Rules of Engagement for Comment on the Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Posted by Lambcut

Lambcut with a very special Semitic friend

At the discretion of Busted Blonde and the Brunette, I will probably continue to post occasionally as time allows, on Saturdays and Sundays on the delicate topic of Israeli Palestinian politics. If you wish to comment on any post going forward you will have to abide by certain rules of engagement. In previous posts on the topic or in reply to any comment thus far, you will note that I haven’t indulged in any ad hominem attacks, pejorative language, racist insults or hate speech. The same cannot be said for some VRWC commentators. Though, some of those commentators resorted to other blogs as their forum for this. Notwithstanding, I published all comments sent to Roarprawn. I will not continue to do so.

There have been assertions by Roarprawn’s commentators, albeit on other blogs that I am anti-Semitic. Arabs, along with Jews, are Semitic people. In any event, I do not countenance anti-Semitism in any form. There will be no holocaust denying here, there will also be no nakba denying. I do not compare nakba to the holocaust. The horrors of the holocaust thankfully remain out in a league of their own. Nakba is an atrocity in its own right. And I will not ignore it.

I refer to my recent post entitled, Israel and the Fine Art of Sophistry. It attracted remarkable traffic and vitriol from the VRWC’s readers. It was essentially a post on the poor standard of journalism on both sides. Read it properly and see. Not one commentator asked me whether or not I agreed with a withdrawal to the 1967 borders or if I supported a two state solution. The most inflammatory thing I said was, “for Netanyahu to assert that the 1967 borders are indefensible is demonstrably untrue and mischievous”. Not one commentator provided any rebuttal to that statement. No-one talked about the quality or veracity of press coverage.

As it happens I am not convinced a two state solution is best. If Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza, and was made a whole country on that basis, certain things would eventually have to happen. If Israel wished to be thought of as a civilised state the rights of all of its citizens would have to be recognised equally. The Gaza wall would have to come down or it would be an apartheid state, and would have to be regarded as such by the international community. Any violent act by any citizen Palestinian or Jew would have to be recognised for what it is – a criminal act punishable at criminal law. Water and other vital infrastructure would need to be provided to all areas of the country in proper proportions. Persons born in Israeli territory would have automatic citizenship and have the right to leave the country and have the right of return. Disputes over real property, historic or not, would have to be addressed on an appropriate legal basis. Universal suffrage would have to be enacted. Those persons now held in Israeli prisons without trial would have to be brought before the Courts without undue delay.

If you wish to make any comment on any post of mine on this topic I will publish it, provided the comment does not contain:

Ad hominem attacks; or

pejorative language; or

racist insults; or

hate speech against any ethnic group.

Israel and the Fine Art of Sophistry

Posted by Lambcut

Israel likes to complicate the politics of conflict. Complicated concepts are difficult to debate and communicate to our attention deficit disordered Western hive-mind. But it’s really not that hard to understand.

In 1967 Israel won the Six Day War. It was a decisive victory and significantly expanded Israel’s territory.

Yesterday, Barrack Obama called for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders. The proposal is part of a peace plan that’s been dragging on unrealised for decades.

Today, Benjamin Netanyahu said that the 1967 borders are indefensible. Israeli spinners are pouring out lots of fabulous and complex arguments for why it is so.

The fact remains that Israel won the territory as a result of decisive military conquest. It has been defending the territory adeptly for 43 years. It has expanded the territory incrementally by means of illegal settlement. It is territory gained by such means that is at the root of Obama’s call. For Netanyahu to assert that the 1967 borders are indefensible is demonstrably untrue and mischievous. But Israel will go on spinning it with breathtaking sophistry and the West will go on listening with the understanding and attention span of a gnat.