One Response to “Correction”

1. lester says:

   January 6, 2009 at 10:52 am

   except that hamas isn’t attacking england. duh

   it’s more akin to a brave german newspaper giving a concentration camp inmate a column
2. Joe says:

   January 6, 2009 at 10:53 am

   Well they have useful idiots like Glenn Greenwald and Andrew “The Sarah Palin Vagina Monlogues” Sullivan to do the heavy lifting. http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/01/greenwald_vs_goldfarb.php

   And if you don’t agree you must be a thug.
3. On the Right says:

   January 6, 2009 at 10:59 am

   “it’s more akin to a brave german newspaper giving a concentration camp inmate a column”

   Wow.

   Sometimes, it’s amazing to think that we even live on the same planet.
4. Grumpy Old Man says:

   January 6, 2009 at 11:03 am

   He soft-pedals the Hamas rockets a bit, and engages in a bit of whistling in the dark about the effectiveness of the Hamas resistance, but on the whole, the article seems accurate, no less so, in any case, than the ravings of the Dershowitzes, Melanie Phillips, and Caroline Glicks.

   Invoking Hiler’s crimes as emotional blackmail is a tactic whose effectiveness is just about over.

   The appropriate analogy is not Goebbels or Hitler, but Ho Chi Minh, an independence fighter with some nasty baggage, but an independence fighter natheless.
5. mds123 says:

   January 6, 2009 at 11:03 am

   the guardian is so so brave…just ask polly toynbee
6. Joe NS says:

   January 6, 2009 at 11:45 am

   The fundamental goad to the 60-year Israeli-Palestine conflict, in my opinion, is the refusal of the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general to admit defeat in 1947-48. One might wish it were otherwise – especially if one is a Muslim – but the Arabs were beaten to a fare-thee-well in what Israelis call the War for Independence and the Arabs the Nakba (catastrophe).

   The existence of the state of Israel followed inexorably from that adamantine fact. The historical context is the two centuries that Ottoman Turkey fought with Imperial Russia, a conflict that did not end happily for the Turks. Forgetful of the aid that Britain and France had supplied to Turkey during the Crimean War, as well as of the efforts made by Britain and France to prop up the Ottoman Empire at the Congress of Berlin (1878), in 1915 the Turks, emboldened by the stunning victory of the Germans over the Russians at Tannenberg, threw in their lot with Imperial Germany and joined the Central Powers. In doing so, they knew – or should have known – that they were risking everything!

   Included in everything, of course, was the Turkish province of Damascus, which included what is now called Palestine. When the Central Powers were defeated, the Ottomans were compelled to relinquish Palestine, Iraq, Trans-Jordan, and Arabia. The terms of dismemberment were unequal, however. Arabia went off scot free as a reward to the Hashemite Sheiks for their alliance with Britain (q.v., “Lawrence of Aabia”). Jordan too was awarded to the Hashemites and, after a time, Iraq. Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria had a different fate. They were transferred first to the control of the League of Nations, thence, respectively, to Britain and France as so-called League Mandates, a status that looked to their ultimate independence under whatever terms the League thought best.

   The point is, Palestine was, in age-old parlance, a “spoil of war.” The Turks had taken their chances and lost in 1918. It was now up to the League of Nations, in accord with the so-called Laws of Armed Conflict, to dispose of Palestine AS IT WISHED. The Second World War intervened, however, but the League’s mandate was transferred without defect to the United Nations, which duly established the State of Israel in 1947.

   What followed, we all know. The Arabs invaded, were trounced, and Israel survived. The Arabs were further defeated in 1967 and 1973 (I leave characterizing the 1956 outcome to the experts). But the Arabs have never admitted defeat! And every negotiation, parley, arrangement, accord, “road map,” etc. since then has done one thing and one thing only: It has allowed the Arabs to believe they have not been defeated. Let the Arabs admit defeat just once, and most of the Israeli-Palestine conflict goes away overnight. For how can the Arabs be expected to accommodate themselves to what has happened until they have admitted that what has happened has in fact happened sans doubt!

