Anti-Israel QC: “Israel is not the most peaceful of nations.”

As soon as you hear that someone is a human rights lawyer you hope that the subject will not move on to Israel because, for many on the left these days, human rights do not apply to Israel.

This was apparent last night when human rights lawyer John Cooper QC (here’s his showbiz blog) appeared on Sky News to review today’s newspapers alongside Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor of The Times.

Haynes and Cooper were reviewing the story on page 4 of today’s Daily MailIsrael planning to attack Iran before U.S. election‘. Haynes was discussing the ramifications of such an attack and the possibility of scud attacks on Israel. She said she had just returned from Israel and felt that no decision had yet been taken by Israel on attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities.

She tried to stay objective by restating Iran’s claim that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes.

Then Cooper had his say and you got a sense of what the chatter around his dinner table must be like when he and his guests discuss the Middle East. Here is the exchange:

Cooper: “You’re the expert on this obviously but I sometimes think we should take a moment to step back from demonising everytime Iran is mentioned. I’m not going to support or standby the atrocities and appalling behaviour that takes place in Iran, certainly not. But I think we often need to analyse what Israel may say is happening. And just because they are saying it is Iran doesn’t mean to say we should always take it from Israel.”

Haynes: “I think it is Iran that is developing nuclear weapons.”

Cooper: “Yes, but on the other hand Israel is not the most peaceful of nations.”

Haynes: “Well, it has got quite combative neighbours. Iran has said that it wants to wipe Israel off the planet.”

Cooper: “All I will say is we shouldn’t always accept, when it comes to international politics, that Israel is the most peaceful of nations. They can be bellicose and they can, to use a colloquialism, ‘wind people up’ as far as their neighbours are concerned.”

Haynes: “Well, they’re using every tool in their box.”

Cooper: “And they have big friends with the Americans, which some of us dont.”

Haynes: “Well, that’s the big thing; whether they can do it on their own or whether America will have to help them and a lot of people say they wouldn’t be able to actually effectively destroy the nuclear facilities on their own.”

Cooper: “The Israel-American axis is sometimes overpowering.”

So, I am not sure what is more disturbing:

1. Cooper acknowledging that Iran commits “atrocities” against its own people, yet he still seems willing to trust Iran’s word over Israel’s.

2. Cooper acknowledging that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but it doesn’t seem to bother him much because, after all, the nation of Israel does tend to “wind people up”. Is the implication that, because of such behaviour, Israelis deserve to be nuked?

3. Cooper twice referring to Israel as “not the most peaceful of nations“. What other country in the world gets referred to as a “nation” these days? For example, in the above exchange Cooper refers to America, not the American “nation”.

Does “nation” include EVERY Israeli? 18% of Israelis are Arabs. I presume he doesn’t mean to include those Arabs, so he must mean EVERY Jewish Israeli?

Seeing as being Jewish seems to be a defining trait could this definition be extended to Jews not just living in Israel? The history of the Jewish people contains, after all, many people who thought we had a knack of winding them up and our ancestors paid a heavy price for such false sentiments.

Either way, had someone said that, for example, Pakistan, the Palestinians or the French are not peaceful nations would that not be considered to have racist overtones?

Worryingly, Cooper has been named by The Times as one of the top 100 influential lawyers of 2012 in the UK.

I wish Haynes had picked Cooper up on his use of the term “nation”. The next best thing would be to be a fly on the wall at one of Cooper’s dinner parties when the subject of the Middle East comes up.

About these ads

91 responses to “Anti-Israel QC: “Israel is not the most peaceful of nations.”

  1. For people like Cooper, Israel ‘winds people up’ by existing. Please assure him that the feeling is mutual.

  2. You are really scraping the barrel here Richard.

    Either way, had someone said that, for example, Pakistan, the Palestinians or the French are not peaceful nations would that not be considered to have racist overtones?

    No. Why ?

    Does “nation” include EVERY Israeli? 18% of Israelis are Arabs. I presume he doesn’t mean to include those Arabs, so he must mean EVERY Jewish Israeli?

    Why do you presume this ?

    What other country in the world gets referred to as a “nation” these days?

    ERM lots.

    For example, in the above exchange Cooper refers to America, not the American “nation”.

    Surely the syntax and context didn’t lend itself to the use of that word.

  3. Might be but that isn’t what those words do. I don’t agree with him and it might be that he is motivated by racism in saying them. We don’t know. It used to be the case that Germany was a very militaristic nation. It surely wasn’t racism to refer to this. And in referring to it we didn’t say every German is of a militaristic disposition. We merely were saying that there was a prevailing militaristic culture. In this instance it was obviously true. Had it been false it wouldn’t have been racism, it would just have been, well, false.

    • richardmillett

      Yes, but don’t we refer to Nazi Germany usually to make that very distinction? We are referring to the government specifically, not the people in general.

    • It used to be the case that Germany was a very militaristic nation.

      I don’t recall that its neighbours planned to annihilate every German.

      You really are a piece of scum.

