Blair: Don't apply rules to Israel that you wouldn't apply to your own country

[shira]

Former British prime minster Tony Blair nailed his colours firmly to the mast of Israel and democracy this week in a stunning address to press, politicians and diplomats in Herzliya. Speaking in his capacity as official envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, Mr Blair challenged critics of Israel not to apply double standards to the Jewish state. He said: "In any of our nations, if there were people firing rockets, committing acts of terrorism and living next door to us, our public opinion would go crazy." Openly identifying himself as a "friend of Israel", Mr Blair acknowledged that he had "plenty of criticisms".

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni and Yuli Edelstein, the Minister for Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora and international ambassadors based in Israel also took part in the conference. Here, we publish a lightly edited version of Mr Blair's speech, entitled 'The Delegitimisation of Israel'.

"There are two forms of de-legitimisation. One is traditional, obvious and, from the quarters it emanates, expected. This is the attack from those who openly question Israel's right to exist. It is easier to deal with because it is so clear. When the President of Iran says he wants Israel wiped off the face of the map, we all know where we are. This is not to minimise the threat, of course. It remains profound.

The other form is more insidious, harder to spot and harder to deal with, because many of those engaging in it will fiercely deny they are doing so. It is this that is in danger of growing, and whose impact is potentially highly threatening, in part because it isn't obvious.

more...
http://www.thejc.com/news/israel-news/37296/blair-dont-apply-rules-israel-you-wouldnt-apply-your-own-country

[Fumesucker]

1. Bliar is talking out of his anal sphincter, as usual..

Did he forget about the IRA bombing the UK for years?

And yet the UK never went as hog wild in Northern Ireland as Israel has in Gaza and the West Bank.

[shira]

3. Blair is calling for Israel's most irrational critics to consider the average Israeli's viewpoint.

Empathize with Israelis, show you understand what they are going through and then offer more viable and realistic alternatives.

BTW, the UK's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are 10x worse than Israel's actions the last 60 years.

[Fumesucker]

6. Why should I empathize with Israelis and not with Palestinians?

Israelis kind of remind me of someone who moves into a house next to an airport runway and then constantly complains about the noise.

In fact it's even worse than that since Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were both terrorists who were elected as Prime Ministers of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Shamir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin#Jewish_underground

That the UK and US are doing horrendous things in Iraq and Afghanistan by no means excuses what Israel is doing, I'm every bit as harsh on the actions of my own country and the UK as I am on Israel.

[shira]

14. Why not empathize with both?

Not all Israelis are "stealing" land, are they?

Shamir and Begin, like Sadat, were reformed terrorists, right?

Do you believe the UK and US are doing far worse things in Iraq and Afghanistan than Israel?

[Fumesucker]

15. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "reformed terrorist"..

We seem to have no trouble slapping minor infractions of stupid laws with extremely harsh punishments that have life long consequences while letting people who commit horrendous crimes off with no punishment at all.

It's pretty clear which group has the upper hand in Israel/Palestine, it's hard to have a great deal of sympathy for people I perceive as holding almost all the cards. Over the space of thirty years or so I've done almost a complete 180 degree turnabout in my feelings over Israel, I used to be a very strong supporter and now I feel quite hostile to them. Like the US Israel seems to be held hostage by its totally intransigent right wing even if a majority of the population disagrees with that right wing (something I'm not sure is true in Israel or the USA).

The US and the UK are certainly doing very bad things in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan but I'm really not sure that it's worse than what Israel is doing, beyond a certain point I find it hard to judge degrees of iniquity.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Your last sentence may be true - but which leader perpetrated these actions?!

I suppose it WOULD be refreshingly honest for Blair to say, "Don't be too hard on the Israeli leaders; at least they're not as bad as I was!"


But unfortunately, he's full of self-justification, as well as justifying other hawkish leaders, from the Israeli ones, to one of the worst of all, George Bush, whom Blair still describes as a man of integrity!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I would not be so sure about that

The UK did a number of nasty things in both Ireland and later Northern Ireland. However, the Northern Ireland situation in not comparable to Gaza or the West Bank.

[Fumesucker]

10. Eh, the IRA was exploding bombs all over the UK for years..

Certainly the situations weren't totally the same but there are plenty of similarities.

If you go back far enough in history every nation and every people have done things that are horrendous, that does not excuse it when anyone does those sorts of things now though.

[denverbill]

2. Well, I guess if my country invaded Mexico and annexed parts of it,

and treated the occupied Mexicans as 2nd class citizens with no rights, I might be able to apply those same rules to America.

People don't like to be conquered and occupied. They tend to resort to terrorism when they feel they have no other way to get back at a much superior military force. Ever heard of Ireland, Tony?

[shira]

4. Israel won the territories in a defensive war, 1967. n/t

[Tripmann]

17. Even america refers to the territtory as occupied. You cannot 'win' land in a war & retain it

Defensive or otherwise. Its called "no title by conquest". Even in a defensive war your actions cannot exceed legitimate self defense. While you may argue that continued occupation is necessary for Israels defence, it is still an occupation nonetheless. Israel did not WIN the territory.

Only the occupiers (surprise surprise) and their excusers refer to the land as 'disputed'. The territory is officially occupied.

You may post your spoonfed propaganda points now in relation to UNSCR 242 etc. IIRC the last time you were attempting to argue semantics over a single sentence in 242 while willfully ignoring the overall intent.

