_ints/ul-widow.html.”

Aahhh yes, here you go citing an anti-Semitic website. Interesting that you repeatedly cite and quote anti-Semitic sources, make assertions that are anti-Semitic and yet aren’t an anti-Semite yourself!!!

Alison Weir, who is behind If America Knew, likes to make a big song and dance about her supposed objectivity as a journalist but she (as you do) recycles http://www.think-israel.org/waltzer.alisonweir.html the most base hatred of the country. She used to pass out literature stating that the Zionist movement perpetuated the Holocaust upon the Jews and who has written articles for David Duke's websites and http://ifamericansknewalisonweir.com/ frolicked with other Nazi’s too.


Captain McGonagle attested as a matter of record that Israel had contacted the ship to ask its identity and offered assistance. He did not believe the attack was deliberate. The event was a tragedy. 34 people died but to grossly inflate the importance of the event is just a cheap tactic by pro-Palestinians.

The conspiracies over the event have been used by Egyptian extremists over the years to incite against Israel. However, members of the Battalion that formed part of the 3,400-strong UNEF deployed as a buffer between Egypt and Israel during the war, stated that Israel didn’t execute Egyptian prisoners of war http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=56496 in the area where they were stationed.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “Bethlehem. 'Emigration is because of the conflict.''hostility is due to Israel's occupation.' See www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20091208_lineamenta-mo_en.html. They also mention the role of the nutcase Christian Zionists from America excassivating
the situation. And are you saying checkpoints, walls and settlements are making life easier?
West Bank. Can the Palestinians build next to the Jews there?Not likely is it if planning is from the IDF?”

That synod document was lambasted http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=192778 left right and centre as a pathetic piece of work. Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros cited anti-Semitic Replacement Theology which is pointed to as one of the key justifiers of anti-Semitism in the Christian Churches through the ages. This was a text that denied Israel’s right to exist. Furthermore the document was going to be the first to state that the corrosive intolerance of Islamic society or political Islam was perhaps the prime reason for the Christian exodus http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=196086 but was hijacked perhaps because a backlash was probable.

As I stated already, the mass exodus of Christians from the Islamic Middle-East is down to oppression from Islamic society. You cite road blocks etc. This is the case in every part of the Middle-East: Sudan where mass killing takes place at the behest of the government, Egypt (especially since the fall of Mubarak), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia… and the Palestinian territories are no different. Yet Palestinian people is growing greatly in numbers. This stands in stark contrast to the Christians people who are dwindling at an exponential rate. Take some fucking responsibility for your awful apologism.



Builderman wrote: “Gaza. From wiki. Dov Weisglas, Sharon's chief of staff: 'The significance of the disengagement plan is that you freeze the peace process, and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.'”

Your misleading quotations continue. Haaretz, which is unreliable at the best of times due to its agenda, published that quote in 2004 to great fanfare, which was then spread around the world. However, it was http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=174&x_article=783 taken out of context. He meant it in the context of the act putting the onus on the Palestinians to make the next move to abandon terrorism. This was during a time when the Second Intifada was in full swing so it was a strategic move for peace, rather than a cynical move that you as per usual to cast it as being.

He stated: “[Sharon] understood that in the Palestinian case the majority has no control over the minority. . .. He understood that Palestinian terrorism is in part not national at all, but religious. Therefore, granting national satisfaction will not solve the problem of this terrorism. This is the basis of his approach that first of all the terrorism must be eradicated and only then can we advance in the national direction. Not to give a political slice in return for a slice of stopping terrorism, but to insist that the swamp of terrorism be drained before a political process begins.”

Rob Harris said...

Builderman wrote: “Avraham Burg. Oh my God not another dishonest politician! Must be unheard of in Israel? At least he had a plan for peace.”

Are you admitting that he isn’t the “distinguished” individual you represented him as being?

Furthermore Israel has corruption like any fucking country but it suits you to present it as somehow worse. The UK is pretty corrupt as is Ireland. At least the Israeli system has the strength to bring a former president to justice over rape. Oh and BTW all Israeli politicians have fucking plans for peace.

