Yesh Gvul
Courage To Refuse
Free The Five
New Profile
Refuser Solidarity Network

Name: Antony Loewenstein
Home: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Comment Rules
About Me:
See my complete profile

Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions
Sweat-Shop Productions



Previous Posts

Powered by Blogger


Monday, January 23, 2006

Getting tough over "evil"

I recently commented that Jews are sometimes their own worst enemies when attempting to blindly support Israel, spewing vitriol in an attempt to defend the indefensible. We now have another specimen for examination.

Andrew Klavan is a crime novelist. His recent piece in the LA Times is a classic piece of kicking an own-goal style of writing. Titled "Why God chose the Jews", enjoy this sample of Klavan's prose:

"There is one good thing about anti-Semitism: It lets you know who the bad guys are. Right, left, black, white, freak or straight, the minute someone starts rattling on about the evil Jews, you know your train just pulled into Slimeball Station.

"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness. Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself

"Whatever the reason, true, virulent anti-Semitism is such a good indicator of the presence of evil that I'm tempted to believe that when God made the Jews his chosen people, this is what he chose them for: to be a sort of Villainy Early Detection System for everyone else.

"Unfortunately, in his infinite love for his creation, I suspect the Big Guy may have overestimated our intelligence. Maybe he thought that after Hitler we'd just, you know, like, get it. Instead, we still see apparently intelligent people appeasing, making excuses for and even embracing the sorts of stinkers who ought to set off the Big Alarm."

Is that clear? There are evil people everywhere, hiding in Iran and Venezuela and South America, determined to destroy Jews and Israel. Any criticism of Israel is therefore a sign of this evil and must be eradicated (ideally by military force.) Furthermore, Jews are the moral inspiration for the world, "chosen" by God for a special purpose, namely to warn others about, er, evil.

Does the boy who cried wolf sound familiar?


Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Yes, Jews are their own worst enemy, but it is not those Jews who may support israel a little more zealously than neccesary. It is those, who were born Jewish, while espousing a divirce from the religion, feel that that accident of birth gives them carte blanche to be antisemites.

AL is that type. And as such, his actions are indefensible.

Andrew Klavan may where his religion on a sleeve. religiously, he may have a point on why God choose the Jews. AL may disagree, and I'm sure if God regreted his decision, AL would be a good reason why.

AL biggest disagreement comes from having been identified as a slimeball. It has already been disclosed why AL is an antisemite.
We should all be grateful that he has identified himself as a problem in Austrailian society.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:13:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

I'm for free speech as much as anyone, but does anyone else here feel that Ib is purely troll? I mean, there are people here who can be rude and offensive at times, but still manage to add important elements to debates. Ib, on the other hand, seems to only be able to call people names and throw around the word 'anti-semite' like it was going out of fashion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm willing to put up with a certain level of rudeness or discourtesy if something is added to the debate at the same time. I see no contribution coming from Ib and personally I think it's time he was removed from these discussions.

Sorry Ib, just calling it how I see it. It is, of course, Ant's decision to make.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:27:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...


Even by your standards, that has to be one fo the most disjointed and absurd posts you have ever written. Are you being overly generous with after sinnr drinks this evening?

Even by Zionists standards, this Klavan guy is a goofball. That you give any credence to this crap abotu why God chose the Jews is evidence you are a step away from joining this guy in his lunatic fantasy world.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:30:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

The real slimeballs are people like Klavan and Ibra-hamas.

What kind of God would choose such slimeballs as his chosen? God must himself be a slimeball.

In any case, rational people know God doesn't exist. Why would an all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent God allow the Holocaust to happen?

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:31:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Without getting overly theological, an interventionist God negates the concept of free will. God 'allows' everything to happen because if he did not we would be automatons.

That's how me, as a rational person, can believe God exists.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:35:00 pm  
Blogger Savvas Tzionis said...

I know many people who pronounce anti-jewish comments.

Yet these same people, once I introduce them to say a Noam Chomsky, are astounded that Jews exist in the world who state such views.

Of the many things this reveals, surely one is the fact that leftist viewpoints (particularly from jews) are so underrepresented as to be virtually invisble.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:41:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...


"Of the many things this reveals, surely one is the fact that leftist viewpoints (particularly from jews) are so underrepresented as to be virtually invisble."

That's probably becuse they are drowned out my the sheer volume of vitriol and noise of the type we hear from Ibraham in regards to Ant.

It's realyl weird this whole "chosen people" tag, given that the good boko said God pretty much cancelled their Credit Cards after they pissed him off once too many times. Even the Torah says as mcuh I believe.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:47:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Another 'I believe' statement, based on guesses.