[shira]

32. You were corrected already on this...

Here...
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311362#312474

You even argued Israel's occupation is illegal. If that were true, Israel would have been guilty of illegally occupying land ever since UNSCR242 was passed and OSLO would have demanded Israel adhere to UNSCR242 - the way you view it - as a precondition to negotiations.

===========

But back to the OP....

Why is it you never empathize with the average Israeli citizen and offer constructive, more practical and realistic alternatives to Israeli policy when you 'criticize' (in reality it's BASHING) Israel?

Is that so hard to do? To understand the average Israeli citizen, consider his/her view, see them as real human beings....?

[Tripmann]

33. And I corrected you. Only the occupiers consider it disputed. Every other nation calls it occupied.

[Shaktimaan]

34. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

The fact that Israel is clearly occupying the area doesn't preclude the fact that parts of it are also disputed. As far as other countries referring to it as "occupied" and never "disputed", that hardly means much in terms of legality, morality or anything else aside from politics.

A lot of times in referring to the OPT as "palestinian" is seems that people can lose sight of the actual history of the occupation. They'll just view the territories as though they were always considered Palestinian and as if Israel had the option of returning it to them in '67 to form their own state.

To suggest it isn't disputed is just silly. Look at east jerusalem. It's obviously disputed territory. Both nations have very valid and compelling claims to it.

[Tripmann]

37. I know. Israel is occupying the land AND disputing its an ocupation. Cheers.

[elias7]

57. you're missing the point n/t

[Tripmann]

76. Not really.You can't both claim israel won the territory AND debate about its occupation of same.

Its called speaking out of both sides of your mouth

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[denverbill]

23. It was not defensive, it was 'preemptive'. As was our invasion of Iraq.

Israel claims its neighbors were preparing for war against them and they might very well have been planning an attack. But since Israel invaded them before they attacked, we will never know if they actually would have attacked.

It's not different from me deciding I should ambushing and killing someone because they are planning on killing me. Even if I have evidence of his intent, I'd be convicted of murder.

[aranthus]

24. Not true.

First, the Arab states were already at war with Israel, going back to 1948. Second, the Egyptians had committed acts of war against Israel by declaring and imposing a blockade, which Israel was entitled to lift by all means necessary, including military. Third, the Egyptians had violated the terms of the cease fire of 1956, by closing the Straits of Tiran, moving offensive forces into Sinai, and ordering the UN observers to leave. Fourth, Israel did not attack Jordan (the West Bank), nor Syria (the Golan) until Jordan and Syria attacked Israel from those areas.

[Cherchez la Femme]

63. No, the territories weren't "won"

That denotes ownership. The "occupied territories" are owned by Israel? As are the Illegal Settlements?!
Consider the well over 220 UN resolutions against Israel and the state's breaches of International Law (Geneva Conventions).

Consider the official State of Israel's approval, justification and rewarding of the terrorism they used against British Palestine
and even try to reconcile that with the heavy-handed (and that's mildly put) condemnation, physical abuse and relinquishing of rights, not to mention propaganda, against the Palestinians.

Switch the two name around within the same facts: Palestine "Winning"/occupying Israeli territories.
Would the U.S. still 'be on the same side', hold even near the same political position(s) it now holds vis a vis Bizarro Israel and Palestine?


It is completely beyond me why Israel thinks people should completely condemn what the Nazi's did to the Jews (which should rightfully be condemned in the strongest possible language!)
yet when many of the same tactics are used
by some of the very same people who have these high expectations, those who should know better

the propaganda is that it should be perfectly OK!

No. I don't think so.
I didn't accept it for one side, I most certainly will not accept it for ANY other.

[shira]

66. The territories are disputed.

Both competing parties have legitimate claims to that land. Hopefully through negotiations made in good faith, a fair compromise according to UNSCR 242 will result.

And you can't be taken seriously if you're going to try to compare Israel's actions to the Nazis.

[Cherchez la Femme]

68. "Disputed" ONLY by Israel.

You don't quit, do you?

Do you think that the Apartheid and Nazi analogies are my own? That nobody else in the world, not the many, many millions, hold it? Dream on.

When so many hold that opinion, no matter what Megaphone, what CAMERA & other Wiki thought-control programs try to catapult their propaganda -- there is no question Israel is in trouble.

But go ahead, don't take "me", singular, seriously. Don't take ANY warnings, no matter if from people who do not want to see Israel lose their state, seriously.

The arrogance is breathtaking, but sadly quite unsurprising.

[shira]

70. The WB was illegally taken in 1948-49 by Arab armies who initiated war and ethnically cleansed...

...all Jews from that area. How you get that all WB land is exclusively and legally Arab or Palestinian is something you'll need to clearly explain.

Lots of assholes use nazi and apartheid labels to describe Israel - why take such ludicrous comparisons seriously?

[Cherchez la Femme]

83. Explanation:

The original Israeli border, aka 'the Green Line'. Voila.

I wonder which came first, regarding the tactic used by republicants when they are criticized, of taking that accusation and crying 'No, teh evildoers did it!!1!' (sometimes adding 'first', as if that absolves anyone from immoral acts)

Lots of assholes use nazi and apartheid labels to describe Israel - why take such ludicrous comparisons seriously?

