Daniel Machover’s dangerous game of Lawfare against Veolia and Israel.

Zena from "Palestine", Daniel Machover, Yael Kahn listening to an activist at ULU last night.

Zena from “Palestine”, Daniel Machover, Yael Kahn listening to an activist at ULU last night.

First, the drama bit.

I was sitting quietly before the start of last night’s Excluding Complicity with Israeli War Crimes meeting at University of London Union (ULU) when I was approached by the Israeli anti-Israel activist Yael Kahn. Kahn wanted me to leave saying:

“We don’t want you. You’ve been undermining people’s meetings. You interfere with people’s freedom of speech. We don’t want you here. Goodbye to you. We don’t want you. You are here for one purpose; to interrupt and to undermine people. I’ve seen you many times. I’ve seen you in action many times. You’re not invited.”     Listen here: Yael Kahn asking me to leave.

Once I told her that I wasn’t leaving as it was a public meeting and that she should have arranged the meeting in her home she shuffled off to chair the event instead.

It’s incredible that these Israel haters are supplied with a room paid for by the British taxpayer at a British university and presume they can exclude anyone they don’t like (the advert states the meeting was “sponsored by ULU”).

The main speaker was Daniel Machover, described as “Solicitor, the UK expert on Human Rights, Israel and Veolia”. Jeremy Corbyn MP was also supposed to speak but failed to show up.

Machover presented his lengthy legal opinion on how to exclude Veolia from the public contracts given out by local authorities. Veolia deals in waste management and construction and has been building the Jerusalem Light Railway, which, Machover says, is in breach of the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions because it serves “illegal Israeli settlements”.

The main UN resolution Machover relied on was that passed by the UN Human Rights Council in April 2011 and called The grave human rights violations by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (see clip 1 below).

At that time countries on the UNHRC included Libya, Bahrain, Ukraine, Jordan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Qatar. All have brutal human rights records so for Machover to cite such a resolution proves the weakness of his case.

Machover also seems to be adopting the similar failed tactic of Michael Mansfield QC. At an event at Amnesty International in November 2010 Mansfield gave a legal opinion on the defence anti-Israel activists could employ if they entered the shops or offices of companies doing business in the “illegal Israeli settlements” and were arrested.

With such advice in mind anti-Israel activists Matthew Richardson, Gwendolen Wilkinson, Jessica Nero and Christopher Osmond entered the Ahava shop in Covent Garden and succeeded in shutting it down for a few hours while making their protest but they were subsequently landed with criminal convictions for aggravated trespass.

Happily though for Mr Mansfield his chambers picked up the business as the four defendants were represented by barristers from Tooks.

Similarly, Machover seems to be pushing local councillors to exclude Veolia from local authority business but for all his lengthy quoting of local council law to support his view he still has to overcome the same hurdle that the four convicted anti-Ahava activists failed to do; the legality of “the settlements”.

Machover said last night:

“Let me make it clear. Settlements that are built in east Jerusalem or the rest of the West Bank are illegal under international law. There is absolutely universal consensus about that. The British government says so, the American government says so…this is entirely uncontentious territory.”

Apart from the fact that the American government doesn’t “say so” how would Machover explain the decision of the judge in the Ahava case outlined above that Ahava, with its factory on the West Bank, was “trading lawfully”?

Machover’s advice could have extreme financial consequences for local councillors who incorrectly exclude Veolia from a public contract, as Machover himself acknowledged. The local councillors could leave themselves open to being personally surcharged millions of pounds for any loss to Veolia like Dame Shirley Porter was in the 1990s “homes for votes” scandal.

Councillors could be made bankrupt, but Machover couldn’t resist encouraging them anyway last night with this:

“It’s very problematic. It’s very expensive litigation that Veolia could mount. Obviously they’re a very significant company with much more resources than most local authorities. But if they’re prepared to stand up to other bodies…they should be prepared to stand up to a big bully like Veolia. I understand their fears because they don’t want to use council taxpayers’ money on a bad legal case. But, I repeat, I don’t think it is a bad case. So local authorities who have the courage of their convictions should proceed. And I genuinely think that it’s not straightforward as to whether Veolia would actually take it to court.” (see clip 2)

Yael Khan then tried soothing everyone’s nerves by claiming that there had been, apparently, no challenge by Veolia after it lost a £1bn contract in South London, although I doubt that loss had anything whatsoever to do with her and her colleagues.

It’s possible that Veolia, itself, would not have to sue. A concerned resident could possibly have locus standi to instigate proceedings to have councillors surcharged.

Finally, we heard from Zena who had just arrived from “Palestine” that morning. She told us how evil “the settlers” are and how their actions are having a detrimental effect on the health of the Palestinians. (see clip 3)

Just like other Palestinians who have come over here and made the same claim they all look very well to me. Maybe they’re just the lucky ones….

Clips and photos:

The welcoming party on the door at University of London Union last night.

The welcoming party on the door at University of London Union last night.

Clip 1 – Machover outlines his weak case against Veolia:

Clip 2 – Machover encourages councillors over Veolia despite major concerns:

Clip 3 – Palestinian Zena’s view on “settlers”:

Clip 4 – Conclusions of Zena and Machover. Zena calls for boycott:

Clip 5 – Jewish Anti-Zionist Network activist calls for boycott of Hewlett Packard:

A Canterbury activist from anti-Israel Conservative MP Julian Brazier's constituency.

A Canterbury activist from anti-Israel Conservative MP Julian Brazier’s constituency.

174 responses to “Daniel Machover’s dangerous game of Lawfare against Veolia and Israel.

  1. Shalom Richard you are a brave man i am amazed how many anti Israel meetings are going on in London i live near Cardiff and hear of very few in Wales .Were so glad that you stand up for Israel ,i have a strong heart for her and have been been to the Land 6 times and made good friends there.When will these blind people wake up and see that Israel is the only wetern democratic country in the Middle East and see how many inventions that we all use and medical breakthroughs that come from the Jews .I regularlarly pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for Israel and Gods chosen people.I look foreward to your updates keep up the good work regards Chris

  2. Jonathan Hoffman

    Machover will lose this one like he lost the Universal Jurisdiction case.
    Kahn is a piece of work isn’t she?

  3. I am full of admiration for you Richard You go where others fear to tread in a calm and non confrontational way and gather such helpful and illuminating evidence. More strength to you and your camera. As I understand it there is plenty of legal argument categorically conceding that the so called settlements are not “Illegal”

  4. Sharon Klaff

    Richard, you have such strength and fortitude. It is amazing that you remain sane listening to all this tripe spewed out by people with little minds and very little to keep themselves occupied. This Machover can’t be a very clever lawyer sprouting such rubbish and enticing people to break the law just because he says something is illegal. I’ll remember not to call him should I need a solicitor.

    However, you report some very encouraging developments. We now have Hewlett Packard in line for a boycott. Are these stupid people aware just how deep HP’s reach is into the running of this country? It is totally conceivable that Machover’s own office will grind to a halt without HP products. I would imagine though that he is far too busy dreaming up more ridiculous reasons for destroying Israel to notice how his office runs. Let’s hope they get to other companies upon whom he and his ilk rely, like perhaps that little camera that is used to peak around the intestines to check how healthy they are, or maybe the messaging system on their mobile phones, or even the mobile phones, or perhaps the computers they use to run their Israe lbashing usinesses on.

    These people should be celebrating the achievements of Israel not only for itself, but for mankind. They should be celebrating how all people in Israel regardless of background or religion are free, live an increasingly upwardly mobile life, that Muslim women particularly are free and they should contrast this with the catastrophes happening as they speak in Syria, Jordan and other Islamic countries. The issue here is that these people really do not care about the Arab Palestinians for if they did they would be in Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bangladesh and all the other 50 odd Muslim states where Arab Palestinians are disenfranchised, have no property rights, where there is still forced marriage, femail circumcision and severe punishments metered on woman who are considered 1/2 the worth of men. No, these Machover type Jews are self hating and their non Jewish cohorts are Jew haters, using these ridiculous wayward Jews as fodder for their propaganda.

  5. Unfortunately Richard there is universal consensus that the settlements are illegal. The American government, it being its very own spoilt child, Israel, cant’t bring itself to use the word so it says ” illegitimate “.