Stev - You're not for free speech. So don't even try to justify your bigoted statement.

Monday, January 23, 2006 12:53:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Firstly, thank god you're around to explain to me what I am for and against. I wonder if any of my other 'supposed' beliefs are mistaken. Please Ib, enlighten me as to what I think and feel.

Perhaps I can return the favour by clarifying for you the meaning of 'bigot'

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

I have clearly said that I not only tolerate those who differ, but welcome them. In fact, not only that, I welcome them even if they are rude and discourteous, as long as they contribute to the debate.

So explain to me again how my statement is bigoted?

Monday, January 23, 2006 1:04:00 pm  
Blogger Armagnac Esq. said...

You're going to make heaps of progress reasoning with someone who believes he's racially superior as ordained by god Stev.

The article itself is offensive and ignorant:

"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but"

- Golden "but". But if it's settler bigotry, or bigotry against blacks, or bigotry by azeris against armenians or armenians against azeris, it's not the same, really. They don't count the same way.

"there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness."

The "particular" here is the object group. Once again, it's more evil to be prejudiced against jews. If you were a section leader of the interahamwe having pangs of conscience you could at least rely on this for comfort.

"Perhaps it's because the Jews contributed so much to humanity's moral code that to hate them as a race is to despise the restraints of morality itself"

... the small-minded ethnocentric idiocy of this statement needs no further parsing.

Monday, January 23, 2006 1:41:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Stevy boy, you already stated you were not for free speech, after you stated you were. So I'm just restating what you said. You are only for speech that you, in your bigoted glory, feel contribute to the debate, of the ideas that you, in your bigoted glory, approve of.

And as Antony has already told you the Jews are morally superior, don't come crying to me.

Monday, January 23, 2006 1:54:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Antpny did not say anything to that effect, Andrew Klavan did. So many lies. You're really on a roll aren't you?

You obviosuly believe this to be true don;t you Ibraham?

Monday, January 23, 2006 2:10:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Obviously rational discussion is a lost cause with you Ib, but I just can't help myself.

I thought it worth pointing out that you and I both used the word 'debate'.

For a 'debate' to exist, there needs to be at least two contrasting viewpoints. If I am 'for' debate - which even you have not disagreed with - then I must be for the voicing of beliefs which I personally disagree with. This, as I understand it, is the concept of free speech.

If, as you say, you believe I have stated that I am against free speech, perhaps you can point out to me where I said this exactly. I've re-read my original post three times now and can see no statement that contradicts free speech.

If, as you claim, I was against free speech I would be saying 'Hey Ant, let's get rid of everyone who disagrees with any of our views and just make the comments section a big pat-ourselves-on-the-back party'. I say no such thing. As I have stated on several occasions now I welcome opposing viewpoints and the voicing of same viewpoints.

Now if I welcome the voicing of opposing viewpoints, how can I be against free speech?

It feels a little bit like 'bigot' is the new 'anti-semite'. If you like Ib, I could make a comment directly about Jews so that you don't have to keep track of two separate terms. That way you can stop calling me a bigot and just call me an anti-semite like you do everyone else who disagrees with you.

Apologies to everyone else for hijacking this thread. I won't make any further comments on this subject within this thread.

Monday, January 23, 2006 2:15:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Our sympathies go out to you Stev,

Ibraham is not interested in debate or sharing of ideas. I have asked him repetatedly why he even bothers to frequent this forum, and he was unable to give me a straight answer.

I think he feels it's his responsibility to counter what he perceives and anti Insraeli topics, but of course, he never tries to explain his point of view or hwo best to correct what he sees as the wrong path.

Don;t waste your energy. You'd have more luck communicating to a brick.

Monday, January 23, 2006 2:23:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, January 23, 2006 2:49:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

You are such an tragic idiot Ibraham.

Is that what you in your pea brained world call proof? How does that statement equate to Ant saying the Jews are morally superior?

I had no idea you had such difficulty with the English language. That certainly explains why so much of what you say is so disjointed and usually irrelevant.

I suppose anti-Semitism was the first word you leaned.

Monday, January 23, 2006 2:58:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

Andrew Klavan is right and wrong.

He is right that it is a sign of serious dysfunction .... call it evil if you like because in essence evil is talk about Jews killing Jesus .... as in who cares and Jesus is more figment than fact anyway, or to infer that Jews are responsible for wrongs in the world (Palestine aside and aggression in the Middle East).

Where he is wrong, and it is a wearingly boring story, is to suggest that criticism of evil equates with these things ....