Builderman wrote: “Much of what he said is true. It's called a 'swamp' of injustice which eventually erupts in violence.”

Pointless verbiage is a better description. His English skills are almost as bad as your own by the way.

Builderman wrote: “However I'm glad that the Palestinians are moving towards a Gandhi like resistance and relying on world opinion to change things.”

By that you mean using propaganda to demonise and deleigitimise rather than come to the peace table. And FYI they have been using the propaganda sword for fucking decades. People like yourself are their Western battalion, motivated as much by hatred as they are. Well done, give yourself a leather medal.

“What land did Ben Gurion hand back? Have I missed something?”

Sorry, where did I suggest Ben Gurion handed back land? I was referring to Begin as I made very clear.

Builderman wrote: “Israel DID start the 6 day war. Otherwise how did they manage to take out the entire air forces of 3 countries?

Well done. Thank you for proving you are a complete fucking liar, who shits on the truth to suit your clearly racist agenda. Israel fought better than the other nations. It had to for the sake of its existence.

Builderman wrote: “And one of the reasons for stopping any monitoring from the Liberty.”

You also illustrate you have absolutely no grip on the facts of the USS Liberty. As myself and SystemWorks pointed out, the war was almost over when the ship was hit.

Builderman wrote: “I haven't seen Obama remonstrate with Netanyahu to get out of E.Jerusalem. The US said it would OPPOSE but guess what - the Jewish lobby would not allow it.”

Bullshit, actually Obama stated on at least two occasions prior to the election in 2008 that he supported a united Jerusalem to lure in Jewish voters. Then he was thrashing Israel within a few weeks of coming into office. The US opposed Israel in East Jerusalem as I stated. If it didn’t, it would not classify people living there as Internationals, and it would move its Embassy there as the US congress wanted in 1995.

Builderman wrote: “Sinai. The Israelis did gain a lot -the first Arab state to recognise it was a watershed moment.However,some hard men do sometimes produce results and a peace in that area did prevail - I accept that. But if the repercussions make things worse for the Palestinians in the West Bank, then it will have been a failure.”

No it wouldn’t have been a failure if it stopped even one more major international war, especially when the Soviet Union was becoming increasingly unstable. Peace is peace buddy, get over it.

Builderman wrote: “P.S. I'm pleased to see you are a Steptoe fan!”

Witness remarks aside, I seriously doubt you have a sufficient sense of humour to appreciate that programme. BTW what is your name and what pro-Palestinian organisation are you are part of?

Paul said...

'Builderman, Sorry if this upsets Ted but you act exactly the kind of individual Paul called you. All you do is spew forth on favoured Israeli bashing topics, flinging shit without addressing hardly a thing said in return to you unless it favours your stance.'

Well done for yours and TSW's input into this debate, however due to the reasons you have demonstrated and my own statement (admittedly a crudity) concerning Builder man a dialogue with the individual is hopeless, he is a far left ideologue not a reasonable person at all.

builder man said...

Good discussion on BBC Radio 4 Today
between a Conservative M.P. and an
ex Conservative Minister about Israel's possible attack on Iran. All
US administration against it. Con.M.P. said we should recognise Iran's right to be considered as a
power in the region, a power enhanced
by our destruction of Iraq.At last too the 'open secret' of the power of
the Zionist lobby in the US is being
exposed which is curtailing the US
wish to engage more fully with the
Iranian leadership as Nixon did with China.All the while Israel
believes it can do anything because
of the Holocaust, we will all be a
hostage to their actions.Child abusers have often been abused as a
child themselves. We might understand but never accept their
behaviour now.A nation that defines itself by a crime committed 70 years ago indicates a psychologically disturbed mind. To
allow them to have nuclear weapons
may prove to have been a horrendous
mistake.I'm 73 and have had a full life.
I feel sorry for those much younger
who may not see their next birthday.

builder man said...