   The ultimate effect of all the European and United Nations – What shall I call it? – Inteference? Intervention? Meddling? – Howsoever one styles it, the result has been to persuade the Arabs of a fantasy: They have not been soundly whipped. Nay, they are ever on the verge of victory. That is what is out of joint in the Middle East. (Of course, such an attitude is mightily abetted by Muslim theology in which it is flat IMPOSSIBLE for lands once Islamicized to be otherwise forever.)

   The ancient Romans had a phrase – Vae victis! “Woe to the vanquished!” – to which they regularly appealed. “You lose. You suffer the consequences.” TIn 1918, the Turks lost, and ALL that they had, having been hazarded, was lost as well. The notion of rightness or wrongness is otiose. Was it “right” that after the Second World War, eight million(!) ethnic Germans were dispossesed, were simply expelled from Lithuania and Poland, from the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Rumania, and driven mercilessly by the Red Army from homes they had occupied for half a millenium into the confines of present-day Germany, under conditions far more horrific than anything that EVER happened or is ever likely to happen to the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine? What of the Mexicans in 1848? The Phillipinos in 1904? The French-Canadians in 1759? The list is endless. At some point the Law of Armed Conflict must be invoked. “Vae victis!” You would not hear a murmer of disagreement from the Arabs had Israel been stifled at birth, I assure you.

   The so-called Palestinians had suffered Turkish hegemony for 700 years without so much as a squawk, a peep, or a whisper of discontent with the matter. Palestine was always a placid backwater of the Ottoman Empire. The notion that Palestinians, among whom there was always a healthy percentage of Jews, had some right to self-determination vis-a-vis the Sultan in Istanbul or that such a right was ever even invoked by them is ridiculous.

   The irony here is that the Romans learned their lesson, not as victors but as vanquished. In the Fourth Century BC, the Gauls, under their chieftain Bren, subdued the Romans and exacted a truly draconian tribute in gold as the price of their withdrawal from Italy. When the Romans protested at the cost, Bren declared “Vae victis!!” And that was the end of the discussion.

   So, after sixty years, I submit, it has come down to this: The Israelis must utterly destroy the Palestinians’ illusions. Nothing less will suffice.
7. Gord says:

   January 6, 2009 at 11:55 am

   Ho Chi Minh was a freedom fighter seeking independence for his people? Actually, he was a Communist party boss responsible for repression and murder throughout Vietnam. He was a despicable human being and the Viet Cong were the terrorists of their time and place. Just ask any South Vietnamese villager who came in contact with them. Always the contrarian, Grumps. At least you are good for a nice belly laugh.
8. David S. Mazel says:

   January 6, 2009 at 11:58 am

   This is slightly beside the point, but I read the piece and noticed the clause: “[H]e (Arafat) was murdered by poisoning.”

   What was the cause of death for Arafat? I read that the medical report was not released and I read some thought it was AIDS. But I haven’t heard anything conclusive. Can someone say for sure what happened?

   Thanks.
9. Al says:

   January 6, 2009 at 12:00 pm

   Khaled Mashaal, independence fighter? Doesn’t he already have his independence?
10. J.E. Dyer says:

    January 6, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    One of the Guardian reader comments on the Khaled Mashaal editorial refers to another editorial by “that Israeli fella” — suggesting that perhaps the Guardian has presented opinion from both sides. I don’t have time to go trolling for the Israeli fella’s piece, and make a determination on how sincere the Guardian’s attempt at Western-liberal agnosticism is. I can guess, but of course that’s based on historical perceptions of the Guardian, not the present case.

    A much better analogy with Israel and Hamas than Nazi Germany would be the government of Britain and the IRA. What this analogy highlights is the cheapness of donating editorial space to the spokesmen of guerrilla forces — when your own commercial viability and freedom of expression rely entirely on the rule of law maintained by the government the guerrillas oppose. Unlike the inhabitants of Israel and the Palestinian territories, no one at the Guardian’s editorial board anticipates being either attacked by Hamas, killed by it, or ruled by it. The Guardian may even, as Western news agencies are wont to do, be effectively covering the events in Gaza from the comfort of the King David Hotel.