    Fourth Geneva Convention….” The occupying power shall not deport or otherwise transfer parts of its civilian population……

    The British Foriegn Office… ” The Occupied Palestinian Territories ”

    As for why a judge in the Osmond et al case could say Ahava was trading lawfully…Easy. First there is no necessary connection between the legality of the settlements and the lawfulness of Ahava’s trade in this country. That is a whole different argument.Secvond the opinion of one district judge on the issue hardly settles matters. Not so long ago he wouldn’t have been called a judge at all. He would have been a magistrate.


    • richardmillett

      They could have appealed their convictions to all the higher courts if they were so confident of their case. It would have been the perfect opportunity for them to put the issues before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

    • “The occupying power shall not deport or otherwise transfer parts of its civilian population”

      There has been no ‘deportation’ or ‘transfer’.

      You really are quite remarkably thick, aren’t you?

    • “Not so long ago he wouldn’t have been called a judge at all. He would have been a magistrate.”

      A magistrate is a category of judge.

      You really are quite remarkably thick, aren’t you?

      • richardmillett

        Leah, you make your case perfectly well without needing to add the ad hominems at the end.

    • Biodegradable

      Fourth Geneva Convention….” The occupying power shall not deport or otherwise transfer parts of its civilian population……

      That is just one of the reasons that it is far from proved that settlements are illegal.

      It’s clear that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply in Israel’s case. Israel, as a state, does not nor has it “deported] or otherwise transfer[ed] parts of its civilian population”, except when it evacuated every last Jew, including the dead from Jewish cemeteries, from Gaza.

      The Fourth Geneva Convention would and does apply to China’s occupation of Tibet, for example.

      • Yes, but in the case of China it’s not done by Joo…Yi…’Zionists’. So, that’s OK, then.

  6. They could have but obviously weren’t up for that. They set out to disrupt the shops business, did so and got what they were expecting, that is, a conditional discharge plus some costs which the campaign will have paid.

    The point is that the opinion of British magistrate, a hesitant one as I understand, sorry I mean District Judge, that the shop was trading lawfully hardly impacts upon the advice of the best legal minds in every foreign office in the world that the settlements are illegal, which is an entirely different question anyway.

  7. Richard they obviously were not up for that but the question was a different one to the one of the legality of the settlements. It is worth noting though just in passing that in a previous case the owner of the shop refused to appear in court because she would have had to argue for the legality of the business. ( You told me that ). The case therefore collapsed.

    Councillors discriminating against Veolia is a tough one because, as I understand it they can only take into account that the company engages in illegal activity if that illegal activity is occurring in the EU. But none of this impacts on the question of the legality of the settlements around which question there is as near universal consensus as makes no difference.

    • richardmillett

      When did I tell you that? I doubt I did. I have never had a problem with the legality of Ahava’s business or the settlements. They are both legal as I understand it.

      The legality of the settlements was central to the defendants’ case so they should have appealed and if their case was as strong as you suggest they would have won, no? Activists live to discredit Israel and so this was the perfect opportunity and platform.

      • Sharon Klaff

        Actually Richard the chief witness was the assistant and she was not given sufficient notice to attend. She was not in London when the case came up. The owners live in Israel and were never being called as witnesses.

  8. I didn’t say you did tell me that you had a doubt about the legality of Ahavas business. I believe that you were one of the people that reported that the manager didn’t turn up because…. I could be mistaken. If you didn’t you didn’t. Nothing turns on it.

    I assume that was not their purpose. I imagine that they took the view that the legality of the settlements was a given. The question was, was Ahava trading illegally on account of it’s activities in the occupied territories ? The District Judge hesitantly said no. Essentially the Judge was out of his depth on that question. You would have to ask them but it would seem that going through the vastly expensive business of the full extent of the available process to establish that this lil shop was trading unlawfully never occurred to them. It was just a simple piece of direct action not Armagedon.

    I merely challenged your implied assertion that because a district judge found that the shop was trading lawfully somehow this impacted on the universal view of the highly paid international lawyers of every foreign office in the world that the occupation and colonisation of the west bank is illegal.

    If the case in question had gone to appeal I imagine the appeal judges would not have even have considered the question of the legality of the settlements. They would have noted the position of the British Government and the international consensus and considered other questions….

    In the light of this was Ahava trading unlawfully ?

    If so was the action taken justified or was it not ?

    • richardmillett

      The case turned mainly on the question of the legality\illegality of the settlements. And you are confusing political ideology with the law. What governments think is largely irrelevant.

      It’s the law that is everything.
      Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

  9. I did of course mean in the second line of the second paragraph ” illegality “

  10. just a general reminder:

    as best I know in most places all over the world there is “universal consensus” that the death penalty should be made ample use of. In most countries authorities including the independent courts of those countries have decided that they do not want the death penalty. And they prevail easily over “universal consensus”.

    Where are the “international” corresponding court judgments on Israeli “settlements” on the “universal consensus” on “settlements”?

    Recently public opinion called for the lynching of a young man wrongfully accused of murder. Fortunately there were authorities and they prevailed.

    Until there is such a court judgment on “settlements” reference to “universal consensus” (what has the universe to do with it?) is empty pompous self-aggrandizing chatter.

  11. It did not Richard it turned on whether the shop was trading lawfully. Show me where the Judge declared the settlements legal.

    No British domestic court is ever going to declare the settlements legal Richard.

    The legality of the settlements is an international law issue. And the overwhelming near universal consensus among the legal minds employed at vast expense by all the foreign offices in the world is that they are illegal.

    The question is whether in the light of this Ahava were trading lawfully in this country. Whether they were I do not know. But that was the question and it was the hesitant opinion of a district judge that they were.

    • And the overwhelming near universal consensus among the legal minds employed at vast expense by all the foreign offices in the world is that they are illegal.

      Then those people are ignorant idiots. End of. They have failed to find any relevant law.

  12. But District Judge Ian Baker said at Highbury Magistrates’ Court that although he had “considerable hesitancy” in calling Ahava’s business legal, it had never been proved to be illegal in the UK.
    He said: “Until such time as Ahava UK Ltd is prosecuted and defence arguments herein properly tested, I can do no more that accept it is trading lawfully.”

    • richardmillett

      So why hasn’t Ahava UK ever been prosecuted? Is it because there’s no case maybe?

      • It certainly seems to be the opinion of the met police and Camden ( ? ) trading standards that there is no case, or not a good enough case or they find it so tricky they don’t want to touch it. I have no idea whether Ahava were or were not trading lawfully. But the views of various agencies in north London on whether Ahava were trading lawfully impacts not at all on the question of the legality of the settlements.

  13. for Machover to cite such a resolution proves the weakness of his case

    What case? THERE IS NO CASE. The settlements are NOT ‘illegal’ (and the idiot Rich, like the idiot Machover and the idiot Mansfield, have – of course – failed to cite any relevant law, after trying for decades).

  14. Let me put it another way. Suppose this had happened in Lima. Some activists occupy a Ahava shop and they are prosecuted for aggravated trespass. They plead that aggravated trespass requires there to be a disruption of a lawful business and this business was unlawful. This goes all the way to the Peruvian Supreme Court who agree with the original magistrate that they are not guilty since the settlements are illegal and therefore the Ahava business in Lima was an illegal business activity.

    You would then accept that the settlements were illegal yes ?

    Of course you wouldn’t. While the legality of a Lima business is within the jurisdiction of the Peruvian courts the question of the legality of the settlements is not. They have NO JURISDICTION. This is a question of INTERNATIONAL law. And as I have said the almost universal…..

    • richardmillett

      My view may not be gospel worldwide but the Ahava case is a big problem for councillors in the UK when taking Machover’s advice. Good luck to them but they could land themselves with a huge bill.

    • All this absurd wailing about ‘international law’ … a beast which if not entirely mythical (the latter is a perfectly good thesis, however) is a complete joke.

  15. danielmarks

    As I return home from Bet Shean on this sunny lazy Friday afternoon I find myself in almost absolute agreement with “Leah”. Just as we are all innocent until proven guilty, an action is legal until a law showing In order to be otherwise is found. Neither is the fact that many people who are not in positions of authority regarding the matter think otherwise is of any importance.

    Therefore, anyone wishing to claim that the building of settlements in Judea and Samaria is in contravention of international law must begin by pointing to the law in question.

    The only law that I am familiar with appertaining to this matter would be article 49 of the second Geneva Convention (1949)

    “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

    While Israel is not an “occupying power” in the classic sense of the word, because the areas in question were not recognized as being or belonging to an existing state prior to 1967, Israel has accepted the responsibilities of an occupying power for all intents and purposes.