  4. To be fair, Israel over the years, unlike other countries, has consistently described itself as ‘The Nation of Israel’ or ‘The Jewish Nation’. I can’t imagine anyone saying ‘The Nation of Britain’ or ‘The Nation of Switzerland’ or The Christian Nation of France.
    Is Haynes Jewish? Just curious.

    • Israel refers to itself as the “State of Israel”.

      Iran, the “Islamic Republic of Iran”.
      Pakistan, the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.

    • To be fair, Israel over the years, unlike other countries, has consistently described itself as ‘The Nation of Israel’ or ‘The Jewish Nation’.

      Nonsense. You are confusing the Jewish people with the State of Israel.

  5. “And they have big friends with the Americans, which some of us don’t.” us? who is “us” in this sentence? does he mean the uk doesn’t enjoy friendly relations with america? i don’t think so. so why is he using “us” here? could it be that mr. cooper is using a classic (and sneaky) rhetorical trick? by using the word “us” as he does at this juncture in his discourse, he’s trying to gain sympathy for iranian position, by including himself as one of the “us” versus the evil bellicose, warlike “them”, you know, the “other” the outsiders, i.e. the israelis. frankly, mr. cooper’s use of language is more than a little suspect, which i also think helps to underscore your point about his bias.

    • Use of the word us was clearly the us being the non Jews with the Jews being that other that has disproportionate influence in American institutions.

  6. Cooper’s subtext: Israel lies about Iran
    Cooper’s overt comments:
    - Israel causes war
    - Israel is a troublemaker
    - It is unreasonable for the US to support Israel
    Conclusion: Cooper is yet another ‘human rights’ self-aggrandiser who fails to see the truth.

  7. Not really, Richard. German militaristic tradition way precedes Nazi Germany. It probably can be said to have originated with Frederich the Great’s Brandenburg in the mid 18th century. Nazi Germany was just the latest manifestation of it. Plus of course, lots of other stuff grafted on. The militaristic tradition is really an expression of the values of the Prussian Junker class.

  8. Tragically, there are so many of these people around. The point is what can be done? There are others who can still be influenced. One idea is to promote Israel’s positive news because people are only getting negative vibes from such people.Thanks Richard for listing http://www.verygoodnewsisrael.blogspot.com – free weekly news of Israel’s achievements. Please help in publicising this

  9. The point is what can be done?

    End the brutal illegal occupation ?

  10. Anti-Israel QC: “Israel is not the most peaceful of nations.”

    The same can be said about the United Kingdom, especially during the 1940′s, if you as Cooper does, ignore what was going on at the time.

  11. Daniel Marks

    In Genesis we are always called the Children of Israel – Israel being Jacob. In Genesis we are usually referred to as the Children Israel (Israel being Jacob).The first person to recognize our national identity was Pharaoh:

    And he said to his people, “Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we; come, let us deal shrewdly with them….

    It is often our enemies that recognize our nationhood, often perhaps when some of us would prefer to be seen as just a religion – far less threatening. Haman also justifies the need to destroy us:

    And Haman said unto king Ahasue’rus, There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from all people; neither keep they the king’s laws: therefore it is not for the king’s profit to suffer them….

    Hitler also looked at the Jews of Germany who saw themselves as “Germans of the Mosaic persuasion and returned their nationhood to them:

    “…the drive of the Jewish nation to world rule a matter just as natural as the impulse of the Anglo-Saxons on their side to secure dominion over this earth for themselves.”

    It’s a strange pattern, but it often begins with the Jew trying to assimilate and deny his nationhood and the anti-Semite arrives to remind him what he is.

    I don’t know John Cooper QC and I’m often wrong, but he didn’t seem like a Jew hater to me. He said that Israel is not the most peaceful of nations and then gave a naughty grin as though he wanted someone to say what a clever understatement it was.

    He’s probably right. I just returned from Amsterdam and, unless you walk on their bicycle paths, the Dutch do seem more peaceful than us. Maybe it’s the weed, maybe it’s all those massages (unfortunately, I partook of neither). But then again, when Germans invaded them in 1940 they survived only six days, so perhaps there are some disadvantages to being “the most peaceful of nations”.

    Cooper is right. We are a nation and we aren’t the most peaceful, but one day we will be. One day they’ll be nobody left with barmy plans to annihilate destroy us. One day they’ll all realize what many have already – that there are a lot more advantages to being friends of the Jewish nation than its enemies. In the meantime we probably won’t be the most peaceful, but for a country most of whose neighbors wish to destroy her, we’re not doing badly.

  12. See what I mean, Commentary? There’s only so much substandard primary school poetry a person can take on any given day.

  13. RRZ – Since you don’t do anything else in your miserable life besides troll here and elsewhere, you have no cause for complaint

  14. I am complaining ?

    Actually I have been thinking about a bit of bullshit I typed earlier. Like how Nazi Germany was a latest manifestation of the German militaristic tradition. In fact the reverse is true. Rather it was a usurpation of that tradition.

