"But I would be grateful if those people who have a serious grudge against Jews in general, would go and express their views on their own websites"

Or better still NOT express them at all.

Craig,
many of your comments are reflected in the lead article in todays copy of The Independent newspaper: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-why-do-they-hate-the-west-so-much-we-will-ask-1230046.html

I think Mill was wrong, it is perfectly legitimate to express that view whenever you like - you hold no responsibility for other people's actions.

Also, the state has no place placing an injunction against shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. However, it is reasonable for the theatre owners to make it a condition for entry that you shall not do that (in our society it is probable that it need not even be explicitely stated - the assumption being that it is verboten unless explicitely stated that it is allowed).

Tristan,

I don't think that is true. If you deliberately incite someone to an action there is a measure of guilt. Lady Macbeth was guilty!

Actually you are free to express almost any view on this site, except the view that John Stuart Mill was wrong about anything.

Tristan

When we pay a visit to the bottom of our hearts we find there the things that are known to be the ultimate truth.

Craig is speaking the ultimate truth.

You would do well to pay that place a visit.

Sadly many never go there.

George,

That's very kind, but I don't think I know the ultimate truth. Honest and informed views, yes.

It's hard to say any country has a "right" to exist, however it is a clever linguistic trick to make this a supposed premise of any negotiation.

Countries exist due to a balance of potential force of arms and mutual recognition. Humans as social animals recognise that limiting superficial self interest is better in the long run. Israel has failed to understand this, following only the dictates of what it perceives to be its interests, which have left it in a position where it is both disliked and distrusted by its neighbours and increasingly the rest of the world. A little more intelligence would show a more secure path.

the assumption being that it is verboten unless explicitely stated that it is allowed)

Are you posting from Scotland Tristan? Because in Common Law countries like England and Wales, the exact opposite is the basis of our liberty - that you are free to do anything unless explicity stated that it is forbidden!

Bashing of Jews because they are Jews is simply wrong, but there is an unaddressed issue here. It is an issue amongst others which never gets a fair hearing.

Should an honest and intellectual debate be in danger of breaking out, up pops the Ziobrigade flicking their slurrs left right and centre in the attempt to, usually successfully, the collapse and ruin of peoples lives. Something in more ways than one they are unsurpassed masters - as any Palestinian will tell you.

The problem is that Israyhell is the physical expression of Zionism (a sickening philosophy if ever I heard one) and large amounts of self declared Jews lend support to Israyhell because it they believe it is just the political side of Judaism (which it most certainly isn't) and therefore, God will be pleased with them for supporting it. The Christian Zionists hold similar ideas.

Subscription to the Israyhell is also based on a lack of critical thought, wanting to belong to a strong and powerful 'body' as well as the easily induced or manipulated feeling to unite after the suffering of WW2. Not forgetting the distortions of their religion scribed by very human Rabbis each subject to the shortcomings of all humans, some ideas being supremacist hate and oppressive/exploitative of usury to the Gentiles (why Jesus went amok berserk with the money changers). Jewish history itself explains their past rebelliousness against God, characterised by the two twice over destruction of the temple, the exile and oppression in Babylon and when the Rabbi's plotted against Jesus who threatened their power monopoly.

But these Zionist Jews are highly secular. Quite a number of them eat pork, Some russian Jewish immigrants work on pig farms. In other words they themselves dont understand or have any intention to follow Judaism in any way other than some wish-washy fashion, kind of similiar to many Christians in the UK.

Nobody with half an atoms worth of intelligence can look at Israyhell today and say that "That's God's country in action that is". The Zionist scum are not the least bit religious, in fact the hate the Jews, calling Jews who reject Zionism as self hating Jews. Funny how no one ever calls that Zionist slurr anti-Semitic. Humm…

'Jew' has therefore become synonymous with 'Zionist'. I do think the distinction should be made, and I'm careful to do so myself, but gien what I've just said, it's hardly surprising and understandable how such a thing has come about.

Some knowledgeable practicing Jews reject Israyhell and also, some Muslims long for the Israel of old - the real Israel - that of Solomon and David - the Monotheistic prophets who command respect of Muslim, Christian and Jew alike.

The solution most certainly isn't a secular state, the solution is a single state that the inhabitants want! I speculate it's a theocracy, with Islam overseeing the region while protecting and offering assurances for Jews and Christians to remain in practice their faith according to their established rituals of worship. That's the solution.

Imposing secularism reminds me of British meddling of old. When will we ever respect what the people themselves want.

Land must be returned to those from whom it was stolen. Sorry children of thieves. Your 'inheritance' has no claim - ongoing injustice cannot be whitewashed. Once the land has been returned THEN the Palestinians can decide to sell it legitimately if they so desire. Those war criminals face trial for their horrific acts of butchery.

There. It has been said... Who'll be the first ridiculous idiot to call me an anti-Semite or a holocaust denier... Come on... I'm waiting...