I am just starting to read 'I SHALL
NOT HATE', by Palestinian doctor Izzeldin Abuelaish, whose 3 daughters
and a niece were killed by an Israeli shell in Gaza.In the foreword by
Israeli Dr. Marek Glezerman, a friend
and work colleague, he writes: 'Our
true tragedy is that almost everybody
knows what the outcome will be, yet
too few are willing to admit it and
act accordingly: two states living
side by side, Jerusalem with a special status, the symbolic return
of a few thousand refugees, and compensation for the ones who don't
go back.'

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Bethlehem. We were
talking about Christians in Palestine. I don't doubt you are right in those other areas. Polarization is always a curse. On
BBC3 last night, a female cub reporter joined a militant Muslim
march and was verbally abused. It is
her town and she had Muslim friends at school, and so determined to find
the truth she spoke to them and went to a mosque. She found that the militants were a tiny minority
who get all the publicity. She also
spoke to the leader of the EDL who
came across as a fairly reasonable
guy, who even admitted his wife
does not agree with him! What's
missing here is dialogue, showing the failure of the media, except for the BBC of course. Steptoe and Son. As a BBC fan I have seen every
episode several times and mostly on
a black and white set, all we had in the sixties!

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “Bethlehem. We were talking about Christians in Palestine. I don't doubt you are right in those other areas. Polarization is always a curse.”

We are talking about Christians in Palestine but they are not living in isolation. It is more than polarisation. The populace of the West Bank and Gaza went up four-fold since Israel took the territory in 1967, the Christian populace took a nose dive which has rapidly accelerated since the PA took over in the late 1990’s but the PA hide Christian statistics as Justus Reid Weiner, a human rights lawyer who also specialises in the issue noted. This animus toward Christians revealed itself in increased violence toward that community with the 1936 revolt, the oppressive Jordanian policies which led to more than half fleeing East Jerusalem until 1967. The PLO move into Lebanon in the early to mid 1970’s was directly instrumental in pushing Lebanon into civil war resulting in a vicious conflict along sectarian lines. They committed genocides on the Christians there, and pushed the territory into extremism. Now the Christian populace of a once predominantly Christian country is down to about a third. Apparently Palestinian Christians wanted http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp490.htm to remain as part of Israel during the Oslo process. There have been Muslim rampages through Christian areas of Ramallah, Christian converts murdered, and widespread intimidation with the protection of the security forces. This comes from a tradition of Dhimmitude where Christians were not permitted certain very basic rights like the use of a horse without permission. Tough being a “humanitarian” who selectively cares about humans!

Builderman, the BBC is not an exceptional news service. As we already pointed out, it is riven with bias. Besides that point, the media generally does not fail the Islamic community. Quite the opposite, it can be said they favour the Muslim world. For example, the EDL are always described in highly prejudicial terms as being “far-right” – i.e. akin to Nazi’s, oppression of Christians especially in the Middle East is so severely underreported so have suggested it is akin to a conspiracy of silence, and every time come Ramadan, virtually every channel features extremely obsequious praise of Islam.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “At last too the 'open secret' of the power of the Zionist lobby in the US is being exposed which is curtailing the US wish to engage more fully with the Iranian leadership as Nixon did with China.”

Builderman, the power of the Zionist lobby was always exaggerated to suit anti-Semitic agendas. It originated on the far-right but the truth is that other lobbies have far more power, e.g. the Saudi lobby but hardly a thing is written about them because once again it doesn’t suit certain agendas. The Zionist lobby was ascribed the most extraordinary of powers. It was blamed for the US making war with Germany. Walt and Mearsheimer blamed the Zionist Lobby for starting the war on Iraq but in fact both contradicted themselves, with Walt letting slip in one interview on NPR a few years back that that Israel actually wanted war with Iran not Iraq. Similarly the then US undersecretary of defense said http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3542925,00.html that Israeli officials actually warned that Iraq failure could undermine effort against Iran. At the time Israeli officials actually criticised the US publicly http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=4&x_outlet=28&x_article=1152 leading Sharon to diplomatically mute criticism of an allie. If the Zionist lobby was really so powerful they would have got Jonathan Pollard off but he is serving a grossly inflated prison term far in excess of the same category of crime by others, and used by Clinton as a bargaining chip against Netanyahu. The US wouldn’t have prevented Israel selling advanced technology to China which could have vastly improved their economy, they wouldn’t have forced Israel to allow Hamas to run in the 2006 elections with disasterous results, and Rice wouldn’t have ordered a broad spectrum spying operation against Israel at the end of 2008 as wikileaks attested. The US gives around three billion a year to Israel but with strings attached because three-quarters of that is ploughed back into the US economy. It has been a good friend to Israel but it has also frequently acted against its interests. Not proof of Israeli control.