Yes, all those millions who are extremely upset about Israel using yes, Nazi tactics
alongside those of the 'kinder, gentler' S.A. Apartheid
are clearly Nazi's themselves! :crazy:
How could I have missed that? :eyes:


As I said; keep on ignoring warnings (because, ya know, those giving the warnings to Israel want the state of Israel to fail! :silly:)
and continue to speciously defend the indefensible.
Go ahead.
But don't be surprised and don't claim 'Nobody could have imagined...!' when it all comes crashing down.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Your lack of knowledge of Irish history is astounding

[denverbill]

22. No less astounding than your lack of manners.

I'd be interested to know what, exactly, you can glean from my post that indicates a lack of knowledge of Irish history.

[Shaktimaan]

40. I can't speak to your knowledge of Ireland...

but it's not a very accurate parallel to Palestine. When Israel occupied the West Bank it was directly following a defensive war where they were attacked by Jordan. Jordan was claiming the whole area as Jordanian land. And prior to their being ethnically cleansed a few decades beforehand, there was a long term Jewish population living there. The religion's most sacred sites are there. There's a long historical connection to parts of the west bank, going back thousands of years.

So it's not the same thing as a colonial enterprise at all. You also compared it to the US invading Mexico and annexing parts of it, which is equally dissimilar. Bear in mind that the whole idea of making an independent Palestinian state out of the west bank, gaza and east jerusalem is a relatively recent thing. Only 20 some-odd years ago all of the Palestinians living in the west bank were Jordanian citizens. Even if Israel had pulled out there was no Palestinian government to hand control over to. Control would have reverted back to the Jordanian occupation.

People don't like to be conquered and occupied.

Ok. But these people have never been independent. Palestine's always been occupied. It is only under Israeli control that the possibility for self-determination exists, where the Palestinians had elections and sovereignty over areas of the OPT. Never before (since the UN's plan in '47) were there negotiations to allow the Palestinians their own state. And remember, back in '47 Israel had agreed to the UN's plan. And following the war in '48 it was the Arab states that prevented Palestine from existing.

They tend to resort to terrorism when they feel they have no other way to get back at a much superior military force.

Terrorism is being used to try and stymie the two state solution and any relevant peace agreement. Not to "gain independence" or anything like that. If you look at the history of terrorism as used by the Palestinians it is a laundry list of missed opportunities and tragic consequences. There is no need to "get back at a much superior military force" now. It offers them no practical benefits if the goal is an independent Palestinian state in the OPT. It benefits Hamas, who oppose any permanent peace agreement.

[azurnoir]

13. Ireland? what about Iraq? n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Sweet Neocon

[aranthus]

7. Where's the fun in that?

As you can see from some of the responses to your post, unfairly dumping on Israel is a major participatory sport.

[oberliner]

11. Do you remember when Democrats used to like Tony Blair?

Also difficult to fathom is that there was a time, not too long ago, when Al Gore and Joe Lieberman ran together on the Democratic ticket for President.

[LeftishBrit]

20. I rejoiced when Blair was elected PM after 18 years of Tory rule...

but I was bitterly disillusioned with him within 6 months, due to domestic policies relating to (1) education and (2) disability. Later I became even more disillusioned with him due to his warmongering.

As for Joe Lieberman, Blair does remind me of him in many ways, from his warmongering tendencies, to his current attempts to undermine his own party. Oddly enough, I was aware of Lieberman getting elected as senator in 1988 (I followed the Dukakis/Bush I election quite closely - American elections get a lot of coverage in the UK - and was obviously very disappointed by the outcome); and I was aware *then* that he was on the right of his party, and had defeated the *Republican* incumbent from the *right*. Blair has recently been attacking the Tory cabinet minister Ken Clarke from the *right*, so I suppose they have things in common that way too!

[shira]

26. Note the general response: Shoot the messenger rather than refute the message.

Either that or divert....

[LeftishBrit]

29. In this case, the messenger is relevant.

Someone who has already played a big part in unleashing disaster on the Middle East is not a suitable person to listen to on the subject of how to achieve peace in the Middle East, or whose actions are right or wrong.

Yes, it is true that most Israeli leaders have done less harm to the world than Blair. But one doesn't need Blair's words to know this!

In any case, right-wing viewpoints and ideas are ALWAYS dangerous to the world, and can NEVER be validly used to justify either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian viewpoints (or anything else for that matter). (And Blair, though nominally of a LW party, is very RW especially on foreign policy.) If there is a valid point to be made, and a valid message, then it should always be possible to make it *without* any reference to right-wing ideas. Thus, 'The Israeli leaders should not be treated as more evil than others, because Blair for example is worse' is indeed a valid message - though one may still think that *all* the leaders are bad. 'The Israeli leaders should not be treated as more evil than others because Blair says they shouldn't' is not a valid message. Same conclusion, but different justifications.

[shira]

31. Really? I don't buy it. Whose opinion would be taken seriously if Blair hadn't articulated this?

The usual suspects would shoot-the-messenger WRT anyone else making the same point.

Name anyone the usual suspects here respect whose opinion would at least be taken seriously, no personal attacks WRT political views...

Someone who would actually make the same point.

[LeftishBrit]

35. I can only speak for myself

But as far as I'm concerned I generally don't take *anybody's* opinion as proof. But if a right-winger says something, then my first inclination is *not* to believe it, though I may still be convinced by independent evidence.

Blair *has* in fact helped to demonstrate to me by his own evil actions that it is quite possible to be worse and more gratuitously murderous than the Israeli leaders. But I would never accept the *words* of such a vile creature as a valid argument for anything.