It's a way to distract people from the issue of the Middle East and the human rights abuses committed by Israel toward the Palestinians. Not to mention those of their neighbours that they bomb.

But it is important to make a distinction between the 'nut' factor which talks about Jesus killers and the Protocols of Zion and any sort of Jewish 'plot' to rule the world and the legal and moral abuses for which Israel is responsible in regard to Palestine and its neighbours.

Needless to say Kavan's approach is reflective of a 'victim mentality', a dysfunctional state which prevents the person from acknowledging any capacity for wrongdoing because, to do so, would mean relinquishing the mantle of victimhood.

It's a comfortable cloak the victim wears. It lets you off the hook for absolutely everything. Well, it does in the dysfunctional world which you inhabit if not in any sort of sane reality.

Monday, January 23, 2006 3:28:00 pm  
Blogger smiths said...

Andrew Klavan may where his religion on a sleeve. religiously, he may have a point on why God choose the Jews.
ha ha, klavan wears his bigotry on his sleeve, and god didnt choose anyone over anyone else,
you, ignahamav, are not defending your religion or yourself,
youre just a stupid spoiler,

i suggest that everyone just ignores posts by this muppet and continues the conversations

Monday, January 23, 2006 3:32:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

The true meaning of the Jews being a 'chosen' people is that they are meant to be a ' light unto the world.'

In other words, it is not that they per se: are superior in terms of their religious teaching but that they are 'called' by that teaching to act in ways that are the best they can be.

The fact that Israel has come to represesent the 'worst' not the 'best' is a matter of grief to enlightened Jews whether religious or not.

Interestingly the belief in being 'chosen' is not uncommon. Not surprising of course. Many groups like to think of themselves as special.

You find elements of this sort of belief in other religions like christianity and Islam and it is quite common in pagan (tribal) belief.

It has been literalised in Judaism, no doubt because the years of diaspora ossified much of the religious thought which created the culture.

Monday, January 23, 2006 3:34:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

A humanised God is a problem. Luckily S/He has a sense of humour.
To think that any God worth bothering about would be so petty and trivial as to single out any group stretches reason. But then faith all too often negates reason.

Any god that exists can only embrace all human beings at all times. Any other God is not God, but merely a God figure created by human beings in their deeply flawed image.

Judaism, like Christianity and Islam suffers from this personalised view of God. Buddhism is something of an improvement, although with the influence of patriarchy, very mysoginistic.

The old Goddess religion, what the christians and jews rejected as pagan, had a rather healthier view of it all: that everything which exists is sacred; every fibre, bone, grain of sand, rock, tree, human being is God and worthy of honour.

No rules about what to wear, what to eat, how to have sex or not have sex, who to love, how to love, just the basics about honouring all things which of course cuts out murder, theft, violence and any form of abuse... toward nature as well as human beings.

We are all, each of us, no more than vibrating matter and we are all connected.

Interestingly it is a concept which fits neatly with the structure of quantum physics: a place where science and religion can find common ground.

Even more important it is actually kind. Kindness is a quality which is often hard to find in most religions.

Monday, January 23, 2006 3:56:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, January 23, 2006 4:16:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Great post rhross. I tend to agree with most of it, although personally I believe that, while the pagan religions were superficially rejected by Judeo-Christianity, many of their tenets and concepts were absorbed by these religions - at least I believe this is the case with Christianity, I'm not familiar enough with Judaism to comment on that.

Monday, January 23, 2006 4:18:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

You are right, they took on certain aspects. So did Judaism.
Recent translations of Egyptian hieroglyphics show for example the Ten Commandments were Egyptian.

There's a very bood book written by archeologists, Jewish actually, which shows the links between Judaism and the ancient Egyptians and even posits the case for the Hebrews being followers of Akhenaton, the pharaoh who was the first, in recorded history, to worship God as one being.

Much of the Jesus story for example can be found in the ancient Egyptian religion and in the later Roman, Mithraic religion, which clearly has drawn on the Egyptian and pagan belief.

Many of the attributes of Mary for example were originally recorded of Isis, the Egyptian Goddess.

The good thing about it all is that in essence it reveals a core spirituality which has come down through the ages and which is not specificially christian, jewish or even islamic.

Monday, January 23, 2006 4:40:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...


If you are a believer in free speech then you do need to practice it.

As, for myself, I am a free speech absolutist. There are people here who bother me and a couple whose language I find really offensive. I find the best way to deal with this dilemma is simply to ignore it. Don't respond to those you find offensive, even if they address you, and don't bother to read their posts.

Monday, January 23, 2006 5:28:00 pm  
Blogger Stev said...