Israel’s Right to Exist and Defend Itself – on Stepiblog

Craig

To your eternal credit you are one of the VERY few who permanently live in that place were "Sadly many never go".

lwtc247

These land issues are not unique to Israel. There is a parallel situation in Cyprus, for example and the question of incoming settlers in traditional greek or turkish land.

Wholesale reverse ethnic cleansing is not possible, or humanitarian. In practice, there has to be a degree of return and a degree of compensation. These are complex issues. But the answer can't involve kicking millions of Israelis out of the lands currently comprising Israel. They have to be part of a new secular state.

I agree. Cyprus is also a problem. The Turks should pull out. I half suspect their aggression was tolerated as it was useful to the manefestation of a 'strategy of tension' in the region as well as something to provide a rallying point for the Turks.

Australia... Cede control to the Aboriginees - TODAY. Then ask them if what you can do as a citizen in their land.

Same for North America, return large swathes of North America to the 'indigenous peoples' and so on...

Why not?

Much as reversing time is an interesting idea I don't think, apart from in science fiction, that it has much practical application in the real world. Israel is where it is, as are the Israelis/Jews, and they are highly unlikely to be moving anywhere, anytime soon.

Ripping Israel out of the Middle East, or wiping it off the map, is not only undesirable, it's also a fantasy and counterproductive in the extreme. Any country with two to three hundred nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them anywhere in the region, especially when its neighbours have none, is a very powerful adversary indeed, and that's without factoring in the American nuclear garantees to Israel.

One can of course argue that the creation of Israel was in itself an attempt to 'reverse history' or 'time' and create a Jewish state where one probably never existed in the first place, at least not for two thousand years. So basing a modern state on a fantasy version of history and sanctioned by a fantasy deity on top of that, is doubly absurd, only going to show how frighteningly powerful nationalist mythology really is when given its head.

Perhaps a 'solution' to the Middle East crisis would be to create a version of the European Union in the region, as place where citizens where 'loyal' to money and capitalism, not religion and nationalism. On balance I'd prefer this to endless destruction and bloodshed. Israel would slowly evolve from a piece of grit in the Arab oyster into a valuable pearl, rich and secure. Of course this would mean Israel giving up the 'dream' of militant/militeristic Zionism in favour of integration into the Middle East as just another minority group. This may seem 'unrealistic' though personally I think it's preferable to the prospect of eternal war and the nightmare of attempting to destroy everyone who doesn't bow to the ideology of militant Zionism and the primacy of Israel as the regions dominant power.

lwtc247

Well, Cyprus is more complex than that. The problem started when a Greek Cypriot leadership tried unilaterally to declare union with a Greek military dictatorship, and commenced massacring Turks.

The Turkish army was quite right to invade. They were wrong to stay.

Why not? Because it's daft. Humans have been migratory throughout history. Where do you draw your arbitrary date to decide who should be where? 50, 100, 200, 1000, 2000 years ago?

it's a serious question. The Zionist answer is 3000 years ago, for example. The true answer is that any answer is mad. Shall we move Poland East again? The basic starting point must be that people now are where they are.

Craig, Is this OK for a comment? Heard on the radio this morning. Prof Steven Rose was being interviewed about the need for more people to donate their brains to science on their death. BBC Radio 4:

Prof Steven Rose: One of the most exciting areas we've got is the new windows into the brain given by the imaging techniques. We all know those marvellous false-colour pictures, they're supposed to show, for example, spots in the brain associated with moral conscience . I must say I'd be very interested to know whether those spots of moral conscience have completely disappeared from the Israeli cabinet.....

Evan Davis: (Cough) Well, (embarrased laughter) well, let's leave that one aside. Erm, but as you say, this whole territory is just beginning to be explored.

Prof Steven Rose: Yes it is. Neuroscience is probably the hottest area of research in biology ........... etc.

Well, driving through the South London traffic this morning I nearly went up the kerb as I thought of taking my hands off the wheel to applaud him. And to be fair to the BBC, I half expected the comment to be removed from their "Listen again" feature on their website, but no, the interview is all intact, so hats off to the BBC for once.
No doubt the good Professor now has a mailbag bursting with vitriolic hate mail so I sent him an email of support via the Open University. Others may be minded to do the same. Well done to him.

Freedom of speech - one each!

A chap I briefly met over Christmas at a party draws cartoons for a living. He draws pretty well though his politics are useless and he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the draw.

Over the last few years he's become rather famous/infamous, as have a couple of his cartoons, so famous he's under police protection and there's a price on his head.

We have a chat about freedom of speech and censorship as we were standing by the buffet. I couldn't resist it, as real people have been killed because of what he drew, though, not being all that smart I don't believe he knew for a minute the trouble his silly cartoons would cause. I know I would never have drawn them myself.