    It is hard not to have some sympathy for the Wehrmacht officers, given their time and place. Their tradition wasn’t something that was an add on to their lives. It was their lives. It was all they were and everything they were. It was imbibed with their mother’s ( or wet nurses) milk. There was nothing else in the world.

    Central to this tradition was ” obeying orders “. Prior to Hitler this wasn’t a problem. Since the orders came from their own kind, there was no issue. The prob arose because Hitler was not of their kind. He wasn’t of Prussian Junker stock he was a freaking Austrian erstwhile loser. But he became their commander in chief. And they were obliged by their tradition to fight the war on his terms, terms wholly contrary to the values of their tradition.

    Worse they were obliged to cooperate with or at least facilitate and not obstruct ” other stuff “.Some just went with the flow. Others walked the tightrope as best they could. Others ( eventually ) said No !!!!

    The tragedy is that a fruit loop Austrian became the C in C of the Wehrmacht. If he had been a Prussian gentleman he would still have been nuts. But he would have been constrained by his upbringing and by his peers.

    In short if Hitler had been Prussian the war wouldn’t have happened. And if it had it would have been just one more bloody senseless war.

  15. 1. In talking about a country being willing to commit atrocities against its own people, let’s not forget that Israel isn’t whiter than white on that front either. A freshly formed Israeli government chose to irradiate up to 100,000 Sephardi children with massive doses of X-rays (as a supposed treatment for ringworm). It’s estimated that up to 6,000 of them died shortly after receiving treatment and many of the ‘ringworm children’ later went on to develop cancer. After decades of denial, in 1994 the Knesset passed a law mandating the Israeli government to provide them with compensation.
    Oh – and the ‘research’ was funded by the United States. So not only does Israel have a track record of committing atrocities against (part of) its own, it’s been willing to do so for money. Let’s leave Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens and Ethiopian brethren for another time.

    2. Why trust Iran? Well, lets see, Iran has signed the NPT, doesn’t have nuclear weapons, has allowed IAEA inspectors in and has never (in modern times) launched an attack on another sovereign country.
    Israel, on the other hand, refuses to sign the NPT, has developed nuclear weapons (in the Dimona ‘Textile Factory’, and bricked up the elevators to hide the weapons processing levels from US visiting eyes. Leaving aside the many attacks on its neighbours and the Vanunu issue, I know which of the two appear more trustworthy.

    3. So Israel ‘winds people up’. All countries do. However the ‘deserves to be nuked’ is your tenuous implication and choice of words. I don’t see it anywhere in the segment. Nor does he, as you suggest ‘acknowledge’ that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. He merely replies yes to Coopers ‘thought’.

    4. It’s interesting that you attempt to deflect attention from the headline topic, of Israel ‘not being the most peaceful of nations’ by becoming enraged at the choice of the word nation. As another commenter says in response to your question who refers to a nation these days? Lots.
    So, nation or not, is Israel the most peaceful of nations? Hardly.

    As Rich A puts it – this particular blog entry really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

    Full of supposition and (not the best of) implications – and not a word from the author in defence of Israel and his chosen title. If Israel is one of the world’s most peaceful nations/countries then why not enlighten us as to how you arrive at such a belief?

    I can just hear something along the usual lines of “Israel can’t afford to be peaceful”… coming

    • “Why trust Iran? Well, lets see, Iran has …never (in modern times) launched an attack on another sovereign country.”

      Tell that to the people in northern and southern Israel who have had thousands of Iranian rockets fired at them over recent years.

    • Purely a reply to Baruch’s repeating of the ” Ringworm Children ” allegation .
      Israel ( like many other countries ) conducted Irradiation Treatment to cure Tinea Capitis infection amongst New Immigrants .
      Unfortunately the dangers of X-Ray treatments were not fully realised untill the 1970′s – a number of patients suffered due to the X-Ray treatment . Israel passed laws to compensate the victims .
      The Ringworm incident should be compared to other medical failiures ( such as Thalidomide ) .

      http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/03/ringworm_hoax.html

  16. A quick search on the word ‘nation’ reveals that Richard himself uses the term quite frequently, the latest being in the Olympics / IOC blog entry:

    “Heaven forbid they [the IOC] should offend certain other competing nations.”

    Hmm… “Certain other / nations”. Surely that wasn’t meant to be a racist comment?

    I’ll read the word nation with fresh eyes from now on, and try not to feign outrage and anger when I do.

    • richardmillett

      Palestinians are a nation, but Palestine isn’t a state, yet.

      • Wrong Richard. Palestine was the name of the region mandated to Britain at the break up of the Ottoman Empire. That name does not make a nation of one section of the population that lived in that mandated region during the short period it existed. The fact that the Muslims who lived in the Mandate of Palestine have decided to call themselves Palestinians to the exclusion of all others who lived there then does not make then a nation. That’s called identity theft of all those, specifically the Jews who were also known as Palestinians until the breakup of the Mandate of Palestine into Jordan Israel and the entity called Palestine ceased to exist, just as Rhodesia or Ceylon or Tanganyika or Prussia or…… no longer exist and that identity theft continues until today, with Abbas as recently as this past Tuesday referring to the alleged [Jewish] temple in Jerusalem.

