http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/palestinians-israel-obama-abbas
And in other shocking news, the sun sets in the evening….
There are many terrible injustices in this world. Of the two which most caught the World’s attention and about which I marched through the streets of Edinburgh as a young man, apartheid is thank God long gone, but the fate of the Palestinians has got worse and worse. No American President except Carter has even remotely cared. Blair’s appointment as quartet “envoy” on Palestine was a joke so sick that I can only think of the concentration camp slogan about work setting you free as a similarly horrific irony.
Meantime anyone in any doubt as to how unpleasant our Conservative rulers in waiting are, might look through the comments section on Martin Bright’s Spectator blog post on Kaminski.
I particularly like this comment from someone called Judy:
Craig Murray is not just unreliable, but a ludicrous and embittered crank with inter alia a track record of writing distorted defences of the most indefensible regimes, such as the Iranian one.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/martinbright/5413196/michal-kaminski-an-astonishing-new-twist.thtml
As my extremely negative view of the Iranaian regime is a constant source of dispute with my commenters here, I found that funny. Judy’s link is to an article by the pig-headed neo-con fool Oliver Kamm, where he took issue with my contention that the British sailors arrested by Iran were not in Iraqi waters but in disputed waters, and that the “boundary” map produced by the MOD had no legal standing and was simply propaganda.
Eventually, of course, absolutely everybody including the House of Commons inquiry accepted that I was right. Kamm has since been totally silent on the subject. Whether he still believes in the entirely fake MOD boundary map, I have no idea. I guess he probably does. He probably believes the Iraqis cunningly hid the WMD too.
Meantime, a large prize goes to anybody who can produce an example of me “writing distorted defences of the most indefensible regimes”.
Didn’t you say GW Bush was “entertaining” or something at one stage? I’m pretty sure you did …
I claim my large prize
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/09/losing_murdoch.html
“….apartheid is thank God long gone, but the fate of the Palestinians has got worse and worse.”
Agreed, ‘Apartheid’ in the sense of the SA regime which coined the word, has gone but it lives on in the body politic of its former key supporter, Zionist Israel. Who can seriously deny that, with it’s cage-like high-tech-watch-tower-dotted ‘security’ walls and its ‘Jews-only’ roads carving up the West Bank, together with the ‘Untermenschen’ status of its Arab and Palestinian populations (in an uncanny replay of the doctrines that spawned that word), Israel is every bit as much an ‘apartheid state as ever South Africa was?
BTW – On this very subject, I have a new blog project – “Wanted for War Crimes” at http://tinyurl.com/d2s55x
Far from joining the tittle tattle over some ill comment from some Judy, who said what when, lets talk about the issue raised.
The lack of resolve by Obama’s team is indicative of the pressure he is under from the zionist lobby in the US.
Abbas has made many mistakes, his first one was to distance himself to Hamas with the help of guns. These were smuggled in during international peace talks, Egypt lend its border for the transit, an Abbas Israely accord, whilst the US/UK looked away, hoping nobody notices.
The subsequent free and fair lost election enticed Abbas to have his personal revenge and fatah, whith a history of corruption and violence towards their own, got a hiding to remember. That defeat and the arrest of most of Hamas Government and cabinet was a response to that victory, some are still in prison for being elected.
Abbas has stabbed his own people in the back, he is unable to unite Palestininas and has squandered a lot of international goodwill and money that should have gone to all Palestininas, not just the west bank.
Finally, it was Hamas that negotiated the latest prisoner release, withg the help of some friendly Germans, and I hope that once all prisoners have been released, that corporal Shalit will be released as well.
Israels refusal to stop land grabbing, their settlements in the west bank and East Jerusalem, the continuance of the wall, their refusal to admit guilt in Gaza, as well as their secret and undeniable nuclear arsenal, is threatening each and every nation in its neighbourhood, including Iran, is an indication that Israel has no plans to adher to UN resolutions or become an equal member of the world community.
Take that Obama and see where it gets America, soon this rogue nation will get too big for its boots and with many zionist unreformed, dangerous to the world community.
Obama will have problems with the choosen one’s, Israel and India’s rightwing rulers are collaborating their intelligence and military actions in Pakistan, they are behind some of the unrest in Pakistan, neither taking Obama’s advice, a calamity in the making.
Is it not one of the rules of the UN that you have to declare your borders to become a fully fledged member of the world community? should Israel be banned from frequenting that body?
I shall continue to boycott Israely goods, whatever anybody else does, ideally I would like them to loose their special trading rights within the EU, only sanctions and withdrawal of finacial support can work now.
A different way of interpreting this story is not to say that Obama was always untrustworthy on this, but that he has been humiliated by elements of his own side.
Obama’s statement that the extension of illegal settlements must stop right now was a stronger than I for one expected. That Netanyahu immediately openly defied him by ignoring that and expanding a settlement the very next day (or whatever it was) should – must – have forced a crisis within the administration on what to do when the President is openly defied.