In fact, one problem that I have with both strong pro-Israelis and strong pro-Palestinians is that they are sometimes prepared to endorse right-wingers' views as an argument for their side - thus giving aid and comfort to the Right. As far as I am concerned, opposing the Right wherever we find it should be our top priority - whichever country it is supporting or opposing: thus, I am opposed to Hamas, the Israeli Right, the Bushies, Thatcherism, and Thatcher's illegitimate political son Blair!

And yes, I do believe in holding my own country to the same standards that I'd use for Israel - that's why I hate both Blair *and* Netanyahu. But Blair more, because he betrayed voters like me by using a left-wing label!

[shira]

38. The point I was trying to make is that Blair's argument from the OP is not Rightwing...

None of Israel's most vocal and widely read harshest critics would ever make such an argument and that's very telling IMO. They leave it to the "Rightwingers" to do so, like Amos Oz.... Why?

:shrug:

Also, whenever I point to US and UK actions in Iraq/Afghanistan being worse, it's never to argue that the US and UK are horrible countries so much worse than Israel - but rather to see how hypocrites react to the fact that among Western nations, Israel compares very favorably and is far from being 'uncivilized' or worse than most and therefore more deserving of demonization and vitriol than any other. If Israel is the "worst ever" most evil nation on the planet but THEIR own nation acts even worse then why aren't these posers venting their spleens against their own countries 10x more than Israel....?

[LeftishBrit]

41. I do vent my spleen more against my own government(s) than Israel - or than any country if it comes

to that. Because it *is* my country. And however interested I am in international politics, I am not actually an employer of the American or Israeli government, whereas I am an employer of my own (despite having voted against it!)

Amos Oz isn't right-wing. Blair is. Blair's viewpoint on Israel, whether one agrees with it in isolation or not, is all part of a view of the world where 'good' are fighting against 'evil', and have a right to pre-emptive war. Oz' views, even if some of them are similar in detail, are not based on such a view.

Any viewpoint is right-wing when it is embedded in a right-wing viewpoint. Thus, it may be clearly true that it is raining. However, a right-winger may embed this in a right-wing viewpoint: 'It is raining - I hope that as many poor and improvident people who didn't buy their umbrellas are out in the rain as possible, as it serves them right if they get soaked!' Or worse 'It is raining - that might make it easier for us to attack our enemies as they can't see us as easily as in the sunshine'. Etc. This does not of course make it untrue that it's raining; but it does mean that the RW-ers' interpretations of the implications of the rain are bad by definition, and not to be in any way promoted as valid.

In any case, I am not really into comparing countries as to which are the most 'horrible'. I am interested in supporting change to *all* bad governments; and in working for peace where possible.

[shira]

42. But you're not one of the usual suspects portraying Israel as the root of all evil....

Of course Oz isn't Rightwing, but neither is he a voice for those who get their rocks off demonizing Israel. He's not nasty enough for them. The common view on I/P that these posers peddle is in fact far more Right-wing and just as dangerous than the views they oppose. Their views on I/P are not significantly different than the views of David Duke or Pat Buchanon.

You'll note in another thread some here are cheerleaders for Castro. Imagine Buchanon or Duke also covering for Castro. Then compare such an ideology to Tony Blair's. It's easily just as nasty and just as dangerous.

In any case, I am not really into comparing countries as to which are the most 'horrible'. I am interested in supporting change to *all* bad governments; and in working for peace where possible.

This is excellent. If only the usual suspects here felt the same way. We both know they don't...

[polly7]

43. I have no problem with Castro. He hasn't stolen neighbours' land,

started wars, tried for decades to cleanse the 'undesirables from their own land'. Get their rocks off demonizing Israel? Any particular names??? Nobody is demonizing 'Israel', just the atrocities their gov't and the IDF have claimed as their right while imprisoning and hurting millions who have done nothing but happen to be born on land Israel has been told is its own. The bulldozing old men in wheelchairs, a young American girl, shooting aid workers, not allowing foreign press in, illegal walls, blockaded, imprisonment, etc. etc. etc., totalling nearly 100 condemnations from the UN. But ah yeah ,....... we're here just to 'demonize' Israel. Nice talking point, but completely wrong ........ again.

[shira]

46. Of course you have no problem with Castro. n/t

[polly7]

53. Was that actually supposed to mean something?

Great beaches and people there too. Is there something you THINK you know about me that would cause you to say of course you know what I would have no problem with?

[Cherchez la Femme]

64. Absolutely snotty comment

You are not worth anybody's time, if you can't be civil.

But I can't say I'm surprised...

[shira]

67. Are you in any way aware of what Castro has done the past 60 years or what he's still doing? n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

69. I'm not defending Castro

I am pointing out the tone of your comment.

I like horses, I rescue horses -- I even use straw as bedding
but I am not as entranced with strawmen as you seem to be.

[shira]

71. I never said or implied that you defend Castro, now did I?

Anyone defending him or having little to no issue with him is in no position to project Castro's crimes against humanity onto liberal democracies and therefore cannot be taken seriously when they do so.