  17. Thanks for the info.

    You used the plural, nations, ?

  18. harry shecter

    I WONDER IF COOPER WOULD CONSIDER ISRAEL TO BE MORE OF A PEACEFUL (NATION) COUNTRY IF IT DID NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DEFENDING ITSELF FROM BEING BLOWN OFF OF THE MAP BY THOSE WHO HAVE EVERY INTENTION TO DO SO.-Harry Shecter-VANCOUVER ISLAND CANADA

    Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:19:32 +0000 To: harryhshecter@hotmail.com

    • Harry, Great point.

      Make proper use of the shift key on your keyboard as others do.

    • Just as the Palestinian people would be more peaceful had Palestine not been, all but, wiped off the map no doubt?

      • richardmillett

        Where is Palestine again?

      • Baruch, the Mandated region of Palestine was not wiped off the map as you say, but was called that only for the period that allowed the League of Nations to establish the shape and governance of the region after which it was always anticipated it would cease to exist, just as the French mandate over other sections of the old Ottoman Empire also ceased once the borders of countries like Iraq Syria, Saudi Arabia etc were defined. Ultimately the British mandated territory was divided by agreement into Jordan for the Arabs and Israel for the Jews as independent national states. The fact that the Arabs were greedy and wanted the entire place for themselves has caused the dire situation for the disenfranchised Arabs of Jordan. Those fortunate enough not to have listened to the propaganda of the Arab leaders at the time live in freedom in the democracy of Israel, unlike their brethren across the Islamic world where they are despised and live in apartheid status.

      • Jordan is “Palestine”. And “Palestinians” have a beautiful Queen, not that heffer Suha.

  19. Exactly. Palestine’s been wiped off the map.

    But shouldn’t your question really be “where is Israel again?”
    Answer: exactly where Hertzl decided it should be: “In Palestine”.

    • richardmillett

      Who’s Hertzl? Some car rental company?

    • Israel in fact is exactly in part of the ancient land of the Israelites the other part having been hijacked by a created people calling themselves Palestinians.

      • created people? Your arrogance is bottomless. And the Israelis are not a created people? The Jews themselves? Zionism. It’s all created, invented, fabricated, right down to the Torah. You have no right to spew your contempt at the Palestinians, whose land was stolen and villages were destroyed. You should be ashamed of yourself with your crude callous Zionist propaganda and lies, dismissing the rights and identity of 4 million people. It’s outrageous.
        And by the way, are you semitic? Do you have proof that you are a descendant of the ancient Israelites? Really, you can’t make this madness up.

      • richardmillett

        Calm down, Roger. Even your own god, Shlomo Sand, said the Palestinians are “created”. He said they were created by Zionism, which infers they are a fairly recent creation, like Zionism itself. The Jews, yes probably created if you like, but created way way back some 3000-4000 years ago.

  20. Herzl

    Still doesn’t change the fact that Israel is in Palestine. By design.

    Re-posting the following so it doesn’t (conveniently) get overlooked in the spurious ‘plurals’ and ‘extra t’ spelling frenzy…

    1. In talking about a country being willing to commit atrocities against its own people, let’s not forget that Israel isn’t whiter than white on that front either. A freshly formed Israeli government chose to irradiate up to 100,000 Sephardi children with massive doses of X-rays (as a supposed treatment for ringworm). It’s estimated that up to 6,000 of them died shortly after receiving treatment and many of the ‘ringworm children’ later went on to develop cancer. After decades of denial, in 1994 the Knesset passed a law mandating the Israeli government to provide them with compensation.
    Oh – and the ‘research’ was funded by the United States. So not only does Israel have a track record of committing atrocities against (part of) its own, it’s been willing to do so for money. Let’s leave Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens and Ethiopian brethren for another time.

    2. Why trust Iran? Well, lets see, Iran has signed the NPT, doesn’t have nuclear weapons, has allowed IAEA inspectors in and has never (in modern times) launched an attack on another sovereign country.
    Israel, on the other hand, refuses to sign the NPT, has developed nuclear weapons (in the Dimona ‘Textile Factory’, and bricked up the elevators to hide the weapons processing levels from US visiting eyes. Leaving aside the many attacks on its neighbours and the Vanunu issue, I know which of the two appear more trustworthy.

    3. So Israel ‘winds people up’. All countries do. However the ‘deserves to be nuked’ is your tenuous implication and choice of words. I don’t see it anywhere in the segment. Nor does he, as you suggest ‘acknowledge’ that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. He merely replies yes to Coopers ‘thought’.

    4. It’s interesting that you attempt to deflect attention from the headline topic, of Israel ‘not being the most peaceful of nations’ by becoming enraged at the choice of the word nation. As another commenter says in response to your question who refers to a nation these days? Lots.
    So, nation or not, is Israel the most peaceful of nations? Hardly.