Smiths and Violet, you're both absolutely right. Responding just antagonises and makes the situation worse. I know I can be particularly self indulgent when it comes to that kind of thing so I'll definitely be aiming to be more self-disciplined.

Monday, January 23, 2006 5:47:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Humanism's four "greatest" events? The Holocaust, Stalin's gulags, Mao's miilions dead and Pol Pot.

Great legacy.

Monday, January 23, 2006 6:00:00 pm  
Blogger violet said...


Jews are sometimes their own worst enemies when attempting to blindly support Israel, spewing vitriol in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

I don't know any Jews who "spew vitriol", but I know many who are elegant, articulate Jews who are passionate about retaining the state created for them in 1948.

Is this a little racism creeping in Antony?

Monday, January 23, 2006 8:33:00 pm  
Blogger Edward Mariyani-Squire said...

"All bigotry is wrong, of course, but there's something about this particular form of prejudice that is weirdly reliable as a sign of deeper wickedness."

Is he also referring here to the fundamentalist Judaic settlers who are as openly - indeed proudly - as bigoted as all get-out?

Monday, January 23, 2006 9:49:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, January 23, 2006 9:54:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

violet said...

"I don't know any Jews who "spew vitriol", but I know many who are elegant, articulate Jews who are passionate about retaining the state created for them in 1948."

Yes there are indeed Jewsih peope who are articulate and articulate. You and Melanie would fir into this category. But seriosuly Vilet, aren't you fogetting the elephant on the forum who totalyl comforms to the former?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:36:00 am  
Blogger Wilbourne said...

The only reason any comments exist on this site is because of people like Ibrahamav. You all come here because you pre-emptively agree with anything Antony might post regarding The Evil Zionist Machine and feel having a 'good Jew' say it gives it more credence. This site would be dead if reasonable people like Ibrahamav and Shabs stopped coming here, prompting a reactionary voice from those armchair revolutionaries who have no link to the Middle East conflict whatsoever except by reading Robert Fisk in some comfortable Sydney suburb.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:41:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Here,here! Luckily, battling the antisemitic posts made by Loewenstein, addamo, RHR, eddie and others is very easy to do.

Loewenstein made it easier by posting about his racial superiority and then blasting apart the "canary in the coal mine" senerio with a characteristic blast straight off a white supremist site.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:48:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...


You have got to be kidding. We come here because of Ibraham? Yeah right. I sthat what made you come to this forum? The guy contributes nothing to this forum, apart form noise, distraction and a great deal of bad will.

Tell me, do you actualyl read anyone's posts? Apart from you and Shab, you forgot to mention Anthony, Melanie, Violet, Noelefty, and Stewie are always in disagreemtn with AL and those that agree with him.

Lose the sour grapes Willbourne. If you don't like it here, you knwo what to do. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to participate.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:53:00 am  
Blogger Mannie said...

And no one is forcing those Israelophiles to stay away from their beloved country - which to them is totally beyond criticism!
I may be senile and geriatric, but I am not juvenile and homophobic and spewing vitriol over everyone who disagrees with me, or with Antony or with Addamo or with a few others.
If you all think it would be so boring to continue reading what Antony writes, why look at this blog at all?
Being Jewish does not mean having to say anti-semite with every other word, and as for calling people bigots, this really is unbelievable.
Hopefully this mob really will decide that this blog is boring for them and go away, and the rest of us will then be able to enjoy reading these posts and also read some intelligent contributions from others.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:49:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Vitriol, histrical ramblings, slader, insults you name it - the signature of the pro Zionist camp. It's so utterly predictable, that som many of Israel's amen corner repeatedly depart from factual and polite debate and resort to such spiteful attacks. When you call them on it, they venehemently deny it and pretend that you are deluded.

Of course, I say some. There are people like Stewie, Melanie, Violet, and other who prove that passionate debate can take pace without resorting to such demeaning attacks. I for one appreciate that.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:21:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Saying that "Vitriol, histrical ramblings, slader, insults" are the signature of the pro-zionist camp is merely admission of your bigotry. Nothing to do with the truth.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:31:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Such denial comming from a proven liar, it is actually confirmation of it.

Ibraham, you have proven yourself time and time again to be the poster boy of Zionist extremism.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:48:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

What denial? You are a proven liar. That has already been confirmed. Your rants are about the same as seen on Kundel's and Irving's websites.

But you're no poster boy. We'll leave that designation for eddie and AL. They know scads more than you. You have the ignorance level of rhr.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:35:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...


You are very quick to call people liars without actually making any case that would prove deception.

The real deception is the fantasies you hold about Israel and what this continued occupation and colonisation has done to it.