    Before analyzing the clause in question it is interesting to note its title:

    Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
    in Time of War.

    In other words the purpose of the law was to protect the civilian population of the occupying power. The legislation was to prevent an occupying power from forcibly moving its own civilian population to areas that it has occupied. This 1949 legislation was passed in order to prevent situations like those that arose (between 1939-45) when Hitler forcibly transferred Jews and other persecuted German civilians to occupied territories, such as Poland, etc.

    In other words anyone claiming that settlements are illegal according to article 49 of the Geneva Convention must prove that Israelis (settlers) are being transferred against their will to these areas. Furthermore, he must explain why the settlers themselves are not making the complaint themselves.

    I am one of those settlers. I maintain that I was not forced to live here against my will or in any way coerced into doing so and I am quite free to leave or return as I see fit. If the purpose of the relevant clause was to protect me, it is absurd to claim that I am in contravention of it.

    So that is the challenge. Anyone who claims that “settlements are illegal” should either show how this law applies to me, or find another one of which I am in contravention.

    As we all know the fact that “everyone says so”, assuming that to be the case holds no weight in law. Even if everyone says a man is guilty, he is still innocent until proved otherwise, just as the world was always round, even when everybody thought if flat.

    • I agree with all this, except for the usual pathetic and desperate recourse to scare quotes around my name.

  16. Not so. DEPORT covers forcible transfer, OTHERWISE TRANSFER is meantto cover transfer for the purpose of colonising the occupied territory. The settlements are an Israeli government enterprise. If it only meant forcible transfer why the word ” or ” ? Would you like an apple or an apple ? Also it says protection of civilians. Not just the protection of the civilians of the occupying power.

    In any event the wording is clear.

  17. And that of course is the most amazing of the Israeli arguments. Mind boggling.

    ” It doesn’t apply to us ”

    The perfect argument in fact because it is unanswerable. I won’t bother trying.

  18. danielmarks

    Once again. The law is there to protect Israeli citizens (in this case) and save them from being deported (1. To expel from a country. ) or transferred (Move from one place to another.)

    If you live in Bridlington the UK government might transfer you to Manchester or expel you from the UK. Assuming English to be your native language you ought to understand the difference.

    The Geneva convention cleverly preempted any power doing so. Had they just written deported, a power could claim that since they invaded the area and annexed it, they were not deporting but only transferring. Had they written only transferring the power could argue that while transferring is illegal, they have the right to deport out of their country to another (occupied, but not annexed) area.

    “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

    It’s not rocket science. The only possible victims of deportations or transfers are their object, the settlers. We make no claim to having been transferred or deported.

    If you still feel that we’re breaking international law, why not call an international policeman?

  19. Don’t be silly the existing population of the territory can very easily be victims of the transfer forced or otherwise. The German example is a good one. They forceably transferred ( deported ) ” undesirables ” east. If they had won the war they would have begun to colonise ( otherwise transfer ) Germans into the Sudetanland and elsewhere to the detriment of the existing population. The fourth convention covers both, otherwise there would be no need for ” or ” . Once again only Israel reads the convention otherwise.

    “If you still feel that we’re breaking international law, why not call an international policeman?”

    Such silliness could only be born out of desperation.

  20. “If they had won the war they would have begun to colonise ( otherwise transfer ) Germans into the Sudetanland and elsewhere to the detriment of the existing population.”

    And if my grandma had 4 wheels and were painted red, she’d be a London omnibus. And your point is?

    Israel did not transfer anyone. Perhaps we need to buy you a dictionary.

    “Once again only Israel reads the convention otherwise.” – i.e. correctly. There has been no ‘transfer’ and no ‘deportation’.

    Richard doesn’t like me calling a spade ‘a gardening implement’, so I’ll say this: you really are quite remarkably intelligent and literate, aren’t you?

  21. ??? Yael Kahn is real? I thought she was a sockpuppet which roamed fansites for various bands about to play in Israel declaring herself to be more of a fan of said band than anyone else.


  22. One for the boys so apologies to Silke , Sharon , Leah etc .
    Why do all the female anti zionists ( ok not necessarily the Palestinian females )look like Yael Kahn and never Like Bar Raphael . It’s something thats perplexed me for some time .
    Of course I’m grateful for that fact . It would be far more difficult to get irate with a Bar Raphael look alike than one who looks like she s fallen into a tumble dryer when it’s on .
    Daniel always has the answer to these conundrums . Unfortunately he will probably miss it being Shabbat .

    • Harvey,
      if you don’t go for looks and/or styling but for love-life, is Bar Raphael still tops? (of course I certainly hope so, though I am not enthusiastic about the current fashion of over-thin, depilated into almost baby-likeness both gals and guys go for. It strikes me as over-groomed aka bad taste.)

      I think neither Rosa Luxemburg nor Golda Meir would meet the Bar Raphael standard (though young Golda certainly seems to have had a lot of oh-la-la) but both are reported to have had it interesting in the action area.

      Our own Merkel has a rarely paraded husband of whom (given the right age bracket) we would have said in the 70s that he isn’t one to be chased away when trying to sit on the bed’s edge (nicht zum von der Bettkante scheuchen).

      • “I am not enthusiastic about the current fashion of over-thin, depilated into almost baby-likeness”

        Ditto. Highly unsexed and unsexy.

      • Silke, I often wonder about Herr Merkel. When all the other heads of government are meeting, does he have to go into an ante-room with their wives and talk about Tupperware?


    • Harvey, although I’m as straight as a die, I’ve noticed a similar lack of physical loveliness from the men. It’s summat which often happens… physically uninspiring or even plain unattractive people and the socially/professionally unaccomplished gravitate towards extreme expressions of political views, as if to find validation where their peers have rejected them.

      Blue-sky and cutting-edge thinking is dominated by beautiful people.


    • danielmarks

      Because, my dear Harvey, the truth is that most women look more like Yael Kahn than Bar Raphael. Take for example nurses. In most movies and TV shows they’re beautiful and sexy, now go and look for them at your local hospital. If the truth be told, not all us men are as handsome as male models or actors either.

      However, I have seen no proof that anti-Zionist females are any less physically appealing than their Zionist counterparts and I have seen some not unattractive examples on the clips that Richard has so lovingly uploaded to this excellent blog.

      • once upon a time TV-stars would still go for a swim in the public pool, shop in the local book store. They were really hard to spot, usually only after one had tried in vain a couple of times to relate that vaguely familiar face to an acquaintance – in real life they looked just like everybody else

        – some people have the good luck that cameras do wonders to their looks.

  23. I guess we can’t use the R word

  24. Tzipi Livni is hot

  25. Alec
    I’ve been married 30 years . Im working with Israelis most of the time and know the guys you are describing . It’s almost enough to drive a straight guy gay – ok emphasis on the almost .
    In the meantime , I’m trying real hard to match make for my lovely daughter but apparently that makes me creepy or so eeeeeew as is the vernacular these days .

  26. Hi Chas
    So was Golde Meir – in her youth .

    • … but how come then that it is said that she kept up the having a lover thing long past what probably qualifies as youth?

  27. “Daniel Marks has a small back garden of which he takes particular pride, especially in his astro-turf and his passion-fruit climber. He does not have a pool.”

    And he employs a Palestinian gardener ?

  28. danielmarks

    I do employ a Palestinian gardener who proudly uses a photograph of my small but tasteful back garden to advertise his nursery and gardening company in the Maale Adumim newspapers. This appeared on Thursday:

    Yes, when one leaves the tiring world of worn out cliches of the poor downtrodden Palestinian masses and the evil Zionist imperialistic settlers and checks out what is actually happening on the ground, a far more complicated, but also infinitely more interesting reality emerges.

    I am aware that most anti-Zionist propagandists have too much time and energy invested in their hatred to be confused by facts or truth, but I would still urge them all to make one trip to the Middle East and to the areas under discussion, if nothing else, to broaden their horizons.

    I must have met a thousand journalists and experts on the Middle East conflict, some of whom can’t find Israel on a map and hardly any of whom know its size. I’ve looked through their eyes as they see Ma’ale Adumim for the first time, and its residents, both wholly different from the lies they had always been told.

    I have few illusions. The overwhelming majority of them will not become lovers of Israel or the settlers’ movement, but at least they’ll have some kind of more accurate picture of what they’re supposed to be hating.