    As Rich A puts it – this particular blog entry really scrapes the bottom of the barrel.

    Full of supposition and (not the best of) implications – and not a word from the author in defence of Israel and his chosen title. If Israel is one of the world’s most peaceful nations/countries then why not enlighten us as to how you arrive at such a belief?

    I can just hear something along the usual lines of “Israel can’t afford to be peaceful”… coming (as Harry’s already started the ball rolling with).

    • richardmillett

      So what do you think Cooper meant by “nation”?
      Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

    • richardmillett

      And give me some examples, besides me, of others using “nation”.
      Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

  21. Others didn’t suggest that the term ‘nation’ wasn’t widely used. You did.
    So quite why I’d need to search for times it was used by other people other than you is a bit of a mystery. Smacks of an avoidance tactic. No thanks.

    Back on topic. I’ll summarise your points so far:

    Israel is in Palestine,
    Israeli atrocities past and present,
    Iran is more trustworthy than Israel,
    Why Israel winds people up, and
    Why Israel is the most peaceful of nations.

  22. Herzl and co. must’ve been misguided when they set their sights on creating Israel “in Palestine” then…

    Though as they succeeded in creating Israel “in Palestine”, then it stands to reason that that’s exactly where Israel is right now. By definition.

    Their definition, not mine.

    …Unless of course you’re suggesting Israel’s been created in the wrong place by mistake. After all, Argentina was another candidate, wasn’t it?

    • richardmillett

      I think there were some 27 candidates, actually. But they decided on a pretty much empty area, a part of the Ottoman empire which had an enduring Jewish population being the ancient homeland of the Jewish people.

  23. Yes – they picked a land which they themselves called Palestine.

    Sad that you’re keen on perpetuating the ‘empty’ myth though. There are plenty of census figures available for the area that prove otherwise.

    Even Golda ‘apologised’ (albeit posthumously) for her erroneous ‘land without people for a people without land’ statement. History’s been corrected on that one already.

  24. I have the hardback book – so unless you have the facility to upload attachments here you’re stuck on that one. 1870 was a bit before Kindle’s time so you’ll just have to content yourself with the summaries you can find on Google. Simple search terms: Palestine Census 1870.

    The book goes into much more detail – outlining the main industries of the time (fruit [from Jaffa], etc).

    Now that we’ve covered the basics: Israel was created in Palestine and Palestine wasn’t empty, perhaps you can get round to covering the remainder of the points your blog entry raised?:

    Israeli atrocities past and present,
    Iran is more trustworthy than Israel,
    Why Israel winds people up,
    Why Israel is the most peaceful of nations.

    • richardmillett

      I never said “Palestine” wasn’t empty. As i understand the figures there were 500,000 Arabs living there and 25,000 Jews around 1890. The Jews mostly lived in Jerusalem and they formed the majority there. After Jews started to return, so to speak, by 1948 there were some 600,000 Jews and 1.2 million Arabs. Now how did those 500,000 Arabs become 1.2 million in just 60 odd years? That’s right; they mostly came from outside “Palestine”. They were not Palestinian at all. Not indigenous. A bit like Mr Arafat himself. Where was he born?

      • Glad you like your new-found census figures. What a surprise you chose the ‘summary’ which says that there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem.

        Of almost half a million permanent inhabitants the census recorded in 1890, 15,000 were Jewish and these were mainly split between the five major population centres at the time.

        Some 60 years earlier there were 16,560 non-Jews (13,000 Muslims; 3,560 Christian) living in Jerusalem.

        So, even if 100% of the 15,000 Jewish inhabitants of Palestine in 1890 upped and moved to Jerusalem, they still wouldn’t outnumber the number of non-Jew that were living there some 60 years earlier.

        It seems that someone, perhaps with a particular agenda, decided to deliberately downplay the number of non-Jewish Jerusalem residents, whilst at the same time place all of the Jewish residents of Palestine exclusively into only the Jerusalem area. Voila. Jewish majority in Jerusalem.

        As for Arab population increase – it’s acknowledged in the census notes that many of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine avoided the Turkish census a) to avoid taxes, and b) to avoid military conscription.

        Where was Ben Gurion born?
        Where was Golda Meir born?
        Where was Menachim Begin born?
        Seems that not being indigenous is a two-way street.

        Now we’ve established that Israel is in (what even Israel’s founding fathers called) Palestine, and that there was a population in Palestine perhaps you’d care to get back on track and address the real main points in your thread now?

        > Israeli atrocities past and present, (horrible what people can do to their own – and for money too – isn’t it?)
        > Israel is more trustworthy than Iran, (how many yards of fabric came out of that ‘Textile Factory’ in Dimona),
        > Why Israel winds people up (and therefore ‘deserves to be nuked’ – your words, not mine),
        > Why Israel is, of course, the most peaceful of nations.

        I’m guessing not…

    • Barack, You are opening a can of worms that undermines your position.

      Let’s tally Islamist atrocities past and present.
      Let’s tally Euro atrocities past and present.
      Why Islam is the “Religion of Peace”.