I mentioned that absolute freedom of speech didn't actually exist in my opinion, and I'd been warned specifically not to call the leader of a 'facist' party a 'facist' because this would be judged as slander by the courts. To my surprise the cartoonist replied that when he started working for the 'facist' paper who started the whole mess in the first place, he'd been given total freedom to draw whatever he wanted - apart from cartoons about President Reagan, God and erotica! I wasn't surprised.

What surprised me was that he repeated this story a couple of weeks later in an interview in the press, but like I said he isn't very bright or particularly sophisticated. I doubt he even remembers me, as I tend to keep a rather low profile between outbursts.

Hmmm

Except Thatcher...

Well to pay a visit to the bottom of your heart you must have a heart to visit.

I think nationalism, or industrial strength tribalism, is a very dangerous social phenomenon indeed. I've lost members of my family to it. A granny and three aunties in a ditch with bullets in the back of their heads, just for starters! Then there's the Austrian estate and the beaufiful country house that should be mine! Talk about unfair, what a view I could have had from my study! Though I suppose the tribe my ancestors took the Carpathian valley from in the 11th century might see things differently!

The point of all this is that I despise nationalism and what it can lead to. To me nationalism and it's mythology disgusts me. In the last hundred years alone my large European and now African family has been a real mongrel. English, Scottish, Irish, German, Polish, Danish, French, Swedish, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Malian... what a bunch, what flag am I supposed to fight for, who cares!

lwtc247 "Imposing secularism reminds me of British meddling of old. When will we ever respect what the people themselves want."

If you have differences of religious opinion in an area, you will have secularism or you will have conflict. Palestine has for centuries included Sunni Muslims, Christians and Jews. There are likely many further subdivisions of each.

France, Belgium, US and others are secular precisely as a reaction to religious disputes.

Craig, how would you propose dealing with the West Bank settlements? How do you expect the Israelis and Palestinians to trust each other enough to share a state?

I agree that a one state solution is optimal, but as far as I can see only a two state solution based on the 1967 boundary, in accordance with international law, is the best that can be reasonably expected.

@Ken 12.56pm

Very good.Thanks for that. One error - it was the NuLabour conduit, Mr Naughtie, doing the interviewing and not Evan Davis.

lol@michael getting banned.

There is of course a difference between the right to free speech, and an entitlement to use Craig's megaphone.

Still, a banning policy declared up front would be appreciated, if time to write it could be found.

"Free Speech"

I wish the BBC had some.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

"How the BBC Newsnight and Today programmes unquestioningly help peddle Israeli lies"...

http://tinyurl.com/7bgleb

06 January, 2009

"BBC blackout on Gaza"...

http://tinyurl.com/7z8qvm

"Breaking Through the News Filter"...

http://tinyurl.com/9clc3n

Kirsty Wark (friend of many New Labour MPs, goes on holidays with them) on Newsnight said that it`s all a matter of incompetence with New Labour. No mention of corruption on planning application etc etc. So the truth is it`s all about incompetence according to Newsnights Kirsty Wark and thats all she could say about what has happened so that is what she and the BBC want us all to believe. Problem is many will.

"If Kirsty and Jack thought Majorca was hot"...

http://tinyurl.com/2jsmom

"Wark faces new probe threat over film"...

http://tinyurl.com/2cdseg

"TV's Wark paid herself £200,000 as firm made loss of £1m"...

http://tinyurl.com/32lfjp

Ah Paxman...

http://tinyurl.com/75xase

"The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are 16 years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time." - Henry Ford

I assume you mean a later comment?

It is my view that a right to existence in a world community, regardless of borders that still exist, on the map or in our moral inaptitudes, in a world increasingly dependent on each other, cannot be granted by birthright or some 2000 year old possible existence in some place, but has to be earned by humane, peacefull interactions that amrk us out as intelligent, a human trait too easily assumed, but as yet only achieved by some.

"Her opponents, however, should take some comfort that, apparently, no senior individuals within the local party have been disciplined for their “dissent”. . . a punishment which Ms Moffat was understood to favour."...

http://tinyurl.com/82bh55

"a punishment which Ms Moffat was understood to favour."

How New Labour off her.

amk

to describe the cramped internment camp that is Gaza, plus the still much occupied and separated West Bank, as a "State" is a laughable con.

writerman.

Interesting choice of words that: 'reversing time'. Where did that come from? Introduced by your good self no less. The impossible, quack-pot construct wasn't thrown out there to try and discredit the natural justice of rightfully returning what was brutally stolen from the Palestinians is it?

And what's with this "Wiping it off the map" business? What does that mean? Why introduce that novel collection of words into the pot?

I suggest you read some history about the prophets Solomon and David before you say the Jewish state never existed. Unless you call all history 'fantasy'

As for scrapping the godless, stolen fake state of Zion, IMO it would be the most significant step towards world peace we would witness in our lifetime, and God knows the suffering, scarred Palestinians would certainly welcome it. On that basis alone, it has merit. Why don't you allow for their (the Palestinians) desires and what are your reasons for saying it would be counterproductive? - How so?