    The loquarts are on the trees in the front garden, but their season is surprisingly short as not only I, but the birds of the sky too have noticed that they are orange and ripe and sweet – thanks to the excellent Israeli irrigation system that my Palestinian gardener has installed for me. Yes, what is actually happening on the ground and on the trees and in the sky is indeed far more complicated, but also infinitely more interesting.

    A good week to an excellent blog,

  29. Rubin Katz

    The old-fashioned guy that I am, I was brought up to be polite and considerate to the opposite sex. But since you fired the first shot – yes, you have a point there – it can’t be mere coincidence. It’s strange how the spokespersons of Israeli anti-Zionist NGO’s like B’tzelem, resemble BBC’s Orla Guerin; ugly, both in and out. That’s in spite of the fact that Israeli girls are renowned for their beauty. I wonder if these unhappy souls are in need of a cause to vent their (sexual) frustrations on? Is there anyone here with psychoanalytical experience, who can shed light on this phenomenon?

    As far as Bar Israeli goes, having turned the IDF down, so as far as I’m concerned, she’s out. I prefer girls in uniform! But I might forgive her, depending on how the temptress gives Matbukh the kiss of death in the forthcoming film.

    Merkel does have a congenial look about her – not sexy perhaps, but with an inner beauty, resembling a cuddly, rotund pflaumen dumpling! And as long as she keeps those submarines coming, she will remain near the top of my list….

    • Merkel has a nice smile and her hair-style has vastly improved, I think it was Hilary Clinton’s advice years ago before the campaign started that made her relent and finally go to a first class hair dresser and learn the use of eye-shadow.

      As to the submarines – I think she is mighty glad, that Israelis are asking for them, because under EU-conditions she isn’t allowed to subsidize the ailing ship-builders on our coasts. But giving the submarines to Israel at reduced prices is permitted.

      Nobody is making that argument, everybody treats it as if we were doing Israel a favour but my personal bet is that we are mighty glad for that solution to an otherwise economically hopeless situation.

      Of course I may be wrong, but if I were chancellor I’d pray for Israelis to ask for more, thus helping to keep the industries and their know-how alive.

  30. Sharon Klaff

    Pleasd to know why I am on the right side!! As for Merkel and Clinton in pant suits or otherwise, two less stylish women have yet to be found. Clinton of course is totally immersed on the wrong side and given different circumstances she would have been on that platform with Machover and the harpees. I’ll give Merkel a by as she is delivering the subs albeit for her own reasons.

  31. How interesting Daniel. Tell me this gardener. You don’t want a state of Palestine. You don’t propose to ship your gardener across the river( you say ). You don’t propose that he be a citizen. What is to be his status ?

  32. I understand that Harvey is a bit of a looker.

  33. danielmarks

    A case study in ignorance

    Here is a typical ridiculous bit of codswallop thrown out unchallenged as a comment on this blog:

    “Since Israel is the single most dependent country in the world all this we don’t give a fuck posturing is mere hollow hyberbole. Israel, as America’s spoilt, child is so far still being indulged.”

    Is Israel truly “the single most dependent country in the world”?
    Militarily, Israel has never asked for the assistance of a single foreign troop to fight its wars since 1948. That is a fact.

    Both in the first Gulf War and more recently in regards to Iran Israel was prepared and ready to go it alone, but for the pleas of US administrations to let them try and solve the problem first. Not only has Israel not required US military help to defend itself against aggression, but in at least one case the US was dependent on Israel to prevent a Syrian invasion of Jordan after Hussein requested Israeli help.


    So assuming that Israel is not “the single most dependent country in the world” from a military point of view, what is left? Money.

    Leaving clichés aside, let’s examine the figures as presented by Wikipedia. US aid accounts for 1.3% of Israelis GDP. Where does that put us?
    Well, the “the single most dependent country in the world” today is Afghanistan where US aid accounts for 72% of the GDP. Neither is Israel number two- that would be Haiti where US aid accounts for 21% of its GDP.

    If the truth be told Israel’s dependency on the US shrinks day by day and today accounts for what Israeli by itself produces in only five days out of the year. Israel is in fact near the bottom of aid receivers in terms of US dependency.

    “Israel is the single most dependent country in the world..” is just another one of those lies meant to hearten out haters who can’t bear to see the modern, vibrant flourishing democracy that they have spent so much time and effort trying, in vain, to harm.

    The People of Israel live. We’re here, we’re going nowhere and we’re loving every moment.

    Cry me a river!

  34. Beautiful Daniel. I have to admit you are a pretty decent poet.

    Daniel how many other countries are there in the world that is ENTIRELY dependent on another country for it’s very existence ? Without US economic, political and diplomatic support how long would it last ? One minute ? Two minutes ? Five minutes ? Isn’t that a very precarious existence ? Don’t you think that it would be wise to have a few more genuine friends ?

    And was that meant to be an answer to the above question ? Or is that question being ignored ? Or are you prepared to answer it if it were asked by someone you weren’t ignoring ?

    • richardmillett

      America has come to the aid of many countries in the world, so without America as an ally many other countries would be under grave threat.

      • Not quite the same thing Richard. Daniel knows

      • richardmillett

        Look at the world around you. Arabs are dying in their tens of thousands in the so-called Arab Spring while Islamists slowly position themselves to take control in each country. If Israel ever withdrew from the West Bank the first thing that would happen would be an Islamist coup. The next thing would be a huge rocket onslaught on all Israeli towns and cities. You just cannot deny thet when looking at the evidence. Why should Israel destroy itself?

    • Don’t you think that it would be wise to have a few more genuine friends ?

      Yes, it would be great if there were fewer antisemites in the world. And your point?
      Well, I suppose you don’t have one. Why break the habit of a lifetime?

  35. danielmarks

    As I have explained without US assistance, every Israeli family would have to make do with the equivalent of less than a weeks salary less each year. I guess that might well be that some Israeli families would have to make do with one less trip abroad each year or change their cars six months later than they usually do. Sorry, but that’s the extent of our economic dependency.

    Militarily, it might be more relevant to ask how the US military would survive without the technologies and know-how that the acquire from us. Anyway, the questions are hypothetical. Today in May 2012 US military support for Israel is a vital US interest recognized both by her leadership and the overwhelming majority of US citizens. They support Israel in every way not because of the color of our eyes, but because it is best for them.

    On the day that ceases to be the case I would be the first to expect them to stop doing so. Just as our foreign policy should first and foremost serve Israeli needs and interests, theirs should serve their interests.

    Regarding genuine friends, genuine friends do not intentionally try to cause hurt or discomfort to those that they care about. Your every word is consumed with hatred of Israel and the Jewish People. I hope that you are not Jewish, but if you are with your obscene use of anti-Semitic and Nazi imagery you are a disgrace to the parents who conceived you as well as many generations before them. If you are a non-Jew, as your ignorance of all matters regarding Israel and the Jewish People suggest, then I am only slightly less sickened at the realization that I breathe the same air as a creature such as yourself.

    No, thank you. Your flattery means nothing to me and I neither want nor need friends like you.

    • I hope that you are not Jewish, but if you are with your obscene use of anti-Semitic and Nazi imagery you are a disgrace to the parents who conceived you as well as many generations before them. If you are a non-Jew, as your ignorance of all matters regarding Israel and the Jewish People suggest, then I am only slightly less sickened at the realization that I breathe the same air as a creature such as yourself.

      Well said.

  36. “………and the overwhelming majority of of US citizens They support Israel”

    Daniel the overwhelming majority of US citizens don’t know where Israel is. They get told Israel good, Arabs bad.

    You yourself declare that Israel’s two most natural allies are American christian fundamentalist Republicans whose ultimate ” game ” is to get you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and the European far right. Don’t you think this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs ? It was a rhetorical question. No you don’t. You are very comfortable with it. It is consistent with all your instincts and temperament, which you prefer to indulge even at the expense of the true best interests of Israel. It is YOU and your kind that represent the real threat to Israel’s security and long term future.

    If you want to repent and do something for the country you would work for the end of the brutal, illegal occupation. Guess what would then happen. 95 % of what you call Israel haters would be taken care of. Because 95 % of what you call” Israel haters ” actually have a position close to this……

    Israel exists, and just like other states it exists as a matter of fact not a matter of right. Israel is a state and has internationally recognised borders. If it stayed within those borders, like other states are expected to do, problem solved. Let’s go down to White Hart Lane and wach a bunch of grown men kick a pigs bladder around. And maybe we might go to Israel for a holiday.

    Daniel have you ever thought about moving to Israel?

