Mangled Thoughts

Posted by D
It’s all the Jews fault Part I
Posted by D
This is more up Uncle’s alley but for some reasons soon to be distilled one pre-empts not so much Uncle but Fat Aunty Bolsheviks Collective’s Encounter. Advertised early this morning, on the radio, was a special on the `Israeli - Palestinian Conflict’. A brief survey of some of the arguments to be devloped included this by some girlie whose grip on history is as shallow as the Marxist historian’s,Arnold Toynbee’s was in 1962 : …anti-semitism is a German-European phenomenon and the Palestinians have paid the price.’ The stupid cow, why doesn’t she have the guts to say what that sentence does say, it is the Jews fault, it is because of the Jews the Palestinians are, well what, a pack of savages. Without a transcript before me, none-the-less, the sort of lines followed are fore-shadowed and we shall pick them up as Toynbee stated, a statement which seems to inform the position of too many in the West toward Israel and the `Palestininians’, today, some 42 years after Toynbee wrote his bit of drivel.

Toynbee: Jewish Rights in Palestine, 1962, Jewish Quarterley Review.

He opened with this statemtent… `In the current dispute over Palestine ,the immediate claimants are the Palestinian Arabs on the one side and the Jews now in Palestine on the other…

I’ve highlighted that phrase, `Jews now in…..’ for what it is, a transparent falsehood.

In the second papragraph he rambled on about religion, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, which dismisses as `incompatible claims entitles the claimants to special privileges’. This nonsense, is, to say the least, is a red herring, totally beside the matter altogether. As also, Jew, Christian, Muslim `have right of access ‘ as
pilgrims, seminarians, other mystics, though `subject to the overriding rights of the native inhabitants’ which is eqaully banal.

Who is the `native inhabitant’? According to Toynbee, the Arabs are. This is an astonishingly sweeping statement which embraces his assertion the Romans `exterminated’ the Jewish population of Palestinian in the two Jewish-Roman wars.

As for the establishment of modern Israel in 1948, Toynbee blamed:

Germany: `if not for their atrocities against the European Jews … there would not have been the pressure there was to turn palestine into an asylum for the jews…. The genocide was not committed by Arabs… Yet it is (they)…. who have been made by Germany’s fellow -Westerners, the Western Victors in the Second World War, to pay for Germany’s crimes. ‘

What made that possible, he introduced, was the Balfour declaration, 1917, after the allies had wrested Palestine from Ottoman Turk control, to the last main argument, (only being polite).

I have not time sufficient to complete this item this evening. I sahll do so tomorrow as Pt II. I finish by asserting and will put up tomorrow: Toynbee’s of grasp of Semitic history is, to say the least, non-existent. No less that also of the Jewish people right down to 1948 and the foundation of modern Israel. Ditto Arab and Ottoman Turkish history. Needless to say, none of the history of Palestine either. Is any comment needed on toynbees gross distortion of the establishmnet if modern Israel, blaming it on the West for inflicting the Jewish question, it might be said darkly upon the Arabs. Then, idientifying it as some sort of war reparation just finishes the descent from ignorance into grotesque vulgarity.
That the ABC has some girlie trotting out that very old bit of drivel is also grotesque.

Tomorrow morning we will resume, with, hopefully, ABC transcript in hand, just to complete what seems like a well deserved demolition job on outright garbage..

Part II

We shall complete the item in three parts. This, Part,II is a summary of the Encounter programme. No transcript, the summary on the ABC site does not precis the content at all except in a vague dribbling sort of way. It’s a survey of general opinions 49 minutes long so, be warned they who would listen to it via this link or wait until the repeat tomorrow evening,25/2/04.

Exploring the Ghetto

The `girlie’ is a Jew, as, indeed, all those interviewed are. Very clever of BBC.
Not one first rate scholar of Jewish history. No concise study of the beginnings of modern history and the Arab-Israeli conflict continued in `proxy’ by the Palestinians. So, forget about the historical considerations alluded to in Part I. Mere opinion, stitched together, blythely, by the anchoress.

Balance, well yes, to the extent they had several who reject the it’s all repressive Israel’s fault, Neville Nadler, Chairman, Board of the Jewish council, London, Ted Nembco, newspaper editor, Rabbi Gluck. Another, Melanie Philip whom anchoress introduced as, ” a most right wing Jew”.

As the title suggests, the prgoramme arrived at, it is not the Jew’s fault but modern Israel’s fault, Sharon’s fault, the IDF’s fault. Not the Jews fault, then, it is just some Jews fault . Israel is an oppressive aggressor, the international failure to `crticise’ Israel, and the failure of jews to censor Israel themselves and those in Israel to vote in a nicer govt. is bound up with victimhood as integral to `Jewish identity’, as Prof of quackerypsychology, Grame Richards explained, which suppresses `rational criticsm’, censorship, dialogue, and asking `where does violence come from and what can be done to prevent it.

Miriam Carlin proclaims boldly , Jews are no longer in a ghetto, they are a part of the modern world. She rhetorically asks, is anti-semtism real or just `internalised’, asserting, `we are a damaged people’. Why, because according to Miriam, viticimhood has become integral to Jewish tradition and to leave it behind woould be `betrayal’ which engenders guilt, and makes it possible to bully people, the viticim picks on someone weaker than themself and bullies them for the bullied is less than the victim is - the life of the bullied matters not.