If you read what I said saying, you might have come across the notion Israyhell isn't a religious state at all. It's a secular zone of occupation that delivers insincere platitudes to a religion that's been turned into plasticine.

Don't believe in God, fine. But the people there - the Palestinians do. As do the many Jews there who are duped into supporting Israyhell under false pretences. And of course the Christians do too.

And I reject the way to try and tie nationalism with religion and offsetting it against money and capitalism. Comradeship and unity by religion was around long before these stupid little 'countries' idea popped up. Empires of old were multi national. Think of spheres of influence rather than modern bordered countries. And I think we're coming to the conclusion that the worship hasn't worked.

Funny how nationalism is often ugly when context of the restoration of Palestine is abound, yet no mention of it is made in respect of Israyhell.

The bloodshed is because of occupation and oppression! End that and you end the bloodshed. The Palestinians welcomed, sheltered and helped the Jews in WW2. Unknown to the Palestinians at the time was that the Zionists while lapping up the good will of the Palestinians were plotting to steal it and ethnically cleanse the place. How nice.

The resistance of the Palestinians against the barbaric filth fest meted out to them is totally Justified.

The grit can merge seamlessly into the ME. All it has to do is cede administration back to the Palestinians. It's easy. I have seen countless sympathisers and supporters of Zionism propose things which have as a precondition of existence of Israyhell

THAT my dear friend, is the very essence of the problem.

@ Craig.

Why not? Because it's daft. Humans have been migratory throughout history. Where do you draw your arbitrary date to decide who should be where? 50, 100, 200, 1000, 2000 years ago?" - I'm glad you mentioned that, 'cos it's a common argument against restoration of lands to the original stewards.

People say 'can't be done' simply because of the failure of imagination, and the 'cut off point' is equally applicable to the initial theft.

Should the Palestinians be given the land back 6 months after it was stolen? 6 years? 60 years? How can the passage of time negate the crime? Why shouldn’t they be given it back after 6 months, 6 years or 60 years?

However from the positive point of view, i.e. in respect of returning of lands, there is an means by which the claim can be upheld and that is when the remaining people are still affected by it - being oppressed, unsettled, scarred as a result of having their land stolen from them.

I'm 100% sure you believe the people of the Chagos archipelago should have their lands returned to them. I am right yes. The reason is because the people are lives are still tainted by their dispossession.

The Australian aborigines are another tragic example. As are the North American 'Indians' as are many indigenous tribes in South America

That's how you measure it.

My knowledge of the Cyrpus problem is admittedly poor, but I did say the Turks should pull out - that is clear. And I didn't venture an opinion on the legitimacy of the Turkish military response.

If you look at it in reverse it is even more daft NOT to return lands or make reparations to those lives are still touched by the effect of the theft.

Look at the Stone of Scone - The Angles pinched it and the Scots felt it should be returned. No Scot would say "It's been so long now that it doesn't matter". Look at the Egyptian sarcophagus, Cleopatras needle in Paris, The Eigen marbles? I don't think many dispute giving those back, and peoples lives are far less touched with those issues of theft than with historical theft of land.

Many answers are mad, but for those who live the suffering consequences, some answers are a lot less mad than others.

Some of the links above no longer work,as you can see,try these...

"TV Presenter and First Minister Cause a Stooshie"...

http://tinyurl.com/7rlg9x

As you can see...

http://tinyurl.com/9ax5ow

And here...

http://tinyurl.com/8s95q4

Time out at the Scotsman.com News I fear.

@ amk.
You should read about the pluralism in the Megrib, Andalucia, areas of the Byzantine Empire under Constantine the Great, The Caliph Saladin (esp Jerusalem) and the Islamic 'empire' under many Caliphs, Modern day Iran, and Malaysia.

Part of the success in the expansion of the realm of influence of the Islamic 'empire' was due to the fact people liked what they saw of it. It is no coincidence that Islam decrees protection to people of other faiths under the mantle of an Islamic administration, and the glory of Israel of old was somewhat similar. Jerusalem, like Babylon, Fez, Samarkand(!) even under monotheism. It has proven to bring about peace. It's the detachment or deviation by the state, from the guideance of God, that brings about these problems. But most importantly I think the people of Palestine want a theorcaric society.

btw... Nice to see the Iranian Jews protesting against the Zionist entity's latest debauchery.

Craig,

"to describe the cramped internment camp that is Gaza, plus the still much occupied and separated West Bank, as a "State" is a laughable con."

I agree, but I fail to see how that addresses my point.

"Humans have been migratory throughout history. Where do you draw your arbitrary date to decide who should be where? 50, 100, 200, 1000, 2000 years ago?"

We can hardly let people believe that if they can hang on to land for long enough their descendants get to keep it.

The establishment of international law under the UN is workable. That would mean Israel within the Green Line stays, the West Bank settlements go.

I see "craig" has been b&hammered.