[polly7]

72. ROFLMAO n/t.

[polly7]

73. Really? I don't take you or your comments seriously anymore but was wondering if you could

Point out the similarities in what Castro has done in overthrowing a corrupt, U.S. friendly dictator in comparison to Blair, Bush and every Israeli Gov't in the last 60 years murderous actions against people who were only unlucky enough to live on land the 'these nations' have coveted the resources of, for decades? Or, is it that you would have preferred the murderous, torturing Batista still in power serving U.S. interests?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fidel_castro.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/18355/fidel_castro.html

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59490.shtml

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59266.shtml

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55899.shtml

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Uk8kbx69a7AJ:latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/historyofthecaribbean/a/08fbatista_2.htm+batista+murder+torture&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

[Cherchez la Femme]

78. I said I never defended Castro, just noted your snotty response

you come back with "I never said or implied that you defend Castro, now did I?" and then (needlessly, if your comment was to be believed) defended your anti-Castro comment as if that was what you intended.

Freud & Jung would have a Field Day with you!

[polly7]

79. Crimes against humanity ............. I'm assuming you're not considering

all those who were suffering under Batista human.

"At the time of the Revolution, the largely rural population had an average annual income per person of $91.25 - an eight of that of Mississippi, the poorest state in the USA. Only 11% of Cuba drank milk, 4% ate meat, 2-3% had running water, and 9.1% had electricity. 36% had intestinal parasites, 14% had tuberculosis, and 43% were illiterate.

On 2 January 1959, the government announced that 50-60% of casino profits would be directed to welfare programmes. The first of a series of land reforms was enacted on 17 May. Large estates were expropriated and turned into state farms. The US United Fruit Company was dispossessed without compensation. Land was turned over to small farmers, sugar cane farms were made into cooperatives.

The Cuban government offered to discuss compensation for US-owned farms and mineral properties. The US Secretary of State declined the offer."

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55899.shtml

[polly7]

74. What exactly is he still doing? n/t.

[Cherchez la Femme]

77. Methinks all the response will be

is *crickets*

All I've read from Castro as of late is his apology regarding Cuba's ill-treatment of homosexuals
which, unfortunately, some here would look unfavorably upon.

[polly7]

80. I was glad to hear of this, he's no saint, but has kept Cuba an independent,

functioning nation despite the blockade and given literacy. social programs and much more to those who had nothing prior. I think any leader who risks enraging foreign multi-nationals in favour of his own people will always be hated, and compared to 'Hitler' and 'Stalin'. That was great, lol.

[LeftishBrit]

48. I have many problems with Castro, but still prefer him to people like Pinochet who were supported

by right-wing American leaders (and by British ones like Maggie).

He didn't steal anyone's land but he was oppressive toward dissidents and at one time gays.

Far from the worst, but also far from good.

[shira]

50. Just wondering....would you prefer Stalin to Hitler and why or why not? n/t

[LeftishBrit]

62. If picking sides in WW2 in the 1940s, certainly.

Under other circumstances, I'd prefer a big fat Neither.

[Cherchez la Femme]

65. And do you like Shaitan over Beelzebub?

:eyes:

[Shaktimaan]

51. You really have no issues with Castro?

Sure, the horrible oppression that he is directly responsible for reflects a very different situation than the ones we see in the I/P conflict. That isn't to say that he isn't a totalitarian tyrant and an enemy of democracy.

A lot of the references in this post are a bit beyond me. Comments like, "tried for decades to cleanse the 'undesirables from their own land'" aren't quotes I recognize as belonging to any specific Israeli official.

Nobody is demonizing 'Israel', just the atrocities their gov't and the IDF have claimed as their right while imprisoning and hurting millions who have done nothing but happen to be born on land Israel has been told is its own.

See, I would consider that comment right there to be a fine example of demonization. "the atrocities their gov't and the IDF have claimed as their right?" What is that about? "imprisoning and hurting millions?" Really? Israel's imprisoned and hurt millions? "who have done nothing but happen to be born on land Israel has been told is its own?" And again, I don't even know what this really means. Land that Israel was told...? Told by who? And what land are you even referring to? Israel itself? The OPT? Besides that, the situation is not one of irrational oppression. There is a violent conflict going on. The issue isn't that the Palestinians were born on land that Israel considers its own so much as that they actually ARE guilty of crimes. Gaza's elected government is actually a terrorist organization. You really think Israel hates Hamas because of where they were born?

As far as bulldozing old men and young women and shooting aid workers, you reference them as though they are indicative of policy. It's a conflict that is almost 100 years long. People have certainly died. But you're listing them as "atrocities that Israel and the IDF claim as their right." Which is just nonsensical.

totalling nearly 100 condemnations from the UN.

I think it's interesting that you bring up the UN in this context because the UN truly is an example of an organization that does much to demonize Israel. Looking at the relationship between Israel and the UN demonstrates a clear pattern of discrimination and some of the resolutions are obviously all about demonizing it, like UNGA res. 3379 which equates zionism with racism. The UN also denies Israel rights and privileges that every other member state enjoys. The UN has so institutionalized discrimination against Israel that it is hardly surprising that so many resolutions condemning it exist.

[polly7]

54. Your whole reply is nonsensical. nt.

[Shaktimaan]

56. meaning?

that you disagree with it, or are unable to gather it's meaning?

[polly7]

58. What part of nonsensical don't you understand??? nt.

[Shaktimaan]

75. I know what "nonsense" means.

Using the actual meaning of the word here would imply that what I wrote is essentially meaningless to you because you failed to understand the content. It wouldn't mean that you disagreed with the content. It would mean that you failed to grasp the concepts being described there on a fundamental level. Now, that could be because I was so inept at describing them that no one could pull any meaning from the post. Or it could be because the issues being addressed are so alien to you that you were unable to draw meaning from them.