Part of the modern world, how profound. The difficulty is peering back into pre-war II Europe, and the brilliance of European Jews. Or in England, names like Barclay and, Baring, families who not only led in commerce but took their place in England’s heights. It might also be observed, as of jewish friends, while they survivied the Holocaust, and while one would not like to carry the giref they do, they do not indulge the `victimhood id’ at all, they get on with life with enthusiasm. The same can be observed of Israel, people who are cosmopolitan and really only wish to get on with enjoying life, extracting all the pleasure it has to offer.

The segment on the scientific perspective was outright tripe, as the psycho illustrates. But, scientest Hilary Rose has proposed to the RSAS, a boycott of all Jews in Israeli instutions be imposed, in order to bring pressure to bear against brutal, oppressive Isarael. For Rose, the boycott would have teeth precisely because of the distinguished record of Jews in science and scholarship and because it remains a vital tradition in Israel today. She continued, it is a contradiction between this humanist tradition and the inhumanity of Israel today.

Another scientist rejects the boycott because it is `rascist’, a boycott is against a particular people and does not embrace all people’s guilty of oppression, including, you guessed it:
Australia for it savage suppression of Aborigines which, he confidently decalred, continues today. British colonialism and for its lasting effects on peoples who been squished by the Empire. Russian oppression of Chechnyans.

Miriam relates her grandfather was caught up in the dream to establish a Jewish homeland and independence, and was invloved with one of the founders of modern Israel Theodore Herzel. his `dream’ was `smashed’ as the persecuted turned persecutor , driving out the fleeing palestinians into a `tiny part of their former territory’. Since the estbalishment of Israel, the govt. has acted abhorrently, imposing increasingly repressive measures on arab residents, robbinng them of `civil rights’.

Miriam, because of abhorrent Israel has renounced Judaism for atheism - is that what atheism , really Miriam, and wont’ have rabbis attending her funeral and will be cremated. There, that will give Sharon a bloody nose and teach Zionists a lesson.

What Miriam “would like” is palestinians given back some of their terrirtory and and a nicer Israel with which she “can feel comfortable with and can avow” which can’t as things stand.

It was also pointed out not all Jews around the world are `comfortable with the Zionist’ ambition to have `all Jews’m migrate to Israel. Sir Isaac Isaacs is cited on the account of opposition to the `Zionist dream’, fearing Jews in Australia , Brtiain, elsewhere, would be `displaced, forced to depart for Israel.This is something one needs to read up on, but on Jewish emigrants to Oz, Brit, U.S., their motivations were not bound up with `Zionist dreams’ irrespective of the possibility of the establishment of an Israel in Palestine.If Isaac did so fear, the fear in case was then, as now, nonsense. But, as we shall take up, the basis of the establsihment of Israel in Israel had nothing to do with Davidic like visions and a pure ersatz Jewish nation. Quite the contrary and that some Jews might hold such a few is not germane at all to the history of modern Israel.

This is even more peculiar, a Naomi Waymn, relates the olive grove incident, IDF wanting to cut down all 490 trees , in order to deny cover to terrorists who were shooting Israelis from that position,settled on 10 after a study indicated 10 would deny terrorist shooters protection. The compromise came, it is claimed, after lobbying by some British Rabbis who held, cutting all the trees down would be `retaliatory and repressive.’

Now, obviously, an olive grove is someone’s income but, wieghed up against lives, to say cutting down the whole grove is retaliatory and oppressive is bizzarely rot undiluted.

The programme was introduced with a story on tensions in Britain , between Jew and Jew, Jew and Muslim. Featured was a medical undergraduate who’d been assaulted by, he was reasonably assured, Muslims from Asia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Sparking it all, what is happening in Israel. The difficulty is, Brtian’s past almost open door on immigration resulted in large numbers of muslimswho, while some are decent and treat Islam as a faith only, are Islamo-fascists and have been at the bottom of much violence in Loondon, led by those cleric who entertain the hope of reducing Britatian to an Islamic theocracy.

There is, in short, a large number of muslims in Britain who are barabrians, the conflict in the mid-east over Israel has no bearing on that fact, as some muslims in France and Canada, also in Oz, illustrate.Take out the mid-east conflict over Israel and it remains, the primtive beliefs of the Islamo-fascists includes the notion Islam is being opporessed by all not muslim and until all the world is ruled by sharia the world is evil, nasty, oppressive and so forth. Irrational it may be, but it is not unique, quite consistent of tribalism in which things are interpreted in terms of the tribe and its beliefs, a narrow, closed superstition filled world. Jihad, therefore, is holy war to overthrow the enemies of Islam.

Needless to say, nadler et al reject the above. And anti-semitism is not some irrational solipsistic perception of Jews revelling in `internalised viticimhooded Jewish identity and tradition’. Israel, through to the 70’s struggled for its survival not only on the battlefield but in the U.N. While Balfour’s declaration had international agreement, that was certainly not the case for Israel from its establsihment in 1948 and since. The Speccie has related polticians in Western Europe deliberately playing to anti-semitism for poltical advantage. But, it is not anti-semtism per se, it is hatred of the Jews, the fact that they exist, the fact of a Jewish country, Israel, showing up isuch as the ill concealed animus Toynbee displayed in his paper, not concealed at all by many journalists and anchors of ABC and others.