We can hardly let people believe that if they can hang on to land for long enough their descendants get to keep it.

Errrrmm... that's exactly what your 'green line' solution does.

LOL. Crikey amk!

Yet again nonsence pours out because it has the precondition of the Israyhelli right to exist. (a.k.a. right to thieve and murder and get away it.)

I propose a cut-off point of the establishment of international law. Everything before is allowed to stand, everything after is reversed. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

"I suggest you read some history about the prophets Solomon and David before you say the Jewish state never existed. Unless you call all history 'fantasy'"

I posted these videos from a different thread. The only evidence for David and Solomon is the bible.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hector-avalos-how-archaeology-killed-biblical-history-part-1-of-2/265703079

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/hector-avalos-how-archaeology-killed-biblical-history-part-/2504436649

Dear Mr Murray

I am a newcomer to your site. I found it because rense.com linked to your
recent colourfully titled piece on Gordon Brown (though they applied
asterisks where you did not).

I am delighted to find a former member of the British Establishment who holds
the views that you do and also that you clearly take an active interest in the comments left by your readers.

If you feel so inclined, I would be grateful if you might consider giving
your opinion on an issue regarding Israel that troubles me often: why is it that the European nations' response to Israeli atrocities is so feeble and
half-hearted when, if it were a Muslim country doing the same thing, they would be down on it like a ton of bricks? Is it because, as respected Israeli historian and military adviser Martin van Creveld has revealed, a sizeable proportion of Israel's nuclear weapons is trained on Europe? Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?

I'd really appreciate your opinion on this matter.

Israel is right in this case, I don't think the Germans shelled concentration camps

Israel slams Vatican official for Gaza 'concentration camp' jibe

http://www.africasia.com/services/news/newsitem.php?area=mideast&item=090107192514.cpvb82ga.php
Israel on Wednesday slammed a senior Vatican official for comparing the Gaza Strip to a "concentration camp," saying the comments were "based on Hamas propaganda."Cardinal Renato Martino, the Vatican's justice and peace minister, was quoted by the online Italian daily Il Sussidiario as saying the conditions in Gaza "increasingly resemble a big concentration camp."

MJ

I think, since the dawn of civilisation, concentrations of capital, whether industrial or financial, have had a powerful controlling effect on societies and governments.

Add to that a powerful dose of holocaust guilt, which is a good thing in securing revulsion aginst genocide, but a bad thing if it leads to Israel being forgiven any atrocity.

Then added to that is the mystical support for a Jewish Palestine by Christian extremists drawing on the "Judeo-Christian tradition". The Biblical demonisation of the "Philistines" (Palestinians) is a factor in this. If God told David etc to kill them, it must be OK.

I hope that's helpful.

>Let me say it loud and clear. I do not
>believe in Israel's right to exist. It
>is a militarised, evil entity founded
>on a racist premise and a lot of
>religious hokum.

Thoroughly agree, except for the last bit. Religious hokum? Where's the fear of "God" in Israel? Cold-blooded murder, theft of land - all seems reminiscent of the behaviour of those that don't believe in anything.

Here's a Jew who says just that - that the Jews in Israel are atheists, that Israel should not exist, that the Jews lived in peace amongst the Arabs until the Zionists came along. As a result of his outspokenness, Israeli "Jews" (atheists pretending to be religious) attack him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oeB3QhX2RI&NR=1

His site is here:

http://www.nkusa.org/

He's a rabbi, and against all that is going on in Israel.

He writes: "Mere words are insufficient to express the pain that all mankind feels at the plight of the Gaza and Palestinian people.

"For over one hundred years, they have been subject to a carefully conceived plan, to drive them from their homes and their land.

"Throughout their history, the Zionists have resorted to intimidation, war, ethnic cleansing and state—sponsored terrorism to achieve their goals.

"This is, has been and continues to be, the criminal agenda of the Zionist movement. But among this movement's greatest crimes, is that it has claimed to carry out these nefarious actions in the name of holiness, in the name of the Almighty, in the name of Judaism and the Jewish people !!

"This is a wicked and monstrous lie !!

"It is a desecration of our religion !!

"Judaism forbids and rejects Zionism and the existence of the State of 'Israel'...

"We must tell the world that self rule, sovereignty and ALL the rights of the Palestinian people, must be restored throughout historic Palestine! This is a requirement of Jewish ethics and values! Jewish justice demands the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes, towns, villages and cities throughout Palestine!..."

>Michael has overstepped the mark by a
>posting about "Jews with their Satanic
>Smirks" (long overdue yellow card) and
>then introducing the Protocols of Zion
>(automatic red card offence). All of
>his 31 comments have therefore been
>deleted.

I've mentioned Zionism, wonder now if I'll have my posts deleted.

It's very strange how words that harm no one engender more rage in people than cold-blooded murder.

I would have just deleted Michael's comments that were unacceptable - if, indeed, they were - and left it at that. Isn't there enough "retribution" going on in the world right now?