Presumably Netanyahu knew when he made his move that he had forces within the administration supporting him and not Obama, perhaps Hillary for example (who looks like a dog in the manger to me, but others may well know better).
So in effect Obama could fight or beat a humiliating tactical retreat on this one. With health, Afghanistan and Copenhagen around then he didn’t feel he could fight a war on all fronts.
My take on this is to hope that – possibly not appropriate for a Peace Laureate – Obama does nurse a grudge and is biding his time to move against fifth columnists within his own administration and hammer Netanyahu.
Poor Judy, too many blows to head. Mr Punch has a lot to answer for.
What of the ‘feminist’ apartheid; there are whole swathes of jobs that are being denied to men; whole legal sections, such as family and marriage law, that are dedicated to removing the rights of men.
The total feminisation of the education system, from ‘legally ubiquitous’ nurseries, to dumbed-down Universities, handing out perfunctory certifications to parvenues.
Before we can tell other countries what is right or wrong about their regimes, maybe we should take a stock of our own apartheid system.
For example, if it is clearly wrong for a black or a Palestinian to be imprisoned on the mere word of an antagonist, then why is it acceptable for men in this country to go to goal on the word of a woman?
Is there any ‘man’ amongst you that wants to try and defend feminism? Or has Ritalin stole your tongue?
Tee hee hee…
http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/2009/07/calling-mr-pooter.html
@mrjohn: ha ha, quite right!
🙂
Hmmm..seem to remember a few remarks at the last family reunion, but of course, I will never tell !
As indefensible regimes go Israel usn’t even a contender. If the israelis were remotely as fascistic as almost every NATO member they would have simply murdered or ethnically cleansed the entire West Bank & Gaza populations as NATO did to Krajina & Kosovo. The Israelis would have had infintely more justification for doing so because the Palestinians have actually been involved in attacking them.
To see obscene racist Nazi mass murderers like Ken Livingston & Clare Short attacking the Jews, nominally because they disapprove of them showing thousands of times more respect for human rights than they did, is simply disgusting. No decent human being can associate with such anti-semitic monsters.
Oh dear Neil: “obscene racist Nazi mass murderers” – have you taken leave of your senses? I understand your politics to be of the very-conservative kind, but random and ridiculous abuse of that sort makes you seem, well, random and ridiculous.
Despite Israel being reprimanded by UN reports, special rappourters, a near-unanimous UN membership, and the massive worldwide condemnation of the various IDF incursions, kidnappings, use of unclassified weaponry, wall-building, and land grabbing – you still maintain they show “thousands of times more respect for human rights”. How did you come to that conclusion?
I should stand up for Ms Short too, who is one of the few excellent MPs prepared to stand up for Palestine in a substantial and meaningful way. Her support for the Palestinian people does not make her antisemitic, and it would be a daft for you to suggest otherwise. Perhaps she has made some racist remarks in the past that you could draw our attention to?
Clare Short is a formidable, honest, socialist politician, unlike New Labour in almost every respect.
As to Judy ( the name of the mountain where Noah’s Ark came to rest after the flood ) I find it helps to reverse the statements of liars, viz: Craig Murray is not just reliable, but a serious and balanced analyst, particularly in respect of pin-pointing the hidden agenda of otherwise benign seeming regimes, such as the modern Tory party.
Practiced liars can generate reverse-of-truth with the great fluency, and seasoned cynics can achieve reverse-of-reverse-of-truth with similar proficiency.
A. Return to and respect the 1967 boundaries.
B. Stop the settlements, withdraw, and end the Apartheid Bantustan policies against the Palestinians.
C. Return to the negotiating table.
Actually, all the opposite is occurring on Israel’s part:-
A. The boundaries recognised by the UN are not respected by Israel.
B. Apartheid policies run rampant across Palestinian lands.
C. There is no credible chance of an honourable return to a negotiating table, because the most fundamental principles of international law and sovereignty are not being abided by.
Sorry…when does the next round of war begin?
@Craig – apologies if you’ve covered this topic before. But I’d be interested in an exploration of your views on the mainstream preference for the “two state solution” versus the anti-apartheid “one state solution” promulgated from the left. What are the drivers for each one, and is it worth the left presenting a vision of a one-state solution if it is even less attainable than peace of any kind?
Leftists tend to present the two-state solution as a mechanism for entrenching injustice – a massive expulsion of Israeli settlers would be required, no-one will be happy with the boundary lines wherever they are set (and they are likely to favour the Israelis anyway), and the division between one country and another may promote racist conflict around that line, plus a fresh set of boundary disputes. Meanwhile a one-state solution would be accompanied by a “truth and reconciliation commission” to attempt to resolve 60 years of injustice by letting everyone have their say publicly.
As a aside, some months ago one of the UK broadsheets (The Times I think) carried a front-page piece from a Israeli politician/pundit who regarded the “growing interest” in the one-state solution as a prime example of “British anti-semitism”. A sad perspective, but probably not surprising.