Balance, no. The argument is plain enough, if it for weren’t damned Israel all would be right with the world. No hisotrical grounding, reflected in the degeneration into pyshco-socio babble with some lefty Jews who can’t separate their sentimental mush from hard reality: `His Israeli dream’, a `country I can avow and be comfortable’, the sort of juvenile drivel round in children in schools today, so trannsparently observable in Oz today, me, my and my prescious conscious and feelings - there, they shine out the cute little delinquents’ behinds and all the world smiles. The only thing to be said for it, the BBC managed to find enough Jewish dleinquents in London to save them the awkard problem of having to line up non-Jews to run the anit-Jewish-Israeli line. Israel is Jewish country, has been ever, since, which is the rub, since Judaeans built Jerusalem and lived and died in Judaea and its cantonments from the beginning -Part III. It is a fine line between saying it is Israelfault and it is Jews’ (of israel anyway) fault, a non-existent one - that BBC managed Jews to advance it is a bloody joke but pinned to it’s a-hsotircal, fact free content - by reducing grave matter to fact and history free opinion on `tensions’ BBC freed itself of having to come to grips with objective matter - a crude and vulgar stunt.

Part III: It’s all the Isreali’sJews’ Fault

This instalment being the conclusion to what has developed into a 3-part series,is the instalment which puts up what was fore-shadowed in Part I, the Toynbee version, as it were, of the history of Palestine, the Jewish place not therein and thus the crumbiness of modern history, which fact free zone informs and guides the U.N., and leftoid journos of the usual daily propaganda organ grinders.

`Criticism’ is used, nowadays, as an attempt to claim grace for what so much today is mere juvenile opinion and, frequently, is nothing but ill-founded venomous diatribe. Brookesnews has splattered a few journos on these counts, more of the latter type, as have others have such as Tim Blair. Media watch is decidedly a bilger of the former while ABC news and 7.30 Report serves up the second. The U.N. has taken the latter case to the heights of savagery as Bayefsky relates , see the post below.Telling is, the U.N. assumes Isreal is the work of conquering Jews who kicked out the `natives’ of Palestine, `Palestinian Arabs’ and, having stripped of `their inalienable rights’ oppress them in every way imaginable, not only within the Palestinian Territory but inside Israel also.According to the U.N., Israel is guilty, not even a might be but is, of `human right’s’ abuse against Arabs within Israel itself. Needless to say, Israel really is an illegitimate creation of Lord Balfour ,on his declaration of 1917. They are the assumptions which accompany much mere opinion on Israel and the running conflict, and is asserted as the source of middle- east tensions and strife, fuelled by U.S. support of Israel. This, some 40 odd years after Toynbee said as much in his kindergarten paper, irrespective of the the modest flaw, it is fact free and a gross distortion of history. To say the unhappiness in the mid-east is Israel’s fault is short of sating the force of it, it is the fault of the Jews in Israel and supporters of Israel and symapthisers around the world -Jew and gentile alike , but, indeed, jews everywhere - there is no other force to it and it’s at best, that is to be kind, dis-ingeneous to say otherwise. So let us put up for one is not about to shut up on this matter.

1917, by the major victories over the Turkish army, Chauvel’s taking of Barsheeba and Allenby’s of Jerusalem in battle, the Ottoman control of Palestine was finished, the Ottoman’s having held Palestine since the 16th century (1. yes, for this essay there will be a modicum of footnoting) on conquest. The League of Nations charged Britain with the administration of Palestine and concurred, without demurral, to Balfour’s decision, the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Notice, homeland , and not an independent, sovereign `Israel’ in which the citizens holding the same traditions, not just Judaisms as of faith, of law and such like, with a govt. charged to ensure the independence of the people against foreign attempts at overthrwoing them by violence and war. To be sure, that is question begging inso far Jews’ hopes for independence would firm up and would seek to build on the protectorate established upon Balfour’s declaration towards that aim.

Even so, hopes for independence and its realisation was not contrary to he League’s affirmation of self determination, neither is it of the U.N.s today, unless, apparently the exception is jewish people in Palestine back then and Israel today. An altogether different matter, it seems.

In short, particularly for all those who believe any such act requires U.N. approval, in peace and in War, though, to me U.N. approval and League approval then, is tripe, meaningless, the Declaration and its execution was entirely regular.

Arab leaders opposed the Homeland. One reason is curious : they feared Arabs would be economically undermined by a `Jewish Homeland’. This matter requires treatment itself and reserve it, therefore for another post. It is a bizzarre motive but not altogether when the reality of middle east politics and economics during the 20th century until then and indeed right through to the present, is taken into account. Realities compounded by the tribalist barbarism of Mohammedism. Complicated , so let it stand for this essay, but on that tissue of considerations Arab leaders began to incite arabs to act against the Jewish population, the first major upshot being the massacre in Hebron, 1929, some 19 years before the declaration of Jewish independence in 1948.

[ Before continuing,note, on posting this what has been written so far, to alert readers, one will up-date the post as each section sufficient for argument is completed. For, one suspects this will take some more paragraphs than budgetted : originially a short but incisive piece but considerations are emerging, with out losing the spine of the schema, which require each a little bit of extended treatment Footnotes, obviously, will be added when all is complete ].