      Israel winds people like you up because Israel has managed to prevail in several wars waged against it.

      Israel was not defeated by five Islamist armies in 1948, just three years after the end of WW2 and the Holocaust.

      Barack, Continue to eat your heart out.

      • Oh no – not the age old ‘point the finger over there and shout loudly’ diversion.

        The only thing I’m continuing to do is to wait for Richard to answer the points he raises, about Israel.

        He pointed the finger at Iran’s ‘atrocities’ – as if Israel had none.
        I don’t see Iran killing its own children for money.

        He points the finger at Iran’s nuclear activities – as if Israel had/has none.

        He conjoins Israel’s ability to wind people up with the notion that it therefore deserves to be nuked. Which is ironic really seeing as how all of the sabre-rattling is in the other direction.

        But most of all – he focuses and become indignent at the word ‘nation’ – so as to avoid informing us all how Israel is actually one of the most peaceful of entities.

        If he writes a blog entry about the other points you raise then we can debate those too. Till then I’ll stay on topic thanks.

        By the way – he seems to know where Arafat was born, but not Israel’s founding fathers. No word on that one either.

        But by now he’s far too busy in the next blog entry praising Jonathan Hoffman for his silly question, posed in the most belligerent of ways.
        How convenient. Means that this thread can slowly be forgotten and his original points remain unaddressed.

        I do like the fact that he describes this (his own) blog on TheJC as a “miniscule irrelevant blog”.

        It’s the first thing I think we can agree on.

      • Barack, Your finger pointing, solely at Israel, ignoring horrific history in Arab/Islamist dictatorships, naturally undermines your argument.

        What you do is similar to howling over the actions of the US, UK and SU in national Socialist Germany during WW2.

      • Barack, Perhaps you can explain the following video.

        Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Death to Israel”

        Chants in Iran: Death to America, the infidel

        Ahmadinejad: Israel Will Disappear From Map

        You think Israel should ignore genocidal threats from the Islamist Regime? Consider how you would react if your family was threatened similarly.

        The genocidal threats from the Islamic Regime should be enough cause to kick the Islamist Regime of Iran out of the United Nations. The economic screws are being tightened.

        There will be another revolution in Iran. A revolution that will overthrow the hated ayatollahs, the heirs of the ayatollah khomeni.
        .

  25. Daniel Marks

    Many maps over the past few hundred years use the term Palestine to designate a geographical land area whose “borders” are similar to those of the two Jewish states that existed until 2,000 years ago. The Romans changed the name of Israel (or Judah) to Palestine hoping this might cause the Jew to forget Zion; that never happened. Incidentally the words Palestine and Palestinian are completely alien to Arabic, so much so that most Arab speakers can’t even pronounce them because there is no p sound in Arabic.

    When Herzl spoke of Palestine he was referring to a geographical area within the Ottoman Empire. The people who lived there were often called Palestinians – Jew and Arab alike. There has never been a country or state or any kind of sovereign entity called Palestine and while the culture of Palestinian Jews was similar to that of their brothers in Egypt and Syria, the lifestyle and culture of the Palestinian Arabs was similar to that of their brothers in surrounding countries too. There was no uniquely Palestinian language, cookery style or dress or flag or anything.

    The Ottomans lost World War One and their empire was divided among various peoples. Palestine was designated to be a Jewish National Home.

    Today that area called Palestine is approximately 76% under complete Arab control and is called Jordan, about 14% is undisputed Israel and regarding the remaining part there are conflicting claims; naturally, both sides think they’re right. In those latter areas about 95% of the Arab population live under Palestinian rule; either by the PA or by the Hamas – G-d help’em.

    Through the negotiating process, and we all hope that all sides will return to the table and reach a final status agreement that while not giving everyone all of what they want, at least give enough that we (Israel and its neighbors) can live together in relative peace and quiet.

    • Jordan became sovereign before Israel was created and the UN partition plan is very specific on the geographical boundaries of Palestine was proposed to be split.

      Dayan’s signature on the map of Palestine attached to the 1949 armistice agreement with Jordan, for example, (“Palestine North Sheet”) doesn’t show that Jordan is Palestine. To the contrary, it shows that Palestine, as it existed at the time of Israel’s creation, was slowly being eaten up by the newly-founded state.

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/f03d55e48f77ab698525643b00608d34/$FILE/Arm_1949.jpg

      I love the Jordan is Palestine’ analogy – as it conveniently forgets that the same applies to any existing entity that was part of Mandatory Palestine. That is, if ‘Jordan is Palestine’ then so too ‘Israel is Palestine’.

      So, that aside, as Jordan was already sovereign at the time of Israel’s creation, the percentages must be calculated based on that area which was called Palestine at the time, and show the Israel controls 100% of the land Dayan acknowledged as being Palestine with his signature (actually more now, taking into account the Golan Heights), and controls 100% of the inhabitants. The PA or Hamas have no real power or ‘control’, only that which is handed down to them by the Israeli occupying force. But that’s wandering way off topic.