    • richardmillett

      If only you were right. If the settlements ever went then the discussion would focus on the so-called refugees. Let’s face it…whay are they classed as refugees by the UN when 95% of them are NOT refugees in any real sense of the word? And the refugee issue is one of the 3 main planks of the BDS movement.

    • the brutal, illegal occupation

      Is that the 765th time he has made this dumb claim?

      It’s still dumb and ignorant. But why break the habit of a lifetime?

  37. danielmarks

    I see nothing in the above comment worth replying to. You know nothing about anything and the only mildly amusing parts are the idiotic statistics you keep producing, like a dull 10-year-old trying to sound clever.

    Read a bit, write something of substance and I might reply.

  38. danielmarks

    Hi Norman,

    Truthfully, I had no idea that there were any priests called Norman from MA, but now I know I’m going to have to stick my neck out and guess that you pray at the MA (a different MA) synagogue and support Arsenal. I pray at NA and occasionally OR and detest football with a passion. We do most of our shopping at RL, though occasionally MZ and SS. Why are we talking in initials?

    How wonderful to have a fellow settler here in cyberspace. We should really get together some time and discuss RM’s excellent blog.

  39. Norman Cohen

    Yes I support Arsenal and I pray at MA or MD or PS down the hill. I shop at what was Mr Expensive and have been seen in one of Mr Levi’s emporiums on occasion – I agree with you maybe a coffee in the Mall one fine morning?

  40. Norman Cohen

    Should that be emporia?

  41. Daniel I propose to put you out of your misery. Since being a Jew is a matrilineal issue I am not a Jew. However since it might have been a patrilineal issue I might have been a Jew.; So it’s your lucky day. You can vomit at the thought of breathing the same air as me be I a Gentile or a Jew.

  42. Sharon Klaff

    My goodness, when are you all going to stop paying attention to that imposter?! He is crass, has no intellect, no knowledge and is infuriatingly insistent on making comments on a blog that doesn’t want him. If you ignore a pest long enough it goes somewhere else to find attention!

    • danielmarks


      He may well be crass, he certainly has no intellect, he’d be the first to acknowledge that he has no knowledge, and you are undeniably right that he is infuriatingly insistent on making comments on a blog that doesn’t want him. However, anyone who is able to get kicked off a JC blog must be quite unique.

      I haven’t read the JC for years. As a child in the 70s, though I always considered it an atrocious rag I did send in a letter or two, which were duly published. I was probably defending Menachem Begin or something of the like. I have been out of touch for many years, but truly, I had no idea that there was any tripe that was so bad that the “Organ of Anglo Jewry” would not publish.

      Credit where credit’s due!

  43. Sharon should you not be re expressing your thanks to the EDL ?

  44. Rubin Katz

    Those consistently engaging with this arrogant bore, are simply going round in circles, exchanging insults. You are giving him the opportunity to hog the column with his boring drivel, repeated again and again. It does nothing for this fine blog. Constructive criticism by someone knowledgeable, is something else, not with a persistent simpleton like that. This guy obviously has some Jew-related chip on his shoulder which I’m not qualified to analyse. His sole intention here is to spoil, reminiscent of a ‘party-pooper!’.

    As far as I’m concerned, it’s time I gave it a rest, and for my daily dose of aggro, I think I shall pop out for a copy of the Guardian; it may also be full of lies but at least it’s well-written!

    • This guy obviously has some Jew-related chip on his shoulder which I’m not qualified to analyse.

      Oh, I am sure you are well qualified to analyse where his Jew-issues come from. We all are. The only thing we don’t know for sure is the precise occasion when his envy first reared its head: did a handsomer Jewish boy marry the girl he fancied? Did a cleverer Jewish man snap up the job he wanted?

  45. danielmarks

    Yes, Rubin. Now I agree totally.

    I appear to have unwittingly opened a can of worms that I am quite unqualified to deal with.

    I am not a psychologist and have no understanding of the psyche of this sad product of a mixed marriage who seems to wish to wreak revenge on his father and all other Jewish people for not being prepared to accept him as one of them.

    Though instances of anti-Zionists who know nothing about the subject are hardly rare, it is less usual for them to call themselves “Real Zionists” and express their hatred towards random members of their family in a quite bizarre and unsolicited fashion.

    I recall that many years ago I returned on leave from the army to the university campus where I lived and was introduced to a gentleman (the brother of an acquaintance) who asked as to my opinion regarding Reform “converts” to Judaism. As an Orthodox Jew I replied that in my eyes such people might be wonderful human beings, but were not Jewish.

    He then turned to the lady who had been sitting next to him and told me that she had undergone such a conversion and was his fiancé. “Are you going to tell her that our children won’t be Jewish?” He asked.

    I replied that I felt that I had been set up and did not feel particularly comfortable saying so, but I couldn’t change Jewish law to avoid embarrassment. Indeed their children would not be Jewish.

    I continued that the problem was indeed not theirs, but their future offspring’s. What would happen if one of their children wished to marry a Jew who observes traditional Jewish law? How tragic for him to suddenly discover that he was not what he had always thought. There are many other situations when the matter suddenly coming to light can wreck a person’s life too. I told them that not having a universally recognized conversion could only cause problems, but the thought that a mixed marriage might create such a sad case of a truly self-hating human being, in every sense of the word, never even crossed my mind.

    It never occurred to me that this might be the deeper meaning of:

    “The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”

    My only advice for this ill-fated individual would be to seek long-term professional help, preferably along the lines of payment in return for tangible quantifiable progress. I suspect that on examining that can of worms, a skilled physician might discover that the “settlements” and “occupation” are the least of his problems.

    • the thought that a mixed marriage might create such a sad case of a truly self-hating human being, in every sense of the word, never even crossed my mind.

      You are truly one very sick person. Linking together your Medieval religious prejudices with one specific self-hating poster, who could be self-hating for any number of reasons, is a pathological idea, and is the clearest indication yet that your kind should be pitied by all enlightened people.

  46. Beautiful Daniel. Like I said you are a half decent poet. If only we could say the same for Sharon. But poetry is just …..well…….erm…..poetry. As for the attempted slurs on my family…..yyyyaaaawwwnnn. If only you, your family and extended family were a miniscule percentage as well adjusted as mine.

    All this because I suggested that Israel stay within it’s internationally recognised frontiers. This makes me a self hating, Jew hating monster, in need of psychiatric help. One wonders who the man on the Clapham omnibus might think is most in need of psychiatric help.

    Isn’t this what is expected of all other states and isn’t this what the civilised ones do ? Isn’t this a sign that the world has grown up a little ? Did Israel get left behind in this evolution of sensibilities ? Are you saying Israelis are evolutionary laggards ? Maybe that they will catch up when everything is just the way they want it ?

    As for…….. ask me something substantive and I will answer you …

    You have said you won’t have a state of Palestine. You have said you don’t plan to transport the Arab residents of the west bank east of the river. You have said they won’t be citizens of the from the river to the sea Israel. That only leaves the status of resident aliens does it not ? That only leaves the f status of resident aliens does it not ? So the de facto one state between the river and the sea will be formalised as an apartheid state ? Am I missing something ? Is there a possibility that I haven’t thought of ?

    Is this what you always do when presented with a question you don’t want to answer ? Mudsling at the questioner ?

    Jonny boy tell Daniel I haven’t been banned from the JC . I hate to see this gaping hole in his otherwise all pervasive knowledge.

    Daniel have you ever thought of moving to Israel ?

    • “All this because I suggested that Israel stay within it’s internationally recognised frontiers.”

      There is no such thing as “it’s internationally recognised frontiers” or even “its internationally recognised frontiers”, you utterly ignorant clown.

      “This makes me a self hating, Jew hating monster, in need of psychiatric help. One wonders who the man on the Clapham omnibus might think is most in need of psychiatric help. ”

      You, without a doubt. Your obsession with demonising Israel on the basis of antisemitic lies and double standards is deeply pathological.

  47. Richard…….” the refugee issue is one of the three main planks of the BDS movemen t” So ? It is not BDS Israel has to get a settlement with, It is the Palestinians. The settlement will be supported by the whole world. The refugee problem would be discussed in an entirely different atmosphere. It will not be just Israel’s problem. How many is it reasonable to allow back ? How many could be accommodated? Maybe there could be compensation for others ? Maybe the countries of the world might make a contribution to facilitate this ? BORDERS are the only real issue.