The position of the Arab’s was not some political dispute contended in some gentlemanly manner, therefore, over the future over Palestine. They added a political dimension which crystallised and so triggered the push of some of the Jewish population for outright indpendence, as no longer a desire only for independence but a matter of survival. It came to a head in 1948 with the launch of the first Arab war against the Jews.

The above is against the backdrop of the U.N. resolution for the partition of Palestine and rejected by the Arabs but not by the Jews. England, as the adminstrator, had decided to let the U.N. decide on what to do, had relinquished the authority the League had charged it with in 1917 . The Arabs wanted all , the terrirotry and the Jews out and backed Fauzi el Kaukji and supplied his army to do it.

The Jewish people defeated Kaukji in that first of two wars in 1948. The Jews were now militarily and politically united and thus could Jewish leaders declare independence. To say the least, Arab leaders had miscalculated, what they sought to ensure against in a permanent way by nothing less than a massacre of the Jewish population had become a reality, Israel. The response of the Arabs, they launched a second war against the Jewish people, in a coalition of five countries led by Egypt and Syria, and to finish, obviously, the new Israel, May 1948.

Those two wars were mounted to do nothing less than exterminate the Jewish people. Arab leaders enticed the Arabs in Palestine to leave on the promise, the army would massacre the Jews and they could, after the overwhelming victory, not only resume their properties but everything the Jews had built up ( well, obvioulsy, they wouldn’t be requiring assets thereafter).

The leaders of the Arabs declared, any Arab who remained in Israel is a traitor. The force and implication of that declaration can only be lost to the most dimmest specimen of the human race or else they are an inveterate liar when it comes to villifying Israel. Just to check, a `loyal Arab’ is free to murder any `traitor’. There are plenty of examples of that, including the most infamous case the assassination of Anwar Sadat for his high treason of suing for peace for Israel. One might also add, the numbers deemed `traitor’ by the IRA and murdered by the like s of Gerry Adams - likes of, I didn’t say by him though he is up to the eyeballs in blood, as an external illustration.

Not all Arabs did leave Israel. They, as much as Israelis, only wished to live in peace and get on with life, and enjoy it. Azam Pasha, Secretary General, Arab League, the Arab version of a U.N., made the great promises, May 1948.

Pasha’s sentiments have been held ever since by so many. May,1962, the Cairo paper, Al-Ahran cried, :

“The Israel- Arab problem can be solved only by war. And since Israel knows very well that we will not agree to anything less than her liquidation it is she who will start the war and will attack as in the near future.”

Well, the first claim is correct, but it wasn’t Israel who started the next war.Moreover, that view, has has been advertised over the blog world is the view of Arafat, is the postion of his PLO, the PLF, and Hamas and related associations. Which brings us to the PLO , it was founded by the Arab coalition to wage war against Israel by means other than army-based operations. The PLO was not a Spontaneous popular `liberation’ movement by former `palestinian Arabs’. And next to Arab govts. setting it up and financing it, there is the odd twist that Russia in the post-war decades supported the Jewish Homeland and didn’t demurr on Israel, went on to via the KGB also to provide support to the PLO.

The reason why one has short-circuited history since 1950’s should be plain enough.The gravamen of, Israel is illegimate, they dispossessed `native’ `palestinians’ of any things, thrust them out, and oppress them. The above background clears the ground on quite a few points though, do they need to be recounted? The recitation clears the ground for the force of this paper.

Unfortunately, this Part will have to be resumed tomorrow morning, I have run out of time, despite working, with other things in between, as swiftly as I could.
The next leg tomorrow morning as Part III Section C.

Part III Section C.

The above is by way of clearing so much ground, and mere reiteration of common knowledge. It is certainly, however, to assert, the Jewish people, in the drive to the establish independence, expelled some of the Arab population and robbed them, in the process of their lawful rights as residents and woners of assets and such like.Nor can those Arabs be considered oppressed refugees. To the contrary, given they not only volitionally left but left out of murderous motivations. As child, in the sixties one never sympathasized with the `plight’ of those Arabs living in the otherwise ghastly camps and never considered them refugees nor the camps refugee camps when news programmes televised reports on the camps and used those terms, refugees and refugee camps, because the reasons why were, without further ado plain.

Nor does Israel’s refusal in the 60’s and still the case to let them return to Israel have anything with robbing those Arabs of lawful rights.That is clear enough, simply insane to let them resume when they are committed to the liquidation of Israel and massacre of the Jewish poeple , reinforced as many have pointed out last year what is inculcated in children in schools inthe `Palestinian Territory’ which schools recieve U.N. `humanitarian’ funding.

The refusal to allow those Arabs to resume residence in Israel and lawful rights is amplified by the little mentioned matter of the Israeli govts. offer to compensate those Arabs for the assets they had abandoned. The Israeli govt. made the promise in 1955 and kept the offer open , of compensation on the condition of their integration into the Arab world with the international assistance offered in 1955 to assist that transition and restitution. A promise which the Israeli govt. instructed its ambassador to the U.N., Mr.Comay, to re-affirm, to openly declare the offer was still open; 28/11/1960, to the Special Political Committe, General Assembly, U.N.