Obviously (self-)censorship limits discussing our financial overlords. But why do they promote a suicidal Israeli policy ? Are they stupid or does the conspiracy aim further still ?

"Cold-blooded murder, theft of land - all seems reminiscent of the behaviour of those that don't believe in anything."

No, it's reminiscent of the Book of Joshua. Read it some time.

Also, Moses:

Deuteronomy 7:1-2
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%20Deuteronomy%207:1-2&version=31

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

amk.
Thanking you kindly for the video links.

Solomon and David are a feature of Islamic teaching also.

"why is it that the European nations' response to Israeli atrocities is so feeble and
half-hearted when, if it were a Muslim country doing the same thing, they would be down on it like a ton of bricks?"

Butting in:

Israelis are Westerners like us and Muslim nations aren't, so ingroup bias is in effect.

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

Arms exporters must like conflict. BAe System's influence over Nulab, especially Straw, is infamous and discussed by Craig.

Finally, I must wonder whether European nations are intimidated by the USA, and are reluctant to stray too far from its line. Perhaps Craig could comment?

This article surveys views on the origins of European policy on Palestine/Israel, especially Hamas:
http://tonykaron.com/2007/07/06/mark-perry-why-europe-marches-meekly-behind-washington-on-hamas/

Interesting extremes. But I fully support your position, Craig. Your blog, your rules, your decisions too - full stop. To those who complain I say: Get your own blog and publish whatever the hell you like.

"Israelis are Westerners like us and Muslim nations aren't, so ingroup bias is in effect"

Yes, the great majority of Israelis are indeed Westerners. This is why the term "anti-semitic" is so misleading when what is meant is anti-Jewish. Most jews are not semites, Arabs are. Real anti-semitism is so prevalent in the West that it passes without comment.

Nevertheless, in recent times the West has come to the support of Muslims when it has suited. Bosnia and Kuwait for instance.

I mean Israelis are Westerners by culture, not race.

I'm troubled by the concept of 'race' which I always feel has been forever tainted by association with the Nazis and their ridiculous and dangerous pervertions and vulgarisations. I can, if forced to, sort of accept these broad catagories like African, Asien, European ect. but I'm not really sure what they mean or how much value they have.

But when one starts to use 'race' in the way it was used back in the 19th and 20th centuries, then I want nothing to do with it. Not all that long ago one actually talked about something that was described as the 'British race' and the 'German race' and we all know where that gibberish got us. The next step was the 'Jewish race' which is even more problematic and absurd.

Basically I think most of this talk about 'race' is nonsense, dangerous nonsense, catagories dreamt up by Westerners to justify the ideology of colonialism and military conquest of 'inferior races' who were unlucky enough to have something we wanted and lived in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Writerman, I agree with every word you say. In the case of Israel however the issue of 'race' has to be addressed because it is a central plank of Israel's claims of legitimacy for its occupation of Palestine. They claim to be the historical descendants of the biblical jews, therefore it is their right to occupy Palestine and call themselves semites.

This is utter nonsense. Only a very small proportion of modern Jewry has any historical connection to Palestine whatsoever. I believe it important that we disentangle, isolate and discard this emotive, racial claptrap from the equation so we may see the reality of what's happening more clearly.

'I have deleted three anti-Jewish comments. I should make it plain that I am in profound disagreement with those commenters who conflate Israel with Jews in general. We have had commenters excusing anti-Jewish comments on the grounds Jews are not a race, and positing claims of a world conspiracy of Jews and freemasons. I have only deleted three of these, because in general I believe the suppression of any opinion to be an evil which requires major justification. I find it hard to define the exact line which leads to deletion.'

This is a form of censorship because you're clearly deleting the comments only because they don't reflect your own views.

Since you're not responsible for the things people say in the Comments section, it's hard to see what your actual agenda is here. Do you think people would be stupid enough to think that you actually wrote these comments or something.

Anyway, what we need these days is REAL freedom of speech not PHONEY freedom, in which someone reserves the right to delete comments because they simply don't agree with them.

'The great John Stuart Mill said it was legitimate to express the opinion that all corn merchants are thieves of the people's bread; but it was not legitimate to shout the same thing to a howling mob at night carrying torches outside a corn merchant's house. He was, as ever, right.'

This statement seems to me to have been intended quite literally. It is therefore a false analogy. There is no 'howling mob' outside a Jew's house. If you believe that there is, can you please give the name and address of the Jew you believe is the intended victim?

'The great John Stuart Mill said it was legitimate to express the opinion that all corn merchants are thieves of the people's bread; but it was not legitimate to shout the same thing to a howling mob at night carrying torches outside a corn merchant's house. He was, as ever, right.'

This statement seems to me to have been intended quite literally. It is therefore a false analogy. There is no 'howling mob' outside a Jew's house. If you believe that there is, can you please give the name and address of the Jew you believe is the intended victim?