This war is destroying Israel. There's a piece in The Australian today citing a report which shows one in four Israelis live in poverty; a third of Israeli children are impoverished and there has been a 45percent increase in those living below the poverty line in the past five years.

This is what war, colonisation, walls and denial does. This is how a country is destroyed ... from within.

As is your way no doubt you will dismiss this as a lie. The Prime Minister of Israel does not. He is concerned. Rightly so.

Israel's economy is heading for ruin. Only peace can bring any sort of future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Only recognition by Israel and its supporters that it cannot continue on its current path will bring some sort of hope.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:26:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

The case was made on another thread. _01 stated that I said something and it was easily proven that I never said it.

_01 has constantly posted lies in one form or another.

I, myself, have no fanasies about israel. But it is apparent that you have such, and AL has worse.

One in 4 Israelis would be living in poverty whether they lived in actual peace or not. That's economics, not war.

All economies cycle. Israel's has improved over the last 2 years.

The only time that the palestinians improve is when they are actually on the road to peace.

In fact, Israelis realize that they must be more ruthless in order to force the palestinians to come to the peace table, but they can't do that because to many innocent palestinians will die.

But it doesn't seem like the Palestinians care. Golda was right.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 5:40:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

You wouldn’t know ignorance because you epitomize ignorance.

I didn’t even know Irving or Kundel (Zundel?) had web sites, but yet again, unlike you, I don’t go searching for them either. You have exposed yourself as a frequenter of those sources.

Thanks for outing yourself. I was doing just fine without your help.

You have the gall to call me a biggot while you are prepared to sink lower than any human I have ever met. Only a slime ball would go so low as to accuse an older person of being senile for daring to disagree with you. It just goes top show how clueless and pathetic you are.

Eddie and Mannie are right. You are an anti-Semitic, right wing. neo-nazi troll who is trying to discredit Jews and Israel.

Shame on you.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:15:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

You are a bigot. It doesn't take gall for anyone to recognize you for what you are.

That you didn't know about those websites shows how incredibly stupid, ignorant, and clueless you are. Or that you lie as well as eddie. Your choice. Out yourself as a moron, or a deliberate liar.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:16:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

children, children!

Why don't you stop slinging insults at each other and talk to each other. This is playground stuff! Not at all interesting and very immature.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:46:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

You have no room to talk. Your posts based on outlandishly outdated information, along with your guess work, ala _01, leaves little to be desired in your work.

It is not only ridiculous, but wastes time just by having to refute it.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:54:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Then do us all a favor and go away Ibraham. You must have bigger dragons to slay. Or better still, expell your venom on the Zundel and Irving forums were you will be most at home and certainyl welcome.

Oh, and dont; forget to tell them in advance that you are a serial liar.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:12:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

My appologies RHRoss,

As you can see, we have a problem child on our hands.

I should ignore him. I'll learn one day.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:19:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

I suppose addamo the thing is not to lower yourself to the same level.

I suspect Ibrahamv is capable of mature debate but he finds it hard to do and is easily distracted.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:23:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...


Mature debate requires one to respect the opionions of others, especially those who's opinions differ from your own.

Believe me, over the many months I've been on this forum, I have tried everything with this guy and I watch as other try to a well, as I did with your attempt. It's like coimmunicatin with an autistic child. Just when you think you are getting through to him, he has a relapse and goes back to name calling and slinging mud.

He genuinely seems unable to accept that opinions diffrent from his own are sincere, choosing to believe they are motivated by some personal hatred of him or what he values. As I've mentioned before, I think this is in essence the persecution complex many Jewish people are indoctrinated with. Ibraham is obviously an extreme case of it.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:09:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

It's interesting. I'm new to this forum although I spent time a few years ago on forums created by The Guardian and The Washington Post .... I guess I dabbled for about nine months.

Anyway, I haven't bothered since then simply because they too were taken over by 'ibrahamav's,' saying pretty much the same stuff, quote for quote, pushing the same views, line for line, using abuse, ridicule, name-calling and insult.

It was all very adolescent in terms of approach and content.

I remember thinking at the time that it was almost as if they were part of some organisation, or group, no doubt huddled in some bunker in the Negev Desert, whose job it was to 'sabotage' any forum discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Honestly, Ibrahamav and the others are at times is word for word clones of posters on those other forums.

Call me paranoid if you like .... probably my Jewish ancestry at work there.... but it is all spookily familiar. Either that or rabid Israeli supporters are seriously emotionally and psychologically dysfunctional and therefore incapable of discussing the topic calmly and rationally.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:28:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...