Obviously that does not amount to a full restitution of all that those Arabs left behind but to say they could be so restituted is nonsense.It was not the Israeli govt.’s policy to force them out and strip them of assets and other lawful rights of contract and association and so forth. In view of, they left Israel volitionally for the express aims of the liquidation of Israel but also the massacre of the Jewish people with the expectation that they would assume former Jewish assets as well as resume their own , the Israeli offer was not only reasonable it was generous to say the least.

In summary, the Israeli govt did not disposses Arabs of assets and lawful freedoms and expel them out of Israel. To the contrary, to the extent reasonable, the Israeli offered to to honour those rights which could be by compensation. The notion of, stripping those Arabs of rights and such like is outright nonsense, and today, can not be regarded as mistake over facts but a deliberate lie. A lie which has some currency in the west, one which, apparently as the Encounter programme demonstrates even some Jews in the west believe.

Balfour’s Declaration was not a stament of charter for the establsihment of an independent Israel. Yet, even `Homeland’ as the matter at hand was somewhat redundant, for no less a reason than Jerusalem and Palestine and never ceased to be Jewish `homeland’. The argument is more than, Jewish residents in an Arabic country, Palestine, Palestine never was an Arabic country , `Palestininan Arabs’ is nonsense, never was there a semitic tribe of `native’ palestinian Arabs. The notion which Toynbee put as forcefully as he could, Jerusalem and Palestine ceased being Jewish country on the conclusion to the second Roman-Jewish War of is false.

The gravaman of Toynbee’s is not his false account of 2nd century Palestine but his conlcusion, both `homeland’ and Israel are illegitamte, the Jewish people, on that basis are intruders who took Palestine by force of arms. The Jewish people booted out the native arabs of Palstine and set up Israel by conquest and related domestic measures. That view was expressed by some of the guests on the Encounter programme, as related below , with one asserting : the palestinians were reduced to a tiny fraction of their former territory.

Before proceeding, we will swiftly deal with two of Toynbees fictions as ancient history. Firstly, Jerusalem and Temple were destroyed with one aim: to put an end to nationalist insurgency. The siccari are infamous as a bloodthirsty lot who, like so many self styled `liberation’ groups served the people they claimed to represent only with murder, misery, and finally the second war.They certainly did not have the support of the Jewish people . Under the Romans, the Jewish people were free to conduct their affairs according to their traditions, the Romans were not interested interfering in their domestic affairs. Certainly there were restrictions, capital crime trials for example : the Sanhedrin had no competence whatsover on such matters, viz the trial of Jesus - the pithy `King of the Jews’ amplifies why Pilate tried Jesus on a capital crime, with the two next one more than excepts who were crucified with Jesus convicted on the same sort of count. Apart from the destruction of the Temple,the Romans otherwise left the Jewish people independent as before.

The crisis of the Judaeans was not a loss of independence and expulsion from Judaea , it was the destruction of the Temple. It was one of the first major themes of the second great body of classical literature the Talmuds Babylon and Jerusalem, commentaries and tractates which collection recieves its seminal departure point from the Mishne.

The second fiction to be dealt with, will, regrettably have to await until tomorrow morning. I’m called away on something which will require the rest of the day. The matter warrants delay because it would be reckless to pay hasty treatment right now. So, with aplogies dear readers, until to morrow morn, adieu.

Part III Why it is not Israel’s and jews’ Fault Section D

To the first line of argument mounted yesterday, Part III section C, I omitted something which cannot be omitted viz the Israeli offer made in 1955 and kept open with Mr. Comay intructed to make that clear ebfore the U.N. By contrast, in the wake of 1948, Arab govts. confiscated the assets of Jewish residents and expelled them from their countries and have never made any offer of resitution for those sequestered assets. Quite a contrast, given the very generous offer of the Israeli govt. to the Arabs who left Israel for the purpose of war against Israel and the massacre of the Jewish people, aims still inculcated in the children of the Arabs of the `Palestinian Territory’ ( as well documented). A contrast which rebounds on those who assert Israel has robbed Arabs of their rights. Yes, some govt. did rob people of their rights, they are all Arab govts., the worst case those of Egypt, some 180,000 Jews robbed of their assets by that govt. and driven out of Egypt, the Iraq govt. who did it to some 90,000 Jews.

The contrast runs deeper. The Israeli govt exhorted the Arabs not to leave but to stay and continue to add to the economic and general prosperity of themselves and Israel in general. In other words, the Israeli govt. did not seek the ruination of those Arabs and tried to convince them not to ruin themselves. The Arab govts., on the other hand, in robbing Jews of their lawful rights, thus also robbed their countries and so people of valuable economic activity. On that, even to speak of Israeli intolerance of Arab residents is merely stupid while, to speak of Israeli abuse of Arabs and oppression of Arabs is a viscious lie which only serves to fuel hatred of the Jewish people and modern Israel. That the U.N. foments such malevolent propaganda is only further evidence of the duplicity, mendacity, and all round rottenness of the U.N., more so given the record of the stance of the Israeli govt. before the U.N.

Secondly, just to check, it is as well to state what was also implied of the force of Toynbees assertions regarding the upshot of the second Jewish-Roman War. The Arab tribes, unified by Mohammedism, on their conquest of the middle East, found a virtually empty land devoid of civilisation (2). The Arabs thus merely occupied Palestine and re-inaugurated civilisation in Palestine. No other conclusion can be drawn because that is what the force of his claim amounts to. This claim, is central to securing the major assertion, the arabs of palestine are the `native people’ of palestine, whom the Jewish people from 1917 pressed and finally overthrew in 1948.