Builderman writes: “All the while Israel believes it can do anything because of the Holocaust, we will all be a hostage to their actions.Child abusers have often been abused as a child themselves. We might understand but never accept their behaviour now.A nation that defines itself by a crime committed 70 years ago indicates a psychologically disturbed mind. To allow them to have nuclear weapons may prove to have been a horrendous mistake.”

Absolute nonsense which shows the depth of your hatred toward Israel, and to compare them with paedophiles. It is as if you were talking with Raymond “Maestro” Dean of the IPSC. It is no wonder no one on here can talk to you. It is a fact that Israel has never threatened another state with a nuclear strike or annihilation despite having said weapons for almost 50 years, and the other side did not. By contrast Egypt etc. in the past, and Iran today, have threatened their extinction on very many occasions, even before Israel existed in 1947. Israel does not define itself by a crime some 70 years ago. We addressed this already, and it was addressed in great detail in a link I posted up about Burg. If it did then it would have no contact with Germany, no contact with many other countries in Eastern Europe, where their anti-Semitism led to an intensification of the Holocaust (Poland, Ukraine etc.), and still have issues with anti-Semitism today. Israel would not have favoured dealing with Abbas rather than Arafat since Abbas wrote his thesis on Holocaust denial, which was published widely in 1984.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris.In the Wiki list of friendly fire incidents, Liberty is
not mentioned.NOWHERE could I find an
incident with TWO military branches of the SAME country involved in the
same FF.Testimony of the crew and of
many involved in investigating were
adamant. The attacks were deliberate.
Crew member at http://www.ussliberty-org/pdf/sturmanstatement.pdf.
At www.ussliberty.org/supporters.htm
is a list of the distinguished
people who regard the attacks as
deliberate. At http://www.viewzone.com/liberty-html. tells of survivor Halbardier
who managed to get a radio working
after ALL the communication equipment was destroyed by the attacks. The Israelis, after jamming signals, made concerted efforts to make sure the ship could
not communicate with anyone. Incredibly, and under fire, Halbardier rigged up a Heath Robinson device and got through to
the sixth fleet.As soon as the Israelis realised the game was up,
they broke off the engagement, went
into apology mode for their 'mistake', and offered assistance.
This was refused by the captain -
an unheard of response.Obviously
these brave men could not stomach
the hypocrisy. Back at base they were sworn to secrecy. Unheard of
before.The captain's Medal of Honour was not given at the White
House but in a virtually secret
ceremony. Again unheard of before.
The Court of Inquiry was in LONDON,
away from the US media. Unheard of
before.It took only 25 hours with
only 19 witnesses. Unheard of before. (The USS Pueblo inquiry had
104 witnesses over 200 hours).
McGonagles testimony at odds with
the crew . See http://sites.google.com/site/usslibertyenquiry/essay23. His was considered unreliable because the
crew's testimonies were from the
ship's deck and not the captain's cabin.He also had much to gain by
accepting the establishment view and much to lose if he didn't.
Of course the crew survivors became
anti-Israel, because they couldn't
understand WHY their gov. wanted
to whitewash the incident.Once you
start asking questions, you find
your way to info. that leads you,
like any decent human being, to
regard Israel as a rogue state. I
used to believe that Israel was this tiny virtuous state surrounded
by nasty Arabs who wanted to destroy it. But that was before,
like the Liberty crew, I understood
the history.So now your list of people with unacceptable views and possibly anti-semitic includes
4 star Admirals of the US Navy!
Cristol and others are just the Israeli propaganda machine and are
totally dismissed by authentic researchers and, more importantly,
by the brave men on the ship.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. Any doubts about the
pro-Israel lobby's control of US
politics can be dispelled at http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all
which lists their contributions to
various representatives. The list is
long but top receiving $1,039,191 is
Joe Lieberman, cheerleader for bombing Iran. His military record is
not impressive, having dodged the
draft in Vietnam. How often do
politicians clamour for war who have avoided it for themselves and their families, including that well
known Iraq destroyer and draft dodger George W. Bush. No one should be allowed to vote for or promote war unless the've seen it up close.