    • Daniel

      Sebastian Haffner in 1940 (completed between January and March of that year)

      “Crude, good-natured, radiant-eyed vandalism, the gay destruction of all that was dear to the “bourgeois” (Nazis now like to call them “philistines” instead)…”
      page 73 of “Germany Jekyll & Hyde”, the book that Churchill is said to have asked his staff to read.

      I have read that Palestinians are eager to prove that they are Philistines, the irony of it …

      BTW I wish the book became compulsory reading for all those who tell us that Iranians “aren’t like that” in order to make them realize how little difference that can make.

      • Silke: I read too that Israel passed a law (and keeps renewing it) which says that people who were not born in Israel and that had never even necessarily visited it had the right to return to it!

        Oh the irony indeed.

      • Baruch
        to make you feel even better, Germany has a very similar law which allows people with the same criteria you list to claim citizenship

      • Now Baruch No comment on Germany’s citizenship laws – you are not familiar with it? You have never heard of it? You don’t give a damn because the only such law that is of interest to you and gets you that delicious foul smelling foam at the mouth is Israel’s?

        Thus I guess you are one of those, who, when one of their slanders is debunked, shut up, slink away from the issue and promise yourself to circumvent this uncomfortable fact with your next attempt at slander.

  26. ” Palestine was designated to be a Jewish National Home”

    Daniel slips that one in again hoping I won’t notice even though I corrected him on it several months ago.

    The Mandate for Palestine ( Richard’s non existent Palestine ) did no more than mandate the British to implement the Balfour Declaration The British, in respect of the declaration SPECIFICALLY rejected the wording demanded by the Zionists i.e ” the establishment OF Palestine AS a JNH” in favour of ” the establishment OF a JNH IN Palestine. Where in Palestine was never specified.

    Further, the British consistently made it clear that whatever JNH meant it DIDN’T mean a Jewish State and it DIDN’T mean the sovereignty of one people over another in Palestine. Granted they eventually turned in desperation to the idea of partition.

  27. Richard, I watched that discussion live (thought he was Tom Cooper) and am so pleased you have blogged it. This is probably your best blog specifically because it brings to the fore the covert support amongst ordinary people for the alienation and deligitimisation of Israel, the wholesale buying into the Arab propaganda by many in the UK who suffer underlying hatred of Jews. Cooper’s body language spoke a thousand words, more than those he actually verbalised. He had the demeanour of a man restraining himself in the knowledge that he was on national TV. So yes a fly on the wall at his dinner party would be more than illuminating!

  28. In those latter areas about 95% of the Arab population live under Palestinian rule; either by the PA or by the Hamas – G-d help’em.

    Unmitigated nonsense.

    • ooh look..the Israeli Occupation Regime ….whoops..I mean nation…..whoops..I mean state….deigned to give 130,000 Palestinians….whoops, I mean the ‘created people’……permits to enter Israel from the West Bank to spend time on the beach in Tel Aviv/Jaffa. Nice to see a decent act of magnanimity for a change for a people…albeit ‘created’…trapped not just in the West Bank, but in their allocated zones there. And this went on all week. No incidents. Just human beings,…whoops,I mean ‘created people’…. having a good time, seeing the sea for the first time, even though they only live an hour’s drive away.

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/a-day-at-the-beach.premium-1.460104

  29. “The Jews, yes probably created if you like, but created way way back some 3000-4000 years ago”
    . I was thinking about this, Richard, when listening to a piece by Orla Guerin this week about the plight of the Kurds. She referred to this “ancient people” struggling for self determination, and I reflected how so many peoples qualify for this noble appellation of “ancient” and therefore entitled to self determination. Yet somehow I have never heard the word ancient fall from her lips in connection with the Jewish people.

  30. @Silke – nice to see you joining in the debate by making a pseudo joke around a spelling mistake.

    As you’ve demonstrated that spurious letters are your forte why not now press Richard on his use of the word ‘nations’ in his Olympic posting:

    “Heaven forbid they [the IOC] should offend certain other competing nations.” Plural.

    He’s already pointed out that Palestine was one of the nations he was referring to, but then failed to come back and mention the other(s).

  31. Jordan is “Palestine”.

    That’s east of the Jordan river.

    • You got it in one TGAI.

    • TGIAI: Herzl wanted to create Israel “in Palestine”. If Jordan is indeed Palestine as you suggest then it seems that Israel’s been built on the wrong land. Why not up and move it east?

      But that ignores the fact that if “Jordan is Palestine”, then so too “Israel is Palestine”. After all, they were both cut from the same cloth.

      However Dayan agreed that Israel was Palestine when he signed the map of Palestine included within the armistice agreement with Jordan.

      http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/f03d55e48f77ab698525643b00608d34/$FILE/Arm_1949.jpg

      And if Dayan agreed that Israel was (is) Palestine then that’s good enough for me.

      • Barack, You are implying that Israel includes Jordan – both banks of the Jordan.