A third point: Craig wrote: 'I should make it plain that I am in profound disagreement with those commenters who conflate Israel with Jews in general.'

But surely the idea that the Israeli question is bound up with the larger, Jewish question is a valid point of view, even if you don't agree with it? I think a perfectly legitimate case could be made for the argument that what the Jews have done by creating Israel is merely one manifestation of the Jewish-supremacist will to power.

When it comes to the Jews, you can't win. I called one Jew a "Great Jew" for speaking out against Israel's atrocities and my post was deleted. I was clearly being "anti-Semitic". This was on a site by a guy who writes about British foreign policy.

Craig Murray, however, did let me give the link to that Jewish guy's site, and the post is above.

The rabbi's site is here:

http://www.nkusa.org/

As you can see, he's against all that is going on in Israel. As a result, he is attacked by other Jews, but he argues back vociferously, as you can see here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oeB3QhX2RI&NR=1

It's great watching him! Hence, why I called him a "Great Jew", just as you would call someone a "Great Christian" if they were Christian.

But that was being "anti-Semitic" even though Jews themselves call other Jews they admire and respect, "Great Jews", as you can see here in the headline of a New York Times article:

"A GREAT JEW, SAYS DR. WISE.; 'One of the Most Eloquent and Learned of Rabbis'"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E7D7153AE433A25754C2A9629C946696D6CF

This is really getting absurd. Soon, if you even mention the word "Jew" you'll be accused of "anti-Semitism", which is a nonsense term as Jews are merely a religious group.

Treating people like this is only going to turn more and more people against Jews.

Christians are the ones I least criticise simply because when you do criticise them they don't start treating you like a child rapist who needs locking up, nor do they make all sorts of baseless accusations against you as was made about me on that guy's site.

The Muslim Council of Britain doesn't help its cause either when it calls for British comedians to be locked up for seven years for telling jokes about Muslims, as they did with one stand-up comic.

Christians keep a low profile - and I'm just talking about ordinary Christians here, not politicised ones - so I have very little to say about them (even Alexie Sayle, who is condemning what is happening in Gaza, called the Jews in Israel "his people" and said he wanted to be proud of them).

After the way I was treated on that other site, though, if I hear the word "Jew" just once more, I'll SCREAM!

As least Mr Murray seems to be exercising a little more intelligence and restraint when it comes to moderating posts about Jay, ee, double-you, ess.

Murray

To deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is antisemitic, see EUMC Definition of antisemitism

How many dead Israelis are you prepared to see to impose 'one state'? Becasue that is the only way it will happen.

Antisemite.

Wernerhoff

You are antisemitic Nazi racist scum

MJ: "Is it because so much of the Western financial system and media is controlled by Zionists? Is it because the Mossad has penetrated the higher echelons of the European political Establishment?"

You are antisemitic scum. This is straight from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I don't think you should be deleting any comments that aren't spam. Of course, it's your blog and you can do what you want, but the inconsistency is that one minute you say you're all for free speech and then you're deleting it!

Just because they're crackpot opinions (e.g. talking of Protocols of Zion as if it wasn't a hoax) or offensive (indeed, your posts are considered offensive by many) or bubbling with seething hate, doesn't mean they should be censored.

If you're going to stand up for free speech, then please don't be hypocritical!

Ok, just a small comment. I don't think Israel doesn't have the right to exist. I don't even think that's the question here. They have as much right to exist as any other country. However, what I do not agree with is the notion that Palestine does not have a right to exist [unmolested]. It isn't at all related to the Jewish, some arabs of israel are anti-palestine as well (a good israeli friend of mine, now at university in germany, has always disdained palestine, his disapproval stems from the states idealism, not that of any religion. Note that he is arab.)

My problem is that Israel has performed land grabs from the Palestinians since the formation of the country. They're bullies with bigger guns. I don't think however that Hamas itself would not do the same were roles reversed. But I'd never place this blame on the people of Palestine, nor the people of Israel, but rather the political bodies in power.

Everyone always seems to confuse the religion vs. political body of middle eastern countries. Israel, while lacking a lot in terms of religious freedoms for some, does protect some arab interests which is atypical of that which people apply to their idea of what Israel is. Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites to both the Jewish and Arab cultures, is controlled by the Muslims. This control is supported by Israeli government, which strictly enforces visitation to the sites by non-arab visitors.

Were this a completely a situation revolving around religion, I don't believe that the government would enforce such religiously biased rules for the opposing arabs in a jewish state. What this is in truth, is an imperialistic government that wants control.

Israel recently banned Arab parties from the parliamentary elections. Was this because they're Muslim? Not at all. Is it because they're Arab? Sort of, they likely feel that arabs will lean towards support of Palestine in this conflict due to the common ground [religion in this case] of Palestine to Arab party members. This is likely the ONLY reason Israel has done this. Had it been a religious ordeal, again it would have been done long ago. They're trying to save face while continually embarrassing themselves by their actions. Its a real clusterfu**...