    The Guardian’s “even-handedness” costs it nothing. That, in itself, doesn’t make it a bad practice. But it should be kept in mind as we weigh the overall journalistic effort. I’ll warrant that no one learned a single new thing from reading Khaled Mashaal’s editorial, or for that matter, that of the Israeli fella. No courage was involved in the editorial decision either. If the Guardian’s board wants to go stand in front of IED-wielding Hamas members and tell them, “Israel may have some valid points, you should listen to them” — then I might be impressed.
11. Cynic says:

    January 6, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    “Ho Chi Minh was a freedom fighter seeking independence for his people? Actually, he was a Communist party boss responsible for repression and murder throughout Vietnam. He was a despicable human being and the Viet Cong were the terrorists of their time and place. Just ask any South Vietnamese villager who came in contact with them. Always the contrarian, Grumps. At least you are good for a nice belly laugh.”

    Yeah, like he said… baggage.
12. Seth Halpern says:

    January 6, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Grumpy, why do you and your ilk constantly complain about emotional blackmail? It isn’t the Jews who have spent the past generation parading allegedly victimized civilians before a complicit media. Jews couldn’t duplicate that propaganda if they forced every gentile to watch “Schindler’s List” once a week at bayonet point and marched them through the Holocaust Museum like citizens of occupied Dachau. .
13. mds123 says:

    January 6, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    for anyone interested in a ‘serious’ look at the hamas/nazi comparison, ron rosenbaum (author of ‘explaining hitler’) does the heavy lifting

    http://pajamasmedia.com/ronrosenbaum/2009/01/04/some-differences-between-hamas-and-the-nazi-party-2/
14. Grumpy Old Man says:

    January 6, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Ho Chi Minh was, of course, despicable in many ways. He wasn’t Hitler. (Pol Pot got closer . . . )

    In conflicts, it’s common enough to wave the bloody shirt, on all sides. The Zionists are especially successful at invoking the Nazi genocide to blackmail would-be critics. Israel’s 1949 borders are not just difficult to defend; we are told they are “Auchschwitz borders.” Critics of Zionists are not merely accused of stupidity or error, but of being the heirs of the SS.

    The Guardian is not merely criticized for running a Mashall column because the man is a fanatic or a reprobate–we are treated to a forced analogy to WWII.

    This invocation, and yelps of antisemitism, are principal rhetorical weapons of Zionist apologists.
15. albie says:

    January 6, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    Gee Grumpy, when the enemy spends its time calling Israelis and Jews pigs and monkeys and garbage which must be wiped off the face of the earth, it’s kind of hard for us not to be reminded of the Holocaust. I’m sorry if that bums you out.
16. JEM says:

    January 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Grumps, as long as you trot out the old Zionist apologists you kind of give the game away.

    Hamas (Gaza in reality) has declared war on Israel. Israel is responding to their actions. When the Palestinians get their head out of their arse and start understanding that shelling your neighbor is not a risk free adventure, maybe we will see a peaceful resolution. Until then I say level the place until the Gaza-ians cry uncle. That is how wars typically get resolved.
17. Graham says:

    January 6, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    “This invocation, and yelps of antisemitism, are principal rhetorical weapons of Zionist apologists.”

    Yes, how absurd to compare the murderous, anti-semetic Nazis to the pacific and tolerant Hamas.
18. Noach says:

    January 6, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Back to Lester:

    “except that hamas isn’t attacking england. duh”

    Duh?

    Just read their covenant and some of the history of the Muslim Brotherhod, of whom Hamas are merely a local branch.
19. lester says:

    January 7, 2009 at 10:58 am

    noach- okay. they still aren’t attacking england. they don’t have a massive air force/ military WERMACHT. they are a bunch of guys with crappy rockets. perhaps the crappiest in the world
20. Graham says:

    January 7, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    …so Israel should just leave them alone then right, lester?