@ Jon – put the left/right dichtomy of views aside for a moment and consider these factors:-
1. The demographics of the region where Israel is located.
2. The relative birth rates of Jews compared with Palestinian/Arab birth rates inside and outside of the areas we refer to as Israel/Palestine.
3. Your comment, “…and the division between one country and another may promote racist conflict around that line…”
when one must honestly consider that there are already boundary lines recognised in international law, which relate to the pre-1967 lines of demarcartion.
If one then said – let us put politics aside, in the sense of not positing right/left positions – then you would be left with the realities at 1,2 and 3.
Further, one is faced with a stark option of saying that there is some standard, or are standards, of international law that ought to be respected and upheld; or, come to the conclusion that the goal posts ( read: territorial boundaries) continue to shift based not on de jure but de facto considerations. But, who in all conscience, dictates that de facto negates de jure?
Granted – I am not Craig – to whom you directed your post – but – you got me thinking.
Courtnay, thanks for your views; I am open to hearing an exposition on this topic from anyone 🙂
There are some interesting points. I believe point 2 is of interest as it lends weight to a racist cry of the region being “taken over by the Arabs”. I guess it is also one of the reasons why the one-state solution is so bitterly opposed by Zionists: a democratic single state would give Palestinians substantial democratic power alongside the Israeli people, and this is sure to rankle with people who prefer the current climate of demonisation and apartheid.
On point 3, I agree that international law already recognises boundary lines but the point I make is that having a boundary at all may give rise to violence in that region, just as it does between India and Pakistan. If settlers are removed back to the 1967 line, it would be the Zionists who would feel most aggrieved (unjustifiably, in my view) and a flashpoint would thus be created. It would only take one IDF soldier to send a bullet across the line to set the process back again.
This is of course not to say that the one-state solution is the easier to implement – it is not. But by forcibly mixing the two groups, racism may slowly be overcome, just as happened in South Africa. Indeed, there are a number of groups who have been doing this on a very small scale already, such as the conductor Daniel Barenboim. Meanwhile having two states will just entrench racism, in my view.
In a single state, how Palestinians who have previously voted for (or fought for) Hamas are made members of the police, the army and the judiciary is a tough question. The IDF has behaved in an abhorrent way so regularly that some Palestinians might be disinclined to join out of principle, and accordingly if it is to work, that institution would have to be built from the ground up.
But there is the rub. To divest each side of its current racism (and the Palestians would have to make strides here too, despite the horrors they have experienced) the institutions on each side would have to be completely changed. The trouble is that Palestine has much less in the way of established institutions to give up, and in any case would probably be happy to accept massive social change in return for genuine security. However, the same is clearly not the case for the bulk of Israeli society.
Incidentally, I don’t present the one-state solution as *inherently* leftist. I just think it is the only solution that will work, but note that the solution is usually posited by the left. My reading of Craig’s old posts reveals he is supportive of the one state solution, and he maintains that he is not of the left (though his Political Compass map begs to differ ;o).
Sadly the MSM is persisting in preferring the two-state solution, perhaps because it will result in less social upheaval for the Israelis. There are other drivers too: the scary position of American evangelist “end-timers” who believe that once the Palestinians have been wiped out, Christ will come again. Elsewhere the security apparatus embedded into Israeli society is big business, and big business is likely not to want to give that up (see Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” for more on that).
@Jon – thanks Jon – you present reasoned comments.
I come back to basics:-
A. Do we have standards of international law by which we abide?
B. Are these standards of international law to be implemented?
C. If the law is supposed to equate to a measure of justice, then without the implementation – does the embrace and acceptance of the de facto position serve as a substitute for a credible de jure implementation of the very laws that should equate to a measure of justice?
You can now do the deletions and further comments, by reference to your last post.
Thanks for sharing.
Same general answer for all three, I’m afraid – you describe the situation as it should be, not as it is.
A – yes, but we don’t abide by them.
B – yes, but we don’t implement them.
C – no, but then the point of speaking up for the Palestinian people is that we don’t accept the de facto position, neither do they, and – thankfully – neither does most of the world. It is just the entrenched powers, and the MSM, who give the impression that Israel’s cruelty is justified.
Couple of things veering a bit off topic:
1. I read something last week – forget where – that suggested that the Palestinian people are not keen to have a one-state solution, presumably because they would be forced to live alongside their former oppressors. Not much different to the situation in apartheid South Africa, sure, but the views of the Palestinians are paramount here. I wonder if the various proponents of each solution have actually asked ordinary people in Gaza, and in the West Bank?
2. Today I was browsing a US news site, and I came across this text advert:
—————
Ads by Google
War Crimes in Gaza? Read the facts!
Decide yourself
(Israeli govt link)
—————
On the same page, a square banner advert:
—————
Gaza. Hamas. Conflict.
Facts! Click here
(Links to same propaganda site)
—————
I suppose Google can’t much be blamed for taking this sort of advertising – it is all automated anyway – but it goes to show how far the tentacles of the propaganda machine reach. Were it the case that the Palestinians could afford the same advertising spend!