I didn't think that's what you were trying to say. I think you were implying that you disagreed with everything I stated. The crux of the post was to refute YOUR earlier post, as it was full of weird and untrue accusations. The reality is that Israel is routinely demonized, both here on this board and outside in the real world. The UN provides a great example of this. It created it's own committee, a special organization that ostensibly existed to fight for human rights. In reality this group used its power almost exclusively to demonize Israel. This was so obvious and pervasive that the entire committee was scrapped. It was too far gone for reform to even be considered as an option.

Unfair and untrue demonization of Israel exists, such as many of the comments in your own post. That you are unable to see it yourself speaks volumes about where you think the lines delineating "legitimate criticism" stretch to.

[polly7]

81. No, understanding it and choosing not to add anything to your insults and blather are

two completely different things. You carry on, you're doing great on your own.

[Shaktimaan]

86. Insults and blather?

I am sorry you found my post challenging your baseless assertions to be insulting. But I assure you it wasn't intended to be. Trust me... when I choose to insult you you'll know it.

Now, no one is forcing you to debate me or defend your position. This being an internet forum though it is generally what people do here. Merely labeling someone's post "nonsense" or "blather" is hardly a constructive or meaningful way to discuss the issues.

[provis99]

84. Castro is decended from Spanish Conquista settlers whole stole indian land.

They completely wiped out Cuba's native indian population, and carved up Cuba into Spanish plantations. And you say he hasn't stolen land? Every person alive in Cuba today is living on stolen land!

[azurnoir]

85. yes Castro's ancestors did that 500 years ago and Cuba was a Spanish colony

1898 however many Cuban's are all or in part descendants of African slaves who were brought to Cuba against their will so to say every Cuban alive today stole land is a stretch

[LeftishBrit]

44. There are SOME people who simply enjoy demonizing Israel...

my strongest litmus test is that such people blame Israel not only for its own actions, but those of others. If someone says 'Israel (or worse, 'Zionists') are responsible for the war in Iraq' or 'If Israel hadn't been created, there would be no wars in the Middle East', or 'America doesn't have a national health service because it spends too much money on Israel' or 'Zionists control the British media', then it is certain that they are treating Israel as a bogeynation, and quite possible that they are frankly antisemitic.

I think, however, that you do often equate any criticism of Israel that you consider unreasonable with real demonization of the sort that I mention. Or even if you don't, you often quote sources that do.

In any case, a person who is either a demonizer of Israel, a friendly critic, or simply unsure of the situation and seeking more knowledge is NOT likely to become any more pro-Israel because they hear Blair's opinions on the subject. Similarly, I don't think that people who are antisemitic are likely to become less so because they hear Castro condemn antisemitism; but it is of some interest in terms of international politics to hear that he has done so.

[shira]

45. And that would describe some people here...

"....my strongest litmus test is that such people blame Israel not only for its own actions, but those of others. If someone says 'Israel (or worse, 'Zionists') are responsible for the war in Iraq' or 'If Israel hadn't been created, there would be no wars in the Middle East', or 'America doesn't have a national health service because it spends too much money on Israel' or 'Zionists control the British media', then it is certain that they are treating Israel as a bogeynation, and quite possible that they are frankly antisemitic."

Those are factors for determining who gets their rocks off demonizing Israel, but far from the only factors.

"I think, however, that you do often equate any criticism of Israel that you consider unreasonable with real demonization of the sort that I mention. Or even if you don't, you often quote sources that do."

There are critics and there are demonizers.

Carlo Strenger, David Hirsch, Bernard Henri Levi, and Amos Oz are critics. They're genuine Liberal LW'ers whose viewpoints - whether one agrees or disagrees with them - are at least fair and reasonable. Then there are the demonizers like Gideon Levy, Seth Freedman, Naomi Klein, and Tony Greenstein. Anyone unable to tell the difference between the first group and the second simply does not know the difference - or pretends not to know the difference - between criticism and demonization. The latter group is really no different than their far Rightwing counterparts who get off singling out and demonizing minorities for real and imagined crimes.

"In any case, a person who is either a demonizer of Israel, a friendly critic, or simply unsure of the situation and seeking more knowledge is NOT likely to become any more pro-Israel because they hear Blair's opinions on the subject. Similarly, I don't think that people who are antisemitic are likely to become less so because they hear Castro condemn antisemitism; but it is of some interest in terms of international politics to hear that he has done so."

There's no point reasoning with the demonizers. They are as impervious to reasoning, fact, and logic as far Rightwing ideologues and religious fundamentalist nutters. Even the atheist demonizers of Israel are as "religious" with their opinions as those who support Hamas or ultra-orthodox violent settlers.

[LeftishBrit]

47. So if 'there's no point reasoning with the demonizers'

and I agree that this is so with regard to true demonizers...

Then I suppose you want to influence the people who are near neutral; or moderately supportive of Israel, Palestine or both; or are critical of both sides.

And using someone as despicable as Blair to support your viewpoint is at best not going to influence us, and at worst may influence us somewhat in the opposite direction!

Yes, there are some people who are 'religious' in their hatred for Israel; and there are some who are 'religious' in their hatred for Palestinians. I don't think I'm either. But perhaps I am somewhat 'religious' in my HATRED for all right-wing viewpoints and ideologies and their influence on the world - I have said that if I believed in the Devil, he would be a right-winger! - but I really do feel that the Right has damaged the world enormously and, if allowed to make further gains, may destroy us all.