The convenience of the argument is the fallcy of shifting sand. If there is no people who are `Palestinian Arabs’, the assumption of `unoccupied ‘ country secures , none-the-less, the claim the Arabs in Palestine are the people of that country. Jews in Palestine, it can only be concluded, being mere, originally, migrants from Europe succeded by, on Balfour’s Declaration, migrations to the `Homeland’. The Jews ceased, therefore, to be merely migrants taking up residency in an Arab country under Arabic `laws’ and govt. and became intruders then , conquistadors from 1948.

It might be agreed, for all intents and purposes, if the Arabs had assumed an unoccupied land and, settled in it, it is their territory.There was no Jewish hold in Palestine are than a few migrant Jews taking up residency oin an Arab country. The proposition is false, however, because Toynbee’s historical `facts’ are not only false, there is not one very modest circumstantial fact to lend weight to his claim. And this from an historian ?!! Well, perhaps not unusual, Toyn bee not being the first historian to be careless with truth and not the last.

The significance of the above is not Toynbee’s claim per se but, the fact that the Jews became intruders and took Palestine by force of arms, overthrowing the `native’ `palestinian population’ is, quite in evidence, a lie beleived not only by quite a few in the mid-east but also quite a few in the West, even believed by some Jews - if Encounter is any indication. This takes us to Toynbee’s second argument from history, an independent argument, ivolving an archaism which is, in any case false also. conquest as a means by which a conqueror takes over another country and asserts not only administrative control over that country but the conqured country is thereupon, say, Egytian, territory, Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman territory, no longer the country of the conquered.

An archaism because, even if that argument from conquest is correct, it was definitely not acceptable since the end of the ancient period, definitely not in 1917, not in 1948, not in the 1960’s and not so today (3).So, Toynbee committed the fallacy opposite that of anachronism. The position of the conquered in the ancient middle East reamined an independent country but bound as vassal to the the Overlord King, formalised in vassal treaties with terms specifiying conditions which the vassal King had to fulfil (4). Standard expressions included familiars like `brother’, the overlord would protect his brother/son even, and do so so long as the other `brother’ fulfilled his brotherly, it might be said, obligations.

Even the harshest, most oppressive of conquering overlords, the Assyrians were no exception. The Assyrians were ever-ready to take direct administrative control of a vassal, deporting the monarch and senior adminstrators and chieftans and replacing them with their administrators. They did this, however, in strict form.

Their tactic was to impose the harshest terms on a vassal, terms almost certain to provoke revolt by the vassal. The Assyrians would retaliate with a bloody campaign completed with very brutal execution of prominent people and impose additional treaty terms. Vassal revolts again providing the `legal’ trigger to slaughter most of the ruling house and enough of the supporting arisitocratic families and install their own administration . Yet, they never equated that with, the vassal so reduced that country is henceforth Assyrian country. So even of the two Assyrian empires, and each empire -from the Egyptian and Hittite, to the Greek and Roman empires and the intervening satrapies , is Toynbee’s assertion true. Toynbee’s assertion is false completely.

Not only of the above empires but, critically, also of the Arab and Turkic empires until 1917, from the c. mid 4th century c.e. to 1917, some 1,600 years of history.From the conclusion to the second Jewish-Roman Empire to 1917, Palestine remianed Jewish country and Jeruslam their capital. Though had, at best, very limited standing -their property could be confiscated and subjected to very high rates of taxation, and though perscuted - with mob violence and sluahgter , as also during the interlude of the Crusaders occupation ( as also Moslems), they were never expelled enmasse from Palestine, it remained Jewish. Damascus was the capital of the Arab world, Mecca its holy temple. The Arabs who conquered Jerusalem were composed of mainly the southern desert tribes and for the Arab empires, as also the Turkic empire, the interest was economic and military control. Palestine remained Jewish country and Jeruslaem their captial all down those centuries post-Roman until 1917.

The above is reflected in the situation when Chauvel and Allenby put an end to the Turk Empire. Middle Eastern countries of peoples observing the same traditions, law, beliefs and such things. So to Palestine the country of the Jewish people. Balfour’s declaration is redundant on that count. It’s significance lies in, it really only amounts to formal international recognition of that fact in 1917, supported by the League of Nations, agreed by them that is the case. The League went further, the Jewish people should be encouraged to build their economic intersts, establish their own governance, should be encouraged to advance their traditions and practices and, what is more, Jews in other countries contemplating migration to the homeland of the Jewish people should be welcomed to do so.

While Balfour’s Declaration, reflecting the position of the League of Nations by formalising what was the case anyway, doesn’t explicitly provide for independence such as declared in 1948 and the naming of the country Israel ( which only reflects the case), the statments of the declaration effectively assent to what was the case, palestine is an independent Jewish country. It recognises, what actually remained was , on the end of turkish control, for the people to re-establish institutional apparatus for the purposes of, for example, law by way of courts and of governance.