Rob Harris said...

Builderman writes: “In the Wiki list of friendly fire incidents, Liberty is not mentioned.NOWHERE could I find an incident with TWO military branches of the SAME country involved in the
same FF.”

When the fuck was Wiki ever a definitive source. I have repeatedly told you it is an open forum so it can be altered and manipulated by anyone, and people with an anti-Israel prejudice are also adjusting pages on there. However, some wiki pages can be worthy when the accounts are well referenced but Wiki should never be treated as a definitive source. Thus it does not matter if the Liberty is mentioned. The fact that it hardly mentions friendly fire from the same country illustrates it isn’t comprehensive.

Testimony of the crew and of many involved in investigating were adamant. The attacks were deliberate…. is a list of the distinguished people who regard the attacks as deliberate. At http://www.viewzone.com/liberty-html. tells of survivor Halbardier who managed to get a radio working after ALL the communication equipment was destroyed by the attacks. The Israelis, after jamming signals, made concerted efforts to make sure the ship could not communicate with anyone. Incredibly, and under fire, Halbardier rigged up a Heath Robinson device and got through to
the sixth fleet.”

The Viewzone website is an anti-Semitic conspiracist website http://www.viewzone.com/ that rages on about the Illuminatti, big conspiracies between China and the Illuminatti, Israel involved in 9/11, and Israeli scientists spreading fungus. As a reference it cannot be taken seriously, neither can the author.

The wiki page states: “Other Liberty sailors received decorations for their actions during and after the attack, but most of the award citations omitted mention of Israel as the perpetrator. In 2009, however, a Silver Star awarded to crewmember Terry Halbardier, who braved machine-gun and cannon fire to repair a damaged antenna that restored the ship's communications, in the award citation named Israel as the attacker.” so Halbardier clearly did well but the rest of the “claims” from the site are to be disputed.

The rest of your point is nonsense. Israel could have jammed some signals its highly dubious because the fighters would have had to be modified to carry very powerful transmitting equipment which in 1967 would have been heavyweight valve equipment, and also raise the issue of knowing what transmitting equipment was being used but the Liberty was a ship used to covertly listen to communications so to would have also had advanced transmitting equipment. Jamming also raises the question of why Israel wouldn’t jam the ship instead of attack it which would obviously be a sensible move with diplomatic fallout from a highly important allie. Before you scream “Zionist lobby” the US was also selling arms to Israel’s enemies at the time.

Israel could not have sunk the ship and kept the matter a secret. That is a fact. The Sixth Fleet received word but it was thought the Soviets were involved so recalled his nuclear armed aircraft. At the time Johnston thought the Soviets were involved. The US ambassador in Tel Aviv was advised two hours after the attack which was speedy to say the least. US shipping was a presence in the area and Israel had voiced concern about the possibility of accidentally hitting US ships even before the war started.

Rob Harris said...

Part Two:

Builderman writes: “As soon as the Israelis realised the game was up, they broke off the engagement, went into apology mode for their 'mistake', and offered assistance. This was refused by the captain - an unheard of response.Obviouslythese brave men could not stomachthe hypocrisy.”

They actually didn’t go into “apology mode” as soon as they realised the game was up. They turned away and one ship turned back to offer assistance. Notwithstanding your attempt at “mind reading”, the attempt for help may have been because the Sixth Fleet was in the vacinity.


Builderman writes: “Back at base they were sworn to secrecy. Unheard of before.The captain's Medal of Honour was not given at the White House but in a virtually secret ceremony. Again unheard of before. The Court of Inquiry was in LONDON, away from the US media. Unheard of before.It took only 25 hours with only 19 witnesses. Unheard of before. (The USS Pueblo inquiry had 104 witnesses over 200 hours).”