One thing that frustrates me about your posts is that almost all the people whom you describe (rightly or wrongly) as 'demonizers' of Israel, or as antisemites, are on the left (except for Middle Eastern figures such as Hamas leaders and Ahmadinejad), and you seem almost to dismiss right-wingers as irrelevant. I think that there is plenty of antisemitism, as well as of course many other forms of racism, on the relatively mainstream Right - not just the 'far right' - and that this is
very common and very important.

'far Rightwing counterparts who get off singling out and demonizing minorities for real and imagined crimes.'

But it isn't only the FAR Right that do this; that's my main point here. Many mainstream right-wingers, as well as a significant number of otherwise left-wing people and centrists, do so. Especially in economic hard times.

[shira]

49. (EDITED) I'd love to use someone besides Blair from the Gideon Levy crowd...

...but no one from that crowd ever makes those arguments, which is proof enough to me that they're not genuine liberals/progressives - and therefore totally undeserving of being defended for their "Leftwing" credentials. If David Hirsch or Carlo Strenger were to articulate such a position, they're written off as progressives on all issues except for Israel (where they're "Rightwing").

See how it works? :)

I'm not sure why you're so frustrated with pointing out how ILLIBERAL and REGRESSIVE some views are on the far-Left. What pisses me off most about such views is that they're often mistaken for genuinely liberal and progressive viewpoints. I imagine you're just as peeved with folks like Tony Blair who are not true liberals/progressives. Seems to me we're both equally pissed off with posers trying to influence genuinely liberal/progressive people.

======

Tell me, if Blair had refused Bush's call to war on Iraq would he be a genuine liberal/leftist in your opinion?

Also, if weapons of mass destruction had been found and Iraq were turned into a genuinely liberal/socialist society, would you still think of Blair as Rightwing for joining Bush?

[LeftishBrit]

52. He would be much better if he had refused Bush's call to Iraq

But no, even then not a genuine liberal/leftist. Many of his domestic policies were also right-wing. And he is now openly promoting faith in politics, and opposing secularism.

He is currently back in England undermining his own party and supporting the coalition's cuts.

No, no genuine progressive.

'Also, if weapons of mass destruction had been found and Iraq were turned into a genuinely liberal/socialist society, would you still think of Blair as Rightwing for joining Bush?'

And if there were fairies at the bottom of my garden? Iraq was never going to be turned into a liberal/socialist society, certainly not by war. And there were not WMD; and there were plenty of warnings that these were unlikely to be found.


Are the only alternatives Blair and Gideon Levy (whom I don't hate as much as you do, but do consider as too pessimistic to be constructive)? What about Amos Oz, as you say, to support your viewpoint?

I do not object to attacking false liberals and do so myself, even on related issues (e.g. I frequently point out that conspiracy-theorists who link to antisemitic conspiracy websites are not liberals even if they oppose Bush or the status quo). But I do object to the idea that left-wingers are worse than right-wingers on this issue, or that right-wingers are somehow not relevant, when they in fact pose a massive danger to society. Also, it is not a matter as you sometimes suggest of *degree* of leftism determining antisemitism. Individuals on any point of the political spectrum can have racist views, and right-wingers tend to have them the most. Jenny Tonge belonged, and possibly still does, to a centrist party, not a far-left one. I have no evidence that Laxton or Miles, whom you cite, are left-wing at all. Richard Ingrams in particular, and recently Damian Thompson, on the mainstream right, have said some pretty horrid things about Jews.

[shira]

55. Would you think of Tony Blair as generally Rightwing if he had refused Bush's call to war?

Or perhaps generally Leftwing but on a few issues a little too rightwing for your taste? Does Iraq put him over the top and definitely a Rightwinger in your view? Just curious. On how many issues or what kind of issues makes someone like Blair generally Rightwing?

You didn't really answer the question about Blair helping to make Iraq liberal/socialist. I know it's far-fetched but Turkey was once far more regressive during WW1, just as Germany, Italy, and Japan were in WW2. It took a war to push them towards liberalism and socialism. Wouldn't Blair be a hero for doing that for Iraq? If so, would he still be a Rightwing 'hero' for having done so?

I don't know why it is you feel people like Gideon Levy deserve to be defended for their "Leftwing" credentials. No apologist for Hamas/Hezbollah actions, whether a Rightwinger or Leftwinger, deserves to be defended for having such harmful illiberal and regressive views. Levy and his ilk are apologists for political organizations that make Netanyahu and Bush look like liberals in comparison. I honestly don't see how you can't be disgusted with lowlifes who defend the most Rightwing fascist organizations. The fact that Levy would never make the same argument as Blair in the OP should be enough evidence to reasonably conclude Levy is not a genuine liberal. If he had political power like Blair, do you honestly believe Levy would be a better alternative to Blair?

Types like Levy are as loathsome as their Rightwing counterparts, but it seems certain liberals don't yet realize it, or don't wish to. If Liberals can't see how dangerous people like Gideon Levy are, who can be trusted to do something about them? Rightwingers? It's enough there are Rightwingers with their views - why pretend types like Levy count as genuine Liberals? If Levy and his ilk count as genuine liberals and those people are combined with Rightwingers, who are the good guys? :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

59. I would still think of him as right-wing - perhaps not far right, but stil l right wing

I already thought of him as right-wing in his first term, long before Iraq, because of his economic policies and ultra-managerialism and in particular his harsh attitudes to disability benefits. And keeping very right-wing people in charge of education in his first term.