The above illuminates, bye the bye, `Zionism’ and the `Zionist movement’ , for the above is the content of `Zionism’ .The belief, for example, it refers to some atavistic desire to impose an empire over the mid-east of Solomonic-Davidic proportions is downright rubbish. Rubbish, further illustrated by, some schools of Orthodox Juadiasms (in the defintion of Juadism as traditions of faith - Judaism is not a homologous tradition and never has been ) are working hard to bring that about. To the contray, the Orthodox position , not novel to 20th century Orthodox jews, is a will-o’-the wisp one of, if god wishes the people to have such natioanl greatness he would bring it about , no human action required. On this score, Israel they regard as illegitimate.

Toynbee’s next argument from history is peculiar to say the least, a moral one and resting on a crude contradiction . Toynbee compares the Arab-Muslim conquest with the oundation of Jerusalem and Judaea as the country of the Jewish people who invaded semtic territory. He is speaking of the wars of Joshua, Judaea was established by conquest of invaders. Here, he asserts, it is arrant hypocrisy to allow the foundation of the Jewish people as ligitmate but deny the same for the `Palestinian Arabs’. Since it is Toynbee who considers modern Israel was established only by conquest and yet declares Israel to be illegitimate, it is Toynbee who has hung his hat on the rack of hypocrisy.

Hypocrite and no schoalr of ancient history is he. He is reliant on history according to the Bible, disregarding the type of literature it is. The first Herodotus of Jewish History, Josephus was so reliant because their were, at best, very few few records of ancient history were available. We are pretty sure of this because he is reliant on Biblical narrative until he arrives to `modern’ hisotry, one could sya, when his evidence is rather more abundant and himself having lived through some major events. And, like Herodotus, Josephus was a very careful historian in his evaluation of evidence. In otherwords, he was quite alert to the evidential shortcomings he faced, unlike so many today.

Eeven by the 1960’s, after about a century of distinguished, brilliant biblical scholarship on the onehand and, on the other hand, archaeology, it wasn’t simply clear the Bible is not relaible history books. It was clear the narrative of history was stylised, not a-typical of narratives of `history’. It was also clear, by then, the belief the Jewish people were a unique group of newcomers to the land of Semites, engaged in wars and, finally, after toiling, warring, ado, the `Isarelite League’ , these foriegners, ancestors of the Jewish people today, caputred jerusalem and Judaea and much more besides ,and made it their capital and country, doesn’t agree with the more mundane explanation , despite the effort to still assert the Bible as reliable history.

The only valid conclusion, the ancient Jews were the orginal inhabitants of Judaea. In other words, Jewish hisotry begins with that stark but mundane observation.Not invaders, not outsiders to the Jordanain defile from Cis- to-trans- Jordan, just the people who populated Judaea whose dialect was Judahite, not to be confused with the `paleo- Hebrew’ of the Bible. That the Jewish people managed to survive the eructions of history as an independent people with capital and country is the remarkable thing.

One confines observation of ancient Jewish history to just the above point because, more is prolix matter and, that singular statement suffices for the argument in hand. To say the least, therefore, who are the Jews and the hisotry of the Jewish people is not a matter of , the Bible says so, whatsover. The integrity of Jewish history to the present,begins with that singular observation just made. In other words, the coninuity and integrity of Jewish history is not a line from conquering invaders but precisely the ancestors of the Jewish people today were the original population of Judaea, their capital Jerusalem,a `native’ (to use an otherwise vulgar and useless, meaningless term used by so many for so many different bits of nonsense - like native species) semetic population , reflected in traditions inclusive of lanaguage.

Conclusion to the Three Part Essay

Toynbee’s paper is nothing but a miasma of assertions resting on crude concoctions, so that if one line doesn’t trip things up, as it were, then another will. The object behind structuring Part III around his paper is not to single it out nor him as such, since he was not alone in holding to such fictions and claims. No, it wass because his paper sets out the majority of those fictions and assertions against modern Israel it made an excellent pin for argument. An excellence because, much of the mummery outlined in Parts I and II spouted today by not only middle easterners but enough in the West also is, on many points ( not necessarily in details) is the same.

First off, fictions and mummery on not only Jewish history, but say, science for example, is corrupt. The subordination of truth for the sake of other objectives is corrupt and corrupting of civilised engagment, a corrutping inlfuence which can prepare the way for unmitigated evil. Europe has already borne the consequences of such corruption viz. Nazism and Communism. We cast our eye to Africa, Zimbwabe, to Asia - where to begin, Cuba, to Australia and the influence of the `blackband’ version of history and its false account of relations with the aborigines, something remarked upon by others viz statments of some `leaders’.

The mummery against the Jewish people and modern Israel fuels hatred of the Jewish precisely because , inot only is it false but it depicts the siutation in the Middle East as, at bottom, due to the Jewish people. The two cannot be disitinguished, for who else is inferred? Certainly not Arabs living in Israel. Who else is referred to as having robbed `palestinian Arabs’ of rights of all sorts imaginable, not Arabs. Who else but the Jews are accused of having forced Arabs out of `Palestine’. Who is implied as oppressing Arabs in Palestine, not Arabs but Jews. To say there is no anti-semitic content to the mummery and allegations is downright rot. The content of it is, against the Jewish people and not all people Semiti.That is clear enough, as Bayeftsky’s documentation and paper on the U.N. ’s descent into the same shallow drivel makes plain and with it, as of the Durban Conference and other matters also makes plain, the fanning of hatred against Jews.