    There will always be those that won’t accept a State of Israel. Those that won’t accept a single Jew in the middle east, even those that won’t accept a single Jew in the world. How many do they number ?

    “…….there would be an Islamist coup…..hundreds of rockets….why should Israel destroy itself ”

    This is no argument at all Richard. If this terrorism was instigated and supported by the neighbouring sovereign state Israel would be able to deal with that. If it was by terrorists basing themselves there it would have to be dealt with as best it could be. France might think it’s north east border was indefensible, this would not justify an occupation of the Ardennes. Israel would have to deal with it the way modern civilised states deal with these things.

    As stated by Gen. Mike Cooper, the Provisional Irish Republican Army was the most formidable terrorist organisation the world has ever seen.. Most of this terrorism was organised from Dublin and much of it launched from the Republic side of the border. In one day PIRA with a bomb detonated from the Republic, took more British lives than the Israeli lives that have been taken by rockets launched from Lebanon and Gaza in how many years/decades ? And threw in the Queens cousin as a bonus.

    There was no suggestion of occupying north Leinster or east Connaught. There was no bombing of Dublin. It just had to be dealt with as best it could be and lived with in the meantime.

    And despite the formidable organisation and operational capacity of PIRA they were NEVER any kind of existential threat to the state.A threat to the lives and limbs of its citizens, yes. To the existence of the state, no.

    Israel’s borders are its borders. NOTHING, in the modern more grown up world justifies a state extending itself by force beyond those borders.

    Fourth Geneva Convention….” the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war…”

    • The ignorant comparison with the IRA (which, incidentally, was not even remotely the ‘most formidable terrorist organisation the world has ever seen’, a claim that just underlines your profound ignorance) is desperate and laughable. The IRA never sought to annihilate the UK.
      Now go and play with your marbles, your absurd little boy.

    • richardmillett

      “The settlement will be supported by the whole world.” So what? The opposition in Syria is supported by the world. How many of them are dead now? 11,000?

      • Richard you are comparing the opposition in Syria to an armed to the teeth nuclear power under the unquestioning protection of the world’s only super power, and which would have the moral backing of the rest of the civilised world ?

      • richardmillett
      • richardmillett

        You’re having a laugh if you think Israel would have the moral backing of the rest of the civilised world and even if it did such moral backing is worthless. Such moral backing is meaningless to the 11,000 dead Syrians.

      • Richard are you comparing the Syrian opposition to an armed to the the teeth nuclear power nation state underwritten by the world’s only super power ?

      • richardmillett

        Do you really think Israel, if it has it, could\would drop the bomb on the West Bank?

      • ‘an armed to the the teeth nuclear power nation state underwritten by the world’s only super power’

        I never understand why that is so often cast in Israel’s teeth: the difference is that even without nuclear arms, no one ever has threatened nor likely ever will threaten Syria’s right to existence, never mind its very existence. If Israel were not strong, Israel wouldn’t exist. Nor would exist for much longer.

        ‘So sorry we exist chaps, so sorry we have a few friends who are powerful enough to protect us against the many enemies who had rather we didn’t exist. So sorry, please excuse us’..


      • Conchover do try to be a little less melodramatic. This was said in the context of Richard saying the moral backing of the world was worthless look at what it did for the Syrian opposition. I merely pointed out that there was a difference between the helpless Syrian opposition and The State of Israel.

  48. Michael Goldman

    “There will always be those that won’t accept a State of Israel. Those that won’t accept a single Jew in the middle east, even those that won’t accept a single Jew in the world. How many do they number ?”

    They number a few hundred million in the Middle East.
    The elected representative of the “Palestinians” (The Hamas) for a start.
    Add to that almost every State in the area.
    Just look at the Anti Israel demonstrations in the couple that have diplomatic relations with us Jordan and Egypt.
    All this hatered of Jews has nothing to do with any territory we have captured.
    It has been there since 1948 (and before)
    The Arabs simply don’t want us here and given half a chance will happily do to us what they happily do to each other and much worse.
    Just look at what they do to each other in Syria or Kordistan.
    Can you imagine what they would like to do to us?
    Our neighbours don’t want us around!
    It’s not what I say.It’s what they say!
    You’re right rich the situation is by no means ideal but it’s the only way we’re going to survive for the time being.

  49. Sharon Klaff

    Ever since the break up of the Ottoman Empire in which the Jews lived as Dhimmies under Islamic rule, the local Muslims had been attacking the indigenous Jews dating back thousands of years, trying to take control of the region for Islam. One that instantly comes to mind is 1929 when the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem and sent to the north of the country hence forming communities like the Tishbi winery. So this Jew hatred has nothing to do with a newly named propaganda tool called the Palestinian people, (until 1964 known of as Arabs) and everything to do with the lesson taught via Islamic ideology that there is only one people who should rule the world. Unless fools like that impostor here understands this then he too is a Dhimmie living in the UK under borrowed time until Sharia takes root. Then he will have no freedom to annoy us on this blog as it too will be shut down forcibly!

  50. They number a few hundred million in the Middle East.

    Michael and the illegal colonising of the west bank is calculated to reduce this number by how many ?

    And the role it plays in this ” surviving in the meantime” ?

    • “the illegal colonising of the west bank”

      You can’t ‘colonise’ your own country, you silly boy.

  51. Thanks for standing up to these racist middle class white “liberals”

  52. Michael Goldman

    When you live in a country which is surrounded by a few hundred million sworn enemies the width of which (the country) I can drive in about half an hour.It seems a little dangerous to give these sworn enemies any additional military advantage they will certainly have if we cut the width to about a third ( 10 minutes driving).
    I’m sorry but I’m just not clever enough to get into the legal aspect.
    I do however feel no obligation to give away land ,to my sworn enemies,when this land was captured when they tried to destroy me especially when they make no bones about the fact that they will use any advantage they have in order to try again.

  53. Thats clear enough Michael. Maybe you might attempt to answer the question I asked Daniel and which he is determined not to answer ?

  54. Michael Goldman

    Tell you what rich.
    First explain to me how you think the situation over here can be made better,then ask me a question and I’ll answer you.

  55. What are your question Rich?

  56. Rich,

    I looked. Was the question why they did kicked you off from your ‘JC blog’?

  57. Daniel,

    Why are you not answerring the question?
    Why they did kicked Rich off from his ‘JC blog’?

  58. Gamil, Daniel doesn’t do answering uncomfortable questions.

  59. Gamil

    if Daniel should feel like it, he’ll answer the question – nobody has an obligation to answer questions asked by somebody who wouldn’t heed the answers.

    Judge from you own experience. Hasn’t Daniel been always courteous and attentive whenever you asked him something. Come to think of it, have you ever asked him something?

  60. danielmarks

    Hi Gamil,

    I’m sorry, but I honestly have no answer to your question. I have no idea why he was kicked off the JC blog, truthfully I hardly even knew that it existed until very recently.

    Though he probably has similar views to yours, he’s hardly the most talented of writers and in terms of content it all seems to me to be a load of repetitive codswallop based on worn out cliches and absurd facts and figures that he dreams up and have no basis in reality.

    That having been said, that may not be the reason at all. Moreover, I don’t understand why I’m expected to know about the editorial policy of the Jewish Chronicle. Maybe Richard or Mike can shed light on the matter.

    • richardmillett

      We all used to be able to blog on the JC website http://www.thejc.com. Then they limited it to a view invited bloggers only. We can all still comment there though. Mike’s one of the invited boggers as is Jonathan.

    • Daniel have you ever thought about moving to Israel ? I know you would have to give up your heavily subsidised dependent lifestyle but you would have the immense satisfaction of being a proper Israeli.

    • You have said you won’t have a state of Palestine. You have said you don’t plan to transport the Arab residents of the west bank east of the river. You have said they won’t be citizens of the from the river to the sea Israel. That only leaves the status of resident aliens does it not ? That only leaves the status of resident aliens does it not ? So the de facto one state between the river and the sea will be formalised as an apartheid state ? Am I missing something ? Is there a possibility that I haven’t thought of ?

  61. Daniel ?

  62. danielmarks


    What exactly is your question? No loaded questions. No assumptions that are not in evidence. No silly little speeches. Just ask your question simply, clearly and politely.

    If your question was just, ” Am I missing something ? Is there a possibility that I haven’t thought of ?” then the answer is “Yes” on both counts. Does that solve your problem?