Absolute bullshit. I can see how you are a conspiracist and love conspiracy theories. The sessions of for the enquiry were held in both London and Malta. It ran to Malta because that was where the ship sailed to and could be inspected. The start of the enquiry was held at London because it was the English Headquarters of the Commander in Chief if the “U.S. Naval Forces Europe”. Entirely appropriate given it occurred about a week after the incident. The USS Pueblo’s capture was a major incident in the cold war involving a country that the US was at war with. Obviously that would garner more attention, and led to the court martial of senior officers. Thus it is a nonsense comparison. The article by Halliwell that you cite below, and is obviously the source of information for your claim admits the time wasn’t logged properly in the documents of the enquiry but still concludes it was 25 hours. It was probably much more, and possibly ran through the first night. Furthermore your claim that crewmembers were uniquely sworn to secrecy (if the claim is true) is utterly absurd. The Navy, like all military forces, likes to keep its cards to its chest over potentially contentious or embarrassing issues.



Builderman writes: “McGonagles testimony at odds with the crew . See http://sites.google.com/site/usslibertyenquiry/essay23. His was considered unreliable because the
crew's testimonies were from the ship's deck and not the captain's cabin.He also had much to gain by
accepting the establishment view and much to lose if he didn't.”

Many Liberty conspiracists try their damnedest to discredit McGonagle. There was even a forged letter claiming to be by McGonagle doing the rounds a while back that blamed Israel. The reality is that his testimony is essential because he had a birds eye view of what was going on, received the reports from the crew, and he directly communicated with the Israeli craft. It is interesting that you heap praise on the crew but cast McGonagle in a dubious light without an iota of evidence. The crew and officers could have had just as much to loose as the captain if they were threatened in some way.

McGonagle stated he “had initially ordered a sailor to proceed to machine gun Mount 51 and open fire. However, Captain McGonagle noticed that the boats appeared to be flying an Israeli flag, and "realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error."” Take this like a man unless you want to call him an out and out liar.

Rob Harris said...

Part Three:

“Upon realizing that the attackers could have been Israeli and acting in error, Captain McGonagle ordered the sailor in Mount 51 not to fire, but he fired a short burst at the torpedo boats before he was able to understand. At this same time, machine gun Mount 53 began firing at the center boat, and Captain McGonagle observed that its fire was "extremely effective and blanketed the area and the center torpedo boat." Machine gun mount 53 was located on the starboard amidships side, behind the pilot house.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident#Air_and_sea_attacks

What of the crew’s sworn testimony? It actually backed up the report’s findings at the time, which a few subsequently went against. This is illustrated with direct quotes http://www.sixdaywar.org/uss-liberty.asp from their testimony, which proves claims of machine gunning the life rafts was a oure fabrication by the likes of Mr. Painter. That’s why these people cannot be taken seriously.

I mentioned the 1967 CIA report but the CIA memos of the event at the time released in 2004 http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/524753111.html?dids=524753111:524753111&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+13%2C+2004&author=JANINE+ZACHARIA&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=01&desc=USS+%27Liberty%27+hit+was+unintentional%2C+says+CIA show it too.

Builderman writes: “Of course the crew survivors became anti-Israel, because they couldn't understand WHY their gov. wanted to whitewash the incident.Once you start asking questions, you find your way to info. that leads you, like any decent human being, to regard Israel as a rogue state.”

Ah so it is indecent to believe that Israel isn’t a rogue state if you know a fair bit about the issue. That explains why you have been hassling a few pro-Israeli’s on a couple of blogs. They are entitled to believe what they want to believe regarding Israel but if they care about getting justice then that is what they should be focusing on rather than using the issue as a pretext to bash Israel generally. The anti-Semitic far-right instigated and advocated this theory. Ennes then pushed the issue a great deal, and it was revealed he has a deep antipathy toward Israel which illustrates he had an agenda to blacken Israel.