Too bad you are a racist Anti-Semite who cannot spell the word "should". Yes, there is an "o" before the "u". Your argument is even worse than your spelling.

I agree with "The Israeli attack on Gaza is unconscionable" There is no way any reasonable person could justify these - on any grounds whatsoever. I have been sickened by what I have read and seen about the brutality, the rhetoric and justifications for the attack.
I am almost encouraged by the widespread outcries and condemnations. I dont think people have gone far enough in expressing dis-agreement and taken enough sensible action to show where they really stand on these matters.

To jump from oposing the current actions of the State of Isreal to asking for it not to exist is NOT a leap I can take and I cannot see how any other reasonable person can.

The actions of the US government in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places are very similar. I have not heard a single person calling for the destruction of the US as a political entity.

I understand full well that the Isreali governments uses argumenst such as mine in their defense in their propagannda wars, but that in itself does not make the argument invalid.

If Israel is an garrison state that has no right to exist then so is Pakistan that you guys helped create.

Pakistan: 1947
Israel: 1948
Both: reason of religion.

Yet you people continue to prop up that excuse of a nation that is the epicenter of terrorism.

Isreal is just another tyranny state set up by the US/UK. Other states include Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and Chile and both the US and UK are the business of keeping military strongmen in power.

I also agree there is no such thing as a Jewish race. Never has, never will be. Although the jewish religion might be gone in the next century.

With luck, all religion will have gone way of the dodo sooner rather than later. Religion is the REAL source of problems on this planet.

Freedom of speech is an unparalleled liberty and I'm glad to see you are all enjoying it. By the way, its practiced with vigor in Israel but is brutally suppressed in just about every Arab country.

Zand Shlomo's book "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" states that most Jews's ancestors converted to Judaism and thus have no historical claim to the land. He says the most likely people to be the descendants of Abraham are the Palestinians who converted to Islam. His thesis is falsifiable using Mitochondrial DNA analysis.

(More info here: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/5564/32/ )

I no longer believe the government of Israel wants peace. Actions matter, not words. Over the last 60 years they've accumulated more land. As long as they achieve their goals, there is no reason to believe they will change their ways. Until the US weakens (either internally or in its support of Israel), the Israeli government will be stronger than its opponents. When this changes, there will be a giant bloodbath.

So we have a so-called democratic government founded on terrorism (read your history), filled with ex-Army & ex-Mossad people, selected by half the population, causing 60 years of suffering based on a lie... Why exactly does that regime have a right to exist?

At this point there do not seem to be many solutions.

a/ Killing off one of the 2 populations, would not work because both sides have relatives abroad, which would keep the feud going on.

b/ Exile one of the 2 populations. Neither side wants that and will fight back.

c/ Land for peace. Neither side trusts the other. If Israel gives the Palestians land, who's to say they won't want more? If the Palestinians give up their weapons, who's to say Israel won't renege?

That leaves:

1. replacing the Israeli government by a care-taker government which is not stuck in the old ways. Perhaps a UN administered zone.

2. reducing Israel's independence from its neighbours (basically a ban on economic an military aid for Israel).

3. increasing Israel's common interests with the countries around it, for instance using Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's solution of sharing tourist revenues between both sides. No tourists come when both sides are fighting.

None of this can happen in consultation with the Israeli government, or without US help. And therein lies the crux: How can we disempower the Israel lobby, and disentangle the 60 million evangelicals in the US who support Israel because they want Armageddon.

Niels Peter Lemche's new book "The Old Testament Between Theology and History.

* The concept of "Israel" appeared as the result of an ideological reorientation among the people who were deported from Palestine to Mesopotamia in connection with the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem and the destruction of the state of Judah.

* Jewish monotheism came into being in the postexilic period, in competition with other contemporary religious currents that confronted Jewish Yahwism both in Palestine and in the exile. The "old" polytheistic religion did not disappear with the exile but continued to exist down into the postexilic period.

* The historiography of the Old Testament is hardly to be dated to the seventh or sixth century BCE. It is most likely a product of the postexilic period.

Wernerhoff

"But surely the idea that the Israeli question is bound up with the larger, Jewish question is a valid point of view, even if you don't agree with it?"

No, it is not a valid point of view. It is simple racism. There is no "Jewish question" any more than there is a "German question" or a "French question".

But AndrewR it is not anti-semitic to deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state - there are orthodox Jews who are against the Jewish state, for example. I am against a racialist criterion for any state. I do not care what draft paper has been prepared by a low level EU working group.

There is, for example, no ethnic criterion for being British or American. Nor should there be for living in Israel/Palestine.

Boycott israeli web 2.0 apps:
Jajah
Aniboom
Metacafe
Speedbit
Foxytunes
MySupermarket
Zlango
MyHeritage
WeFi
eSnips
PicApp

Sorry young entrepreneurs but blame your government.