    On the other hand, if you have a real unloaded question, born of curiosity and a genuine wish to know what I have to say, go ahead and ask it. I warn you in advance that your opinion is of absolutely no interest to me, so don’t get upset if you try to turn this into another little slugging match and I don’t respond. Ask away if you wish.

  63. What are your plans for the status of the Arab peoples that live in the west bank in the river to the sea Israel that already de facto exists and which I assume you envisage being formalised ?

  64. danielmarks

    Now? Or in a final status agreement?

    • with or without Iran having the bomb

      with or without Assad prevailing who currently seems to “reach out” to Lebanon

      with or without Lybia stabilising and thus stopping to become a market where one apparently can buy weaponry

      with or without the last half-way sane seeming place Marocco going for Islamism

      Shall I go on? or are these enough pre-conditions?

      My one condition that I’d uphold through all this, is that the fact that “they” can’t tolerate Jews living amongst them, is unacceptable to me.

      If that should change …

    • Silke honey what on earth are you prattling on about ?

  65. OK what would a final status agreement you would find acceptable look like ? In broad outline I don’t expect you to cross every t and dot every i .

  66. danielmarks

    Let me begin by explaining why I asked whether you were talking of a final status deal or for the moment. I am quite confident that what I am suggesting would not be acceptable to any “Palestinian” leadership today. That is because my “solution” would not serve the long term strategic goal of the destruction of Israel, and so anyone agreeing to it would be labeled a traitor by his people.

    Therefore, in the sure knowledge that there is no possibility of reaching a final status agreement on the 15th of May 2012, my recommendation is to maintain the imperfect status quo and to seek to manage the “crises” by interfering in each others’ lives as little as possible in the meantime and hoping for better days. The Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria today are enjoying economic and social prosperity and a standard of living vastly better than their brothers in Egypt or Syria.

    Now, returning to my vision of what I would like to happen in the future we must enter a Utopian world where the leaders of the “”Palestinian” People” finally come to the conclusion that the rebirth of the Jewish People in their Land of Israelis is an irreversible fact that they are not only powerless to destroy, but do not wish to, because it is good for them.

    95% of the “Palestinian” People currently live under in areas controlled by the PA. They have autonomy to control their lives, education, culture, their economy, etc. The only right that they do not have is to harm Israel. I do not believe that killing Jews is a basic human right and therefore would continue to deny them it in any future agreement. I did not approve of autonomy before the fact, and believe that it has caused the “Palestinian” People more harm than good, but today I see it as I do a child born of rape or an incestuous relationship. It was born in sin, but nobody would imagine that to destroy it would improve anything.

    Then, we move onto the 5% of the “Palestinian” people who live in areas controlled by Israel. I have no objection to any or all of them applying for Israeli citizenship, and any who do should be dealt with on an individual case by case basis. If a “Palestinian” Arab wishes to throw in his lot with the Jewish People and like our Druze citizens to become a good, loyal and productive citizen, I see no reason why he should not be granted citizenship.

    Such citizenship would be granted gradually and, again, on the assumption that the purpose of its receivers is to be good, loyal and productive citizens of the Jewish Zionist democratic State of Israel. If it were to transpire that their purpose in attaining it was a ruse to cause harm to the State of Israel or to alter her character as a Jewish Zionist democratic state then it would be discontinued

    Finally, let me say that while I agree with all the clichés about democracy being the least bad system of government, etc, and it is important to me that Israel remains a democracy, at least until the coming of the messiah, the survival of the State of Israel and the Jewish People is infinitely more important. I do not see any contradiction between these values today, but if I were to, I would choose the future of the Jewish People over democratic values without a moment’s hesitation.

    I do not consider the adherence to international law to be an essential prerequisite required of all democratic states and we all know that few democracies in times of war do so fully. If Israel can adhere to its principles without any endangering any national interests nobody is happier than me. If adherence to international law means potentially imperiling any Israeli citizens, I choose their safety. When it comes to barmy and far-fetched interpretations of international law, which were clearly custom-made as a pretext for condemning Israel, often by dictatorships who afford no democratic or human rights to their own people, to condemn Israel and embarrass her supporters, I have only contempt.

  67. Amazing. But thank you for sharing.

  68. Michael Goldman

    OK rich
    Your turn.
    Convince me that if we give the Arabs part of our land for them to make a state they won’t use it to harm us.
    Look at their actions towards us since the beginning ofthe state and look at the way they treat each other,look at the way they treat their own citizens and then convince me that if we give them part of our land they will then try to co-exist with us.

  69. danielmarks

    And I have a question for you:

    Three men arrive at a hotel late at night and the manager takes $10 from each of them. “On second thoughts,” He thinks, “Maybe, I took too much money.” He calls the bell-boy and gives him $5. “Here,” he says, “Give this back to those men.”

    The bell-boy has no idea how to divide five by three and so instead he gives each man one dollar back and pockets the other two dollars.

    Now, let’s conclude. The men each paid $9 (they paid ten and got one back). 9X3=27. The boy has two dollars. 27 + 2 = 29. Where did the other dollar go to?

    • LOL – that’s a good one

    • Wow that kept me up all night but I think ive got most of it..

      The hotelier has 25, the boy has 2 and each of the men has 1( 3 )

      Wot does 25 add 2 add 3 make. ? Thats the bit thats stumping me.

  70. There is an excellent article just out by Melanie Phillips in the D. Mail Online “Into the Darkness”. It is of interest to readers of this blog (Richard gets a mention). However, it won’t please those here furthering the spread of genocidal anti-Semitism….

  71. We read that the Israeli Air Force has just acquired a new commander. I have an inspiring documentary video entitled ‘Eagles Over Auschwitz’ of a an Israeli Air Force flight of three F-15’s flyover Auschwitz-Birkenau, in September 2003. This was on the 60th anniversary of the American air force raid over the Buna synthetic plant, next door to the camp. The flyover was dubbed “The Triumph of the Return”, a symbolic gesture to demonstrate that the Allies failed to come to the aid of the helpless Jews, knowing full-well they were doomed to destruction. My parents and brothers were in Auschwitz. The inmates could see the planes above them, and pleaded with God that they bomb their barracks too, like Samson at the temple of Dagon….

    As the flight passed over the camp, doing a victory roll, they took an oath to defend the Jewish State and the Jewish people everywhere, pledging ‘Never Again, to the strains of Hatikva.

    The commander of that flight, was one Amir Eshel, a descendant of Holocaust survivors – this may well be an auspicious sign….

  72. Michael it’s hard to answer a question based on such ludicrous false premises. No one asks Israel to give up parts of its land. Its internationally recognised borders are clear enough. The issue is the continued brutal illegal occupation of land that isn’t yours ( theirs ).

    And I can’t give you the guarantee you ask for. Any more than I can guarantee the British that another incarnation of the IRA won’t use the Republic of Ireland as a base from which to harm them. Or the Spanish that ETA won’t use south west France as a base from which to harm them.

    Going along with Israeli exceptionalism was understandable for a while given the circumstances of its creation and the precarious nature of its existence for a goodly while. Those days are gone. Either Israel is a modern western style democracy or it isn’t. To be accepted as one it has to behave like one. One of the major things expected of a modern democracy is that it does not extend itself by force beyond its internationally recognised frontiers.

    If Israel doesn’t want to behave like a modern democracy fine. If it prefers to behave like a rogue state fine. But you will not be able to reasonably complain when the world throws up its hands in despair and treats it like one.

  73. Michael Goldman

    As I said I’m not going to get into the discussion of who legally owns the land.
    The purpose of my question was only to understand why you think any Arab state were it to be created in the areas under discussion, would not be used to try and destroy us especially considering that the elected representative of the Palestinians makes no bones about it’s wish to do so.
    It would also ineterest me to get your advice on what we should do were they to make their state then attack us from it and lose (again).
    Should we give them another state so they can try again?
    I wasn’t asking you for a guarantee.
    I can’t really see how if G-d forbid we were under Arab invasion, rich’s guarantee would really help us much, but I would like to understand the logic which claims that we should give our self proclaimed enemies a very powerful weapon which they will almost certainly use to harm us.
    Your comparison to the IRA is obviously irrational as the IRA never claimed that all of Britain was theirs and that they were going to take over London as the Hamas proclaims about Jerusalem,Tel Aviv etc etc.
    As for all the stuff about a modern democray I’d much rather be an old fashioned democracy which exists than a modern one that doesn’t.