Builderman writes: “I used to believe that Israel was this tiny virtuous state surrounded by nasty Arabs who wanted to destroy it. But that was before, like the Liberty crew, I understood the history.So now your list of people with unacceptable views and possibly anti-semitic includes 4 star Admirals of the US Navy! Cristol and others are just the Israeli propaganda machine and are totally dismissed by authentic researchers and, more importantly, by the brave men on the ship.”

I can hear the fucking violins playing. Yeah Cristol is a mean bad guy for disagreeing, and under the control of Zionist paymasters, the typically hateful crap you lot throw at anyone who dare to defend Israel, e.g. you made that claim at SystemWorks without an iota of proof. The “authentic researchers”? We all know what that translates from in Builderman-ese: the guys who agree with him about Israel. It is no wonder the claws are out for Cristol http://www.adl.org/israel/uss.asp since he debunks them all.

I never said All those believing the Liberty was a cover-up were anti-Semitic but some probably are, and I cited proof of that. I think only one retired admiral actually agreed with the liberty crew. If you know of more prove it. BTW the oh-I-used-to-love-Israel-but-the-blinkers-have-been-taken-from-my-disappointed-eyes is a tired pro-Palestnian chant that one hears on every forum by Israeli bashers.

Rob Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Harris said...

Apologies for the length of the above posts. I tried to respond to every single point of Builderman’s.

To Paul: Thanks for the feedback. I agree that its pretty clear that its impossible to talk to Builderman. Like many pro-Palestinians, he is driven by hatred, and clings to any tittle-tattle to reinforce his points. The fact that people on here shot down 98% of what he has to say would make as much difference as not being able to reply at all because he will believe no matter what with no moderation of any sort. I’m replying to his points consistently on this thread because I feel it is important to counter these people, at least now and again anyway. Roll on the next 150 posts! lol

Builderman writes: “Any doubts about the pro-Israel lobby's control of US politics can be dispelled at http://maplight.org/us-congress/interest/J5100/view/all which lists their contributions to
various representatives. The list is long but top receiving $1,039,191 is Joe Lieberman, cheerleader for bombing Iran. His military record is not impressive, having dodged the draft in Vietnam.”

Here Builderman conflates donations that are pro-Israel with the actual “Zionist lobby”. Firstly the US is a big country, and a lot of money gets doled out http://www.meforum.org/1240/stealth-pacs come election time. The entertainment industry gives several times more. Secondly, most donations are relatively small, sums of a few thousand dollars, and some of the donations come from PACs (political action committees to help candidates win elections) that have fairly broad foreign policy stances. They are rightly described as pro-Israel but have other policy issues so to say they are purely about Israeli influence, as the label implies, seems misleading. Explicitly pro-Israel PACs run directly by AIPAC etc. very often actually support the incumbent candidate http://www.rjcwomen.org/pro-israel-pacs-different-all-other-a3024 whether they are significantly pro-Israel or not. Furthermore some supposedly “pro-Israel” PACs don’t give their money to pro-Israel candidates. J-Street (funded by Soros etc) for example “Accounted for 30% of all pro-Israel PAC funds distributed during the election.” according to their website http://jstreet.org/about/ but it actually supports candidates that have a strongly critical past http://israelinsider.net/forum/topics/isi-leibler-j-street-unmasked in terms of Israel.

builder man said...

To Rob Harris. I hate what Israel does to the Palestinians. Hating people is counter productive. For the
latest impartial assessment of Israel
go to www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/20122198353750111.html

Rob Harris said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob Harris said...

Al Jazeera impartial? Oh yes!!! The fact that they are funded by the pro-Hamas Qatari state http://www.aim.org/aim-column/al-jazeera-the-anti-semite-muslim-cleric-and-the-times/ clearly has nothing to do with their coverage, nor their failure to criticise the Qatari regime unlike their intenseive coverage of Mubarak era Egypt which Qatar was hostile to. Neither could it ever be said their giving very strong publicity to extremists (beyond the call of balance) has anything to do with bias. Nor could the fact that they own the grotesquely anti-Semitic Muslim.net, which for example celebrated the burning of Jews in the forest fires, suggest they would ever be remotely anti-Israel!

Paul said...

Any one who thinks Al Jazeera is impartial is a c&nt!