Yes it's an intersting phenomena, this collective persecution complex. Eddie has mentioned how students of he torah are educated in hwo to "think" about the occupation, so it's wonder that there is such uniformity. There is most definitely a pattern as one would expect from a group indoctrinated with a particular belief system. What I find intersting while unpleasant to deal with, is the reflex response and willingness to rapidly escalate the debate to the most spiteful name calling and abuse at the slightest dissent.

One would expect that the extreme vitriol would be held in check for when the situation calls for it, but the accusations and comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis (now a cliche) are whipped out almost pre-emptively.

The fear of even addressing the issue must be overwhelming.

I do hope you stick around on this forum and not be put off by attacks.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:02:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

As long as there is something interesting to read I will stick around. I suspect that unconsciously if not consciously the goal of ibrahamav and co. is to downgrade, dilute, if not destroy any capacity for intelligent discussion.

It's probably why it is best to completely ignore them. Unless of course they display a capacity for rational discourse.

It is a very complex subject though and one can understand the emotional baggage that some people carry. However, it is a sign of self discipline and maturity when people can keep that baggage in check and not dump it on everyone else.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:17:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:40:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

What did I lie about Ibrham, oh Grand Poobah of lying?

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:48:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

There's an interesting piece by Robert Fisk on the website Countercurrents, on Spielberg's film, Munich. It's worth reading.

He also makes the point that the core issue in this horrible mess is the fact that the Palestinians had their land taken away from them in order for Israel to be created. That is the one thing which many Jews, not all, and many Israelis, not all, and their supporters, pretty much all, refuse to acknowledge.

Until they do they are dancing around denial and fantasy and there's little hope of any resolution.

I still feel that just as America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have had to acknowledge the fact that they only exist because they dispossessed and colonised and deal with that fact and make redress for it, then so must Israel.

It's like the seriously dysfunctional family refusing to talk about the 'secret'; constantly trying to deny and hide the truth. They just become more dysfunctional.

In terms of the foundation of Israel it's another version of 'don't mention the war'..... it's don't mention that the land we took to create Israel had people living on it.

That's why Israel's supporters resort to abuse and denial because they are, for the moment, incapable of admitting the truth, and therefore, in essence, have no defence.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:56:00 pm  
Blogger RHRoss said...

it's just another distraction. ignore him/her. There is never any reasoned argument or evidence. It's just a ploy to get people talking about nothing.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:58:00 pm  
Blogger Wombat said...

Excellent point RH,

I did read Fisks article, and it was an interesting piece.

I think there's much truth to the saying, you become what you hate. It's understandable that Israeli's are so fervent about their security and autonomy, but until one accepts responsibility for their actions, they are destined to repeat the mistakes and suffer the consequences.

When it comes to non Jews, the subject of Israel is aking to walking on cracked eggs. If you don't want to be on the receiving end of a personal attack, the only safe option is to declare unconditional support for Israel, as if it were some secret password for receiving acceptance.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:25:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:44:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:29:00 pm  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Quit spreading the addamo. Your beginning to sound like your commuting between eddie's ass and AL's ass.

The Palestinians didn't have their land taken from them. Most Arab leaders were more than happy to sell their land (And complain afterwards)

There was a war, the Palestinians lost. Too bad for them.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:56:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...


by Max Singer

We should not be surprised when Europeans, among others, refuse to be moved by Israel's complaints about Palestinian terror and have no patience for arguments about the need for defensible borders. The reason, though straightforward, goes almost unnoticed: Israel talks about its needs; while Palestinians talk about their rights.

This is not to say that Europeans and other well-meaning people think it is right to pummel Israel with suicide bombings - although they have become so fed up that they do not visibly object. Even if they agree, on paper, that terror should stop, Israel's fundamental case is seen as a series of excuses to keep land it stole from the Palestinians.

Palestinians talk about justice and Israelis talk about violation of agreements. So long as the dispute with Palestinians is seen as a fight between a thief and his victim, a fight about when "Palestinian land" will be returned to its rightful owner, Israel's talk of its security needs will fall on deaf ears.

In emotional terms, thieves don't have rights, even to security. How could we expect support for a "thief's" assertion that the victim shouldn't use illegal means to recover his land, that he, the "thief," needs stolen property to protect his security, or that consideration should be given to the citizens the usurper has settled on the stolen land?

Our demand for "defensible borders," for example, is heard as "Israel needs to keep Palestinian land in order to defend itself." This doesn't grab Europeans who don't even worry much about being able to defend themselves, much less Israel.

The Palestinians, by contrast, are heard as saying, "we are a proud and ancient people; our land was stolen by colonialist foreigners, and we will fight until we get it back." The reply that they are fighting too dirty, or that Israel needs the land to protect its security, doesn't carry much emotional weight.