Moreover, without truthful grounding in history, programmes on middle-eastern affairs such as those aired and screened by ABC-BBC clarify nothing, add nothing for rational general understanding and comprehension. To the contrary, mummery just spews out more fog. Things are now beyond the stage of mere mistakes on points of history, it is time to talk about lying, deliberate lying, in order to drive beleifs and aims which, irrespective of anyone’s view on modern Israel, promise to achieve nothing but to spew out more atrocious conduct, and the reader can entertain no doubt on which side of the fence, on the part of the Arabs and their western sympathisers.

The problems of the Arabs are all home-grown, they are neither Jews’ nor Israel’s nor Sharon’s fault. Israel is being used as a foil , the Arab govts. so they can evade facing up to reality and, indeed, make the move to become civilised govts. and induce their own people to become civilised for once in their miserable, nasty, cruddy lives. As for the westerners, one could pin-point a view possible motives, mostly leftoid in order.

The end, basically. What remains is to review what one has written , edit for corrections, add in footnotes and sundry jobs. The schema, however, is out. Comment away, readers. Finis.

Not anti-semitism, just murderous hatred of the Jewish people.

To sum up some of the comments from the Encounter programme, anti-Judaism is a fantasy of Jews trapped in `victimhood’ due to their traditions saturated by memories of persecutions and massacres.Fantasies `internalised’. That this psycho-soiciology babble, and they, psychology and sociology is nothing but charlatanism, they are not science ( with all due respect but on this, James Randi, in the case of psych. you are mistaken, seriously so).

Tim Blair has drawn attention to a site observing the Guardian’s use of expletives, a world leader on this score.

Down below is an excellent article on the U.N.’s record in fomenting hatred of the Jews in general councils, committees, conferences and NGO’s. Taken with the hatred of not a few in the middle-east for the Jewish people, and no less disturbing the apparent willingness to use such sentiment for political advantage, such sentiments expressed on Encounter and threaded to dleiver the implicit conclusion, the problems of Arabs and Islamo-fascists and the people who suffer under those nasty regimes is all Israel’s fault and the motivation of that, Zionism and Jews’ self pity, show up for the utter bilge they are. This, before also factorooing in the bilge of pyschology and sociology.

Thanks to Ombudsgod for drawing attention to a fine article by Anne Bayefsky,
on the U.N. and its propagation of hatred of the Jewish people, The U.N. and the Jews. I shall just cite some passages which are telling for the item which will be completed by posting PartIII,It’s All the Israeli’s-Jewish People’s Fault.

By Palestinians and others, Israelis are now routinely condemned with Nazi terminology?current resolutions speak of the “Judaization” of Jeru salem?or are themselves likened to Nazis. As the Algerian representative recently observed, in an especially memorable outburst
At the [2001 UN Durban conference on racism and xenophobia?s] NGO forum, the Arab Lawyer?s Union freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands. Another best-selling title was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hundreds of flyers were distributed with a picture of Hitler and the words, “What if I had won? The good thing?there would be no Israel.” Appeals to the conference?s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, to demand the removal of this anti-Semitic literature went unheeded…

The position of the U.N. is unambiguous, as statements Bayefsky quotes affirm, Jews are intruders who have forced out the `native inhabitants, `palestinian arabs’ and Israel, thuse guilty of robbing them of their `inalienable rights’.

A senior U.N. official declared the Durban conference a success. Delgates to the conference, to mark, having yelled `killers’ against Jewish delegates, and issued , what is more, threats against them, including against Jewish youths at the conference.

Ireland, Bayefsky, relates had a record of supporting Israel and resolutions condemning violence against Jews and parties responsible for it. Not any more, Ireland no longer supports such resolutions because, they are not germane to anti-rascism.

In 2003 alone, the UN bureaucracy generated 22 reports and formal notes on “conditions of Palestinian and other Arab citizens living under Israeli occupation.”
Anne points out, Israel is the only county on which the U.N. has raised a committee dedicated to the investigation of Israel.

And the position of the World Council of Churches is no less discreditable, though not surprising in its pro-socialist/communist anti-capitalist position which it has asserted, stridently, over the decades of its existence.Marking also the WWC is also an admirer of those polpotian communists the greenies.

Well worth a read:

Ombudsgod.blogspot:

Anne Bayefsky: through ombudsgod or this:

Read both.

An `internalised’ `mental’ guilt ridden tradition bound groundless fantasy indeed.But that crap is also par for the course at ABC, SMH, Moa’s little Red Age, The Australian and the U.S. equivalents. As also the line the Jews are intruders/conquistadors who mericlessly oppress `palestinian arabs’ and kill them for that motive. Anne lists all the countries whose regimes are guilty of real oppression, of murder, of fanning violence and more who have not been condemned by the U.N. and not subjected to the intense scrutiny to which Israel is, let alone have committees dedicated to the investigation of each of them.The list includes the fat savage of Zimbabwe … has the U.N. investigated Castro and his commie regime. And what was the U.N.s concern over Iraq, not the Iraqi people, but the Coalition’s decision to eliminate a thoroughly rotten regime.This is such a striking contrast it shows how rotten the U.N. is. Why in the fuch are Oz taxpayers robbed of money to prop up a pack of scumbug scoundrels the U.N. is an outregous puzzle.