  74. I understand that Michael. I guess we could never agree on what the pressing threat to Israel as a Jewish state is. Your position is very pragmatic. Does it deserve to be ? Do you really think a ” no solution ” position is sustainable ? Do you really think there is even the remotest possibility that The State of Palestine would attack Israel.? The possibility that it could become a base for anti Israel terrorism is not far fetched. But that possibility exists anyway. My point about the IRA and ETA is that terrorists based in neighbouring countries is something that democracies have to deal with as best they can and live with in the meantime.

    Do you REALLY think The State of Palestine would attack Israel ?

  75. Michael Goldman

    So many questions.
    A “no solution” for the time being is the only one I see as sustainable.
    Terrorism in your front yard is nothing to be sneezed at and I have no idea why you think democracies have to “live with in the meantime” (terrorists) and moreover to voluntarily give them power is plain stupid.
    I REALLY think that if a “Palestinian” state were to be made on our doorstep it would certainly be used to attack and attempt to destroy us.
    The State of Palestine would have the full millitary backing of Iran Syria and friends.
    Jews are not very popular in the region.
    I really do not wish to have to do what we were forced to do in 1948 1967 1973 all over again only to be told that we have to give them back all the land in order to let them try again.
    I would however like your answer to my question from my last posting

    Were they to make their state then attack us from it and lose (again).
    Would we be obliged to give them back the land so they can try again?

    You write:
    Going along with Israeli exceptionalism was understandable for a while given the circumstances of its creation and the precarious nature of its existence for a goodly while. Those days are gone.

    rich that is probably your biggest misconception.
    They are not gone, not even close.
    The hundreds of millions of Arabs which surround us still pray every day for our demise.
    Just listen to what they preach.
    Sorry but it seems to me that you really have no idea about how much hatered they have for us and it’s nothing to do with a Plaestinian state.
    Our neighbours do not want us here.
    To go back to the indefensible (almost) borders of 1948 or 1967 is (almost) suicide.

  76. Were they to make their state then attack us from it and lose (again).
    Would we be obliged to give them back the land so they can try again?

    I think you probably would have to Michael yes. Being a nation state isn’t all a bed of roses. It can be tough. I am sure the French would have loved to maintain a permanent occupation of the Rhineland.

  77. Michael Goldman

    Thank you for your honest answer.
    According to your logic there could really be no other.
    You manage to take liberalism to it’s absurd conclusion.
    We are obligated to give full rights to those who are determined to deny us ours.
    I wonder if you would feel the same way if it were your childrens lives in danger rather than mine.

  78. Michael you asked an hypothetical question. If I were in your position I would think my children were in an awful lot more danger from a failure to sort this fucking mess out than from the existence of a state of Palestine.

  79. Michael Goldman

    The “Fucking mess” you describe is the result of the Arabs refusal to accept a Jewish state in the region.
    Nothing will be solved by Israel withdrawing to insecure borders.
    We will just have a “Fucking mess” with less security.

  80. Michael life is a risk. I am no big fan of this two state thing. If I were Israeli I would be a bigger fan. From an Israeli perspective I think the two state solution is way, way, way less of a risk than drifting on with the ” no solution solution ” .

    We won’t agree on this. But I have more of an understanding of where you are at. Thanks.

  81. Michael Goldman

    Good Night

  82. danielmarks

    Early night Goldman? Interesting plans? Poor Mrs. Goldman.

    This may sound strange, but he’s beginning to make a lot of sense. I particularly like the idea that our enemies are allowed to attack us, if they win, we cease to exist, but if they lose we give them the land they lost back, so that they can have another chance. If they were to lose anything permanently, that might give us an unfair disadvantage the next time they’d want to have a go.

    It goes without saying that in the case of Judea and Samaria, the land didn’t belong to Jordan (the aggressor) and has never ever belonged to the “Palestinian People” because they were only invented as a national entity in 1964, but otherwise the concept is quite sound.

  83. Daniel it has never belonged to The State of Israel either.However it has been home to certain Arabs for generations. Well longer than it has been home to you. Tell you what let us cut through all the crap and give it to Luxembourg.

  84. danielmarks

    “it has never belonged…”

    Benjamin Disraeli when faced with similar ignorance once said:

    “Yes, I am a Jew and when the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.”

  85. Ignorance Daniel ? Of what ? When did the land ever belong to the State of Israel which after all is only 60 something years old ?

    And if I were you I would be very careful quoting Disraeli.

    ” Yes I am a Jew….ooops correction I used to be a Jew but I converted to Christianity to further my financial and political ambitions. “

    • richardmillett

      The land is, surely, owned by no state which gives those living on it the right to remain there, no?

    • danielmarks

      As usual you are wrong about pretty much everything:

      That was a direct quote and 100% accurate.

      His father-not he – “converted”, but according to Jewish law they both remained Jewish. Yes, baptism does not affect halachah.

      I hardly know you, but I already think I could fill books with the baseless rubbish you’ve said.

  86. True Richard but ordinarily, in the sane world, those born and living on a territory are citizens of some state. So if these people are not able to be citizens of The State of Palestine they should be citizens of The State of Israel. No ?

    • richardmillett

      Why? Most of them live in majority Palestinian autonomous areas. Are the lives they are living so much different from what they would be if those areas had the status of being part of a Palestinian state?

  87. Oh dear Richard you seem to have let the cat out of the bag. You have uttered the words Daniel and Michael were afraid to speak. ” autonomous areas ”

    You mean like apartheid South Africa’s bantustans? Is that the plan ? I knew it was of course I merely have been pitching for someone to say it.

    Anyway I am off to the pub and one thing I can guarantee. As closing time approaches the racist banter chit will start. And guess what ? Jews won’t get a mention.

    Game set and match.

    • richardmillett

      I don’t mean forever like in SA but until there is a Palestinian state.

    • richardmillett

      And anyway I’m only repeating what the PLO agreed to initially during Oslo. You should be patting me on the back!

  88. Oh Richard

    Sorry I took so long to blog. I first had to ensure that my computer didn’t have a intel processor, and that was after I got rid of my blackberry:I am not supporting the facist-apartheid Zionists! Oh, I then had to make sure that my dad has not got any TEVA meds. Also, had to take my oranges back to Tesco and go to the Co-Op instead. Hating Israel is so very tiring……….. I was thinking of booking a holiday to Palestine but I forgot:they don’t like gay men.Israel, apparently, pinkwashes. Um , let me think about that. A country where you can be gay in the armed services, judicary, everywhere yet our frined Sarah Colbourne (yes her who forgets she is a lesbian when uncle Raed Salah is around) isn’t concerned with the entrenched hatred of gay people in Judea and Samaria by her Palestinian friends.

  89. Michael Goldman

    I don’t think they mind lesbians.It’s the gay boys that get them down

  90. You people do realise you are just talking to yourselves don’t you ? Ok so am I but I know it .PBv do you feel better having got that off your chest or are you planning to howl at the moon some more ?

  91. We are being very more tolerant to people with different sexy prefrences. Palestine is a country which in it we have much Agalmatophilia and also Autopederasty (very recommendation for Rich).

    • oh Gamil that is really good news, especially if you have male dolls on offer also. I’d like a green-eyed one with black wavy hair? How much would you charge for it? Could I take it back to Europe for me or is it for rent only? and if so, by the hour or by day? and how much would that be?

      thanks in advance and forget for a moment rich chiming in again, concentrate on business.

  92. danielmarks

    Yes, but we are very tolerant of pyromania:

  93. Gamil it just so happens that autopedarasty is the word of the day on my iphone dictionary app, So I got your number

  94. Edith Parker

    It is a sad reflection on the world in which we live, that the excellence and merit of a society is gauged by the extent that it tolerates sexual promiscuity and deviance.

  95. danielmarks

    I have an Israeli Zionist friend (occasional contrubutor to this blog) who claims to fantasize about standing fully dressed in a giant bowl of fruit salad.

    That ought to be good for our Hasbara efforts.

    • well Daniel when I was very young German newsreel theatres showed us regularly lots of young men tilling the soil clad only from the waist down and filmed in emphasising their beauty style. They somehow seemed to look a lot better than what we saw in real life.

      It certainly helped – the fruit bowl has lots of allure for certain, but some nicely bulging muscles might help making the fruit even more desirable. Would you be willing to compromise on a shirt sleeve shirt showing of becomely hairy arms?

  96. Rubin Katz

    Alas, the muscles are no longer there! How about hairy nostrils, will that do?

    Actually, I much prefer this topic of conversation to some of the infuriating drivel that passes here for erudition.