Of course European and other opinion and policy is also affected by other factors besides the basic moral sense of the citizens, but the great wave of anti-Israel feeling that has been built on this moral misjudgment has a momentum which must be countered to make a change in policy possible. Israel needs to concentrate on making Europeans and others understand that the Palestinians are not victims of a theft, but rather defeated litigants who refuse to accept the authoritative decisions made against them.

Entrenched anti-Israel sentiment will not be moved until we state that we are a proud and ancient people; that the disputed land is our homeland, and was ours historically; that the land was assigned to us by the League of Nations, and we will fight to protect our country.

We must distinguish between our willingness to give up part of our homeland - short of making it indefensible - for the sake of peace, and relinquishing "stolen" territory. Further, we should be pointing out that we allow Arabs to live as full citizens on the land that we control while the Arabs expel Jews from any land they acquire, even though there is no other Jewish land and there are millions of miles of other Arab land.

Israel has to act as if it believes that its moral, legal and historical claims to the disputed territories are as good or better than the claims of the Palestinians, and that it is as passionate to protect its land they are to acquire it. Only then will the Europeans come to understand that "occupied Palestinian land" is instead disputed territory for which Israel has legal and moral claims that have been formally endorsed by the international community.

THE DISPUTED land, we should remember, became available in 1920 when its former sovereign, the defeated Ottoman Empire, was removed. The League of Nations heard the dispute between the Jews, represented by the Balfour Declaration of Great Britain, and the Arabs living in the land, represented by other Arab countries.

Aware that the Jews had ruled the land in ancient times, had no other homeland, and were displacing no existing state, the League decided that the Jewish people should be invited to settle the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea as its homeland. The Arabs, including the Palestinians, never accepted this decision - which has never been rescinded.

Some argue that the League of Nations decision was a "colonial" decision and should not stand against the right of self-determination. But the League decision was the binding legal authority in 1922 and all Jews who came to the land after that date to build a state came on the basis of that authority. And the many Arabs who moved to the land after 1922 came knowing that it had been legally designated as the future Jewish homeland. While this may not be the end of the story it is an essential beginning.

Israel's rights are not perfect or exclusive, but they are certainly strong enough so that it does not come to the table as a "thief of Palestinian land." The Palestinians' claims may be strong enough to justify giving them some of the land they want. But since the Palestinians have never been rulers of the land, it could not have been stolen from them.

Palestinians, therefore, are claimants, not the victims of theft. Their behavior should be judged as the acts of a claimant seeking land to which he thinks he is entitled, not as the acts of a dispossessed owner.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:58:00 am  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 1:27:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Christopher Hitchens made a swithc to the right long ago Neo. Not surprising seeing as most of your inforkmation is way out of date and irrelevant.

How long you going to hapr onthe Nobel Prize thing anyway? Al Baradei got one recently and what he has to say makes a lie of Israel's assertions.


BTW. When are you going to start your own blog? The world is depseratly in needs of geniuses like you adn your message of peace.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:47:00 am  
Blogger RHRoss said...

Max Singer's case for Israel's rights has no legal basis.

There is little or no archeological evidence for the sort of ancient Israeli state about which the Bible speaks. But the Bible is of course no more than a collection of myths, stories and writings and has no legal basis in a court of law... in terms of content.

But if one wished to pursue this argument and take into account Biblical writings, then clearly, the original owners were the Canaanites who were dispossessed and colonised by the Hebrews.

given that those who were not slaughtered were enslaved, and one presumes continued to live on the land, there's a good chance that any non-Jews with historical links to this bit of the world, have Canaanite ancestry and therefore the 'greatest' right to the land.

Needless to say such arguments carry little weight. On the same basis the Italians (Romans) have as much right to southern England and London (which they founded) as Jews have to Palestine and Jerusalem.

But, at the end of the day, all of this is irrelevant. Any debate about Jewish rights is irrelevant. What was and might have been is irrelevant.

The only relevance is this: a State of Israel was established on land which belonged to others, the Palestinians. The world now recognises that State, whilst illegal in creation, should exist.

This means the Israelis and Palestinians have to share the land as fairly as possible. This means each should have a viable State.

This means the occupation must end and all settlements beyond original borders of Israel must be given back to the Palestinians.

This means the Palestinians must have complete control over their air, land, sea space and the same rights that Israelis expect to have in terms of defending themselves.

It is called justice and it is about the here and now, not what may or may not have happened a few thousand years ago.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:12:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:00:00 am  
Blogger Wombat said...