'If (Levy) had political power like Blair, do you honestly believe Levy would be a better alternative to Blair?'

My family has the saying, 'If my grandmother had wheels she would be a train'. Levy would *not* seek or get political power; if he did, he would be a different person, and he might be better or worse than Blair - but it's not going to happen.

I don't particularly care for him, but I'm much more preoccupied with the people who *do* have political power.

As regards 'who are the good guys', not many people are. But a lot of leaders in my country have been better than Blair - Gordon Brown, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson to an even greater extent, probably even Ted Heath and Harold Macmillan, and, by many miles, Clem Attlee. In your country, I have a lot of respect for Barack Obama. All of these people, except Attlee, were/are probably still too right-wing for my ideal; but they are all better than Blair.


'You didn't really answer the question about Blair helping to make Iraq liberal/socialist. I know it's far-fetched but Turkey was once far more regressive during WW1, just as Germany, Italy, and Japan were in WW2. It took a war to push them towards liberalism and socialism. Wouldn't Blair be a hero for doing that for Iraq? If so, would he still be a Rightwing 'hero' for having done so?'

I'm afraid that this question is pretty much the same sort of thing, as far as I'm concerned, as the idea that Israel and Palestine can be forced into a peaceful one-state solution. That may happen in 30 or 40 years. Iraq might be liberal or socialist in 30 or 40 years. But neither of these things has a remote chance of happening right now. And Iraq has moved from being a nasty dictatorship, but secular and relatively stable, to a civil war zone and a magnet for Muslim religious extremists - and this could have been predicted; plenty of people did predict it. Even in the best-case scenario, no one was predicting that Iraq would become liberal or socialist.

And there is a big difference between the countries you mention and the Iraq situation. They *started* wars and other countries fought back. No one went around invading them just to make them 'better' countries; that was a side effect. Of course, Britain did for many years invade and rule other countries 'for their own good'; so did other Europaean countries; and, speaking of making countries 'socialist', so, later on, did the Soviet Union. On the whole, none of these imperial adventures are well regarded now.

[shira]

60. Thanks, but as to Gideon Levy....

...do you really believe an apologist for Hamas/Hezbollah is a genuine liberal or 'close enough' to being one? As much as you hate Rightwingers, Hamas and Hezbollah (with the backing of Iran/Syria) are extremely more Rightwing than just about any RW politicos in the USA, UK, or Israel. As I see it, Levy is the personification of New Left = Old Right. He is completely unworthy of being defended as a fellow Leftist or Liberal. Levy would fit in well here with those who cheerlead for Fidel Castro's criminally insane actions. The Stalinist Left don't count as genuine liberals, right?

[LeftishBrit]

61. I don't consider him as pro-Hamas or Hezbollah...

I just think that he is the sort of critic of (in his case, Israel) who seems not to have much of an idea of how things might change, and is just an eternal doomsayer.

However, I just don't think he's particularly important. I would worry a lot more about people who have actual power, including both political leaders such as Blair, and the sort of journalists who really have wide influence and readership.

[polly7]

82. Some people here ..................... any names?, or is this just a pity

party because not everyone agrees with the Israeli govt's murderous, mass-punishing, insanse policies of theft and ethnic cleansing?

[bemildred]

30. The message is not the problem, I would be happy to see Israel held to the same standards

as everybody else. Tony Blair on the other hand, ought to at least have the decency to shut up.

[azurnoir]

12. Tony says that's rich, did Dick C and George B agree? n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

16. How does this mass-murderer represent anything besides himself at his war crimes trial?

What a "good friend" and kindred spirit the zionists have in this slimy, souless conman.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Well, considering the sort of rules that Blair applied to his own country...

his words aren't much of a recommendation for any country's policy!

Yes, people who accept Blair's actions while condemning those of the Israeli government are hypocrites; but one can condemn both!

As Britain is my country, I do spend more time condemning Blair than other countries' leaders. A piece of vile warmongering SCUM, who once seemed to be our country's hope after 18 years of Tory rule, but turned out as just more of the same in most ways - with an additional element of old-fashioned imperialism, which for the most part our country had abandoned. Traitor to party, country and humanity - the modern British Benedict Arnold to the American Mad King George!

(Now, LB, why hold back; why not say what you REALLY think of Blair?)

[polly7]

21. Blair, you hypocrite. nt.

[Jefferson23]

25. Oh yea, a man of great wisdom and advice, lol. He is such a coward,

he cancels events over his new bullshit book due to protestors....schmuck.

[bemildred]

27. Blair is a war criminal, and his "support" is not what Israel needs.

There is a 3rd form of delegitimization, which is when you act like a belligerent, irrational idiot and people quietly start to lose faith in your dependability and good sense.

[whosinpower]

28. It's too bad

Blair has a point.....too bad he did not subject the very same thing when he and George decided to invade Iraq.

Otherwise - the point has some validity - but the messenger dilutes its potency - given that his stating it indicates that he is a hypocrite.

In other news - Iran's foreign minister is blaming Israel for the Quran burning thing in Florida.

Here you go Shira - I utterly completely and totally condemn the foreign ministers attempt to lay blame and incite violence towards Israel over the racist, bigotted stunt that Jones was attempting. It is deplorable, pathetic, hysterical attempt to derail the peace process via violence.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Agree with all this...

and thanks for stating it more calmly than I could. It's difficult for me to remain calm where Blair is concerned.