        I don’t think Israel wants the east bank of the Jordan. The Hashimites have their hands full. You may have heard of Black September. King Hussein dealt with the “Palestinianian” threat to topple his KIngdom quite forcefully.

  32. “I don’t think Israel wants the east bank of the Jordan.”

    Have you conferred with any of your colleagues on that? There are many who complain loudly, even today, that they feel cheated that that part of Palestine was given away to become Jordan, and therefore wasn’t included in the partition plan and earmarked to become part of Eretz Israel.

    It’s nice to have it on (your) authority that they’re wrong.

    You have heard of Eretz Israel?

  33. @Richard. You ask: “Does “nation” include EVERY Israeli? 18% of Israelis are Arabs. I presume he doesn’t mean to include those Arabs, so he must mean EVERY Jewish Israeli?”

    Why “must” he mean only Jewish Israelis?

    For example:
    If Israel talks of ‘national security’ does it mean it’s only going to protect its Jewish residents?
    And when Israel speaks of the ‘national economy’ does it exclude figures from the 18% Arab Israeli population?

    “Seeing as being Jewish seems to be a defining trait could this definition [of nation] be extended to Jews not just living in Israel?”

    If it did then when Israel mentions the ‘national economy’, by your presumption and hypothesis, it would exclude figures from the 18% Arab Israeli population but include figures from Jews living elsewhere in the world.

    Tenuous presumption and hypothesis Richard. To the extreme.

    • richardmillett

      I don’t think so. Rant and defend all you like. I know what I’m talking about here.

  34. You say you’re ‘talking about’ it – when in actual fact you seem to be avoiding talking about it at all.

    So, as you’re so reluctant to state it yourself (which is odd as the word seems to get you so hot under the collar), let me propose to you what your position seems to be, on the definition of the word ‘nation’:

    ‘Nation’ = Israeli Jews minus Israeli Arabs plus Jews in the rest of the world.

  35. Richard, you’ve also avoided commenting on the other topics you raised:

    > Israeli atrocities past and present, (horrible what people can do to their own – and for money too – isn’t it?)
    > Israel is more trustworthy than Iran, (how many yards of fabric came out of that ‘Textile Factory’ in Dimona),
    > Why Israel winds people up (and therefore ‘deserves to be nuked’ – your words, not mine),
    > Why Israel is, of course, the most peaceful of nations.

    And to top it off (in response to your question re. Arafat’s birthplace):

    Where was Ben Gurion born?
    Where was Golda Meir born?
    Where was Menachim Begin born?
    …Add other names here.

    You may know what you’re talking about, but we seem to have different definitions of the word ‘talking’, and stoney silence isn’t one of them.

    • Baruch , it’s You who has avoided commenting on My exposure of Your use of the Ringworm Conspiracy Theory .

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

      • Wikipedia – really?
        Thanks for helping to bring the inconsistencies in Bernie’s blog entry to a wider audience through your link above. A blog in which Bernie attempts to debunk and excuse by ironically peppering the text with the words ‘historical’ and ‘revision’.
        I particularly like the comments debate in his comments section – Am sure others will find them enlightening.
        Hopefully readers of this blog entry too (ostensibly about the use of the word ‘nation’) who are interested in learning more will visit bernie’s blog, watch the documentary on YouTube and read this synopsis (just one of many) http://www.whale.to/b/ringwood4.html and make up their own minds who’s revising who. People who lived though the ordeal, or people who blog about it some 60 years on.

        To bring it back to the crux of this blog: ‘We will reach anywhere at any time and protect this nation’. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz. Speaking in Israel, Monday September 3th 2012.
        Perhaps Richard will write to Benny and ask exactly what he meant by his use of the word ‘nation’?

      • richardmillett

        Baruch, do you think Israeli-Arabs are peaceful?

      • Barack, I believe IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz is referring to the State of Israel.

        Happy Nakba!

  36. Barack, Which faith came first?

    Judaism or Islam?

    Jersusalem is central to Judaism.

    Muslims-Only apartheid Mecca is central is Islam. Muslims pray towards Mecca, their backs to Jerusalem.

  37. Steve Bronfman

    The thing that pisses me off about this attitude (found so much amongst the Euro-dhimmis) is both the resentment they express that Israel should have America as an ally and what they leave unsaid; that Israel has many powerful enemies and the Palestinians have the backing of the UN, Muslim World, Russia and half of the EU.

    If we their statements to the logical conclusion then Israel shouldn’t be allowed allies at all.

    They also forgive every action of Israel’s enemies as “not really so bad” but exaggertate every action of Israel. In other words Iran/Palestine/Arabs are never at fault but Israel always is.

    The other interesting thing he states is that “some of us” don’t have Americans as allies. Since America is the UK’s no 1 ally then I can only presume he doesn’t count himself as British? What is with this Marxist anti-Patriotism that seems unique to Europe?

    Israel would be peaceful if it wasn’t being CONSTANTLY ATTACKED by Muslims and Marxists because of the moral weakness of Westerners like him to do anything about it at the UN etc.