Excellent post RH,

Let's not forget that if referenes to the Bible have any validity, then the Bible and Torah also speak about how the Jews blew it and that their claims to the land were forfeited more than 2000 years ago.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 8:57:00 am  
Blogger Ibrahamav said...

Nowhere does it state that Israel's claim is forfeit.

There is an enormous amount of archeological evidence for the sort of ancient Israeli state about which the Bible speaks.

That you profess ignorance of such is just more proof of your ignorance.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 4:25:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

The Bible is largely a collection of myths and fables. Most of the characters never existed. David and Solomon, for instance, almost certainly never existed, and the united monarchy of Judah and Israel never existed.

There is no archaeological evidence for anything Solomon is supposed to have done. No constructions at Hazor, Gezer or Megiddo. No mines. No naval fleet. Not even the temple in Jerusalem. Jerusalem during the 10th century BC was only a Canaanite village.

Jewish archaeologists talk about a "second temple period", but there was no first temple built, because Solomon almost certainly never existed. The wailing wall was not the site of the destroyed temple anyway. That is the remains of Hadrian's temple of Jupiter. Jewish so-called archaeology is mostly bunk, designed to feed a Zionist agenda. Since there was no temple at this site, there is nothing worth fighting over.

Take heart. Scholarly opinion has it that Mohammed probably never existed either! Consequently, Mohammed never made a night jourmey to Jerusalem. Muslim so-called history is just as fabricated as Jewish so-called history.

For what it's worth, Jesus never existed either.

The pursuit of truth in these matters is of paramount importance. Once the fables and myths are seen for what they are, the reasons for fighting evaporate, and this should be a cause for celebration by all lovers of peace.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 10:59:00 pm  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

Progressive athiest

Jesus never existed, eh? I'll just go and get some popcorn before you begin your own crucifixion on this one. The ignorance of history that is the mark of the modern-day Left is very frightening.

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:40:00 pm  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

When you're finished with that site, I'll give you some more references.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:42:00 am  
Blogger neoleftychick said...

I don't need your dodgy websites. I am more than sufficiently well educated on these matters to debate you off the top of my head if you think you are up to it.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 1:26:00 am  
Blogger Progressive Atheist said...

The first gospel written was Mark. It can be dated to AD 70 at the earliest but, from internal clues, more probably to about AD 90.

The very earliest Christian writings come from Paul and others. The writings of these earliest Christians, however, paint a dramatically different picture of Jesus from the Jesus of the later gospels.

The early Christians corroborate virtually nothing that we have previously taken for granted from the gospels!

None of the very first Christians know anything about an annunciation to Mary by the angel Gabriel, a virgin birth, star of Bethlehem, wise men, Herod, slaughter of the innocents or the flight into Egypt. In fact they know nothing at all of a Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem or Nazareth. They know of no disciples, friends or earthly enemies nor of any baptism by John in the Jordan. They don’t mention or quote any teachings, parables or sermons or morals; in fact they attribute no ethical instruction to the earthly Jesus at all.

Nor do they seem to know of any healings of the blind or lame or lepers; neither do they mention any of Jesus’ especially spectacular miracles like bringing the dead to life, changing water to wine, feeding five thousand, stilling the storm or walking on water.

They know of no temptation in the wilderness or dialogue with the Devil, no exorcisms nor evil spirits falling down in fear before Jesus.

The early Christians again know nothing of the times, places or circumstances of the crucifixion. They mention nothing of Gethsemane, no betrayal by Judas (they merely say Jesus ‘was delivered up’ for crucifixion), no denial by Peter or the disciples, no trials, no scourging, no judgement by Pilate, no Roman soldiers, no Golgotha or vigil at the cross, no last words – nothing!

Paul appears to have believed that after three days Jesus ascended directly to heaven without any intervening time on earth, and he certainly doesn’t cite any empty tomb.

If the very first Christians knew so little about Jesus, what possible grounds do we have for believing he ever existed?

Don't mention Josephus. The authenticity of the Josephus passage has been under suspicion for centuries. In light of modern research, it must be dismissed as a clumsy Christian forgery inserted into Josephus’s work.

Another Jewish historian of the same era, Justus of Tiberias, made no mention of Jesus whatever and yet he, like Josephus, came from Galilee.

You need contemporary historians to build your case, but what have you got? Nothing, only a forgery.

I don't need your dodgy websites.

How do you know it's dodgy if you won't even look at it? Hmm? Nice try.

Jesus never existed. Get over it.

I am more than sufficiently well educated on these matters to debate you off the top of my head if you think you are up to it.

Prove it!

Thursday, January 26, 2006 11:38:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home