Obunga: Palestine must be based on 67 borders........

What happened to your argument Israel was in Palestine ?

You really are unable to relate to events as they are today. How the Romans defined the Middle East is irrelevant. When we discuss Israel and Palestine it should be as the borders are today.

I should expect nothing less from someone who describes the killing of four Israelis as a war crime, but actually approves of the murder of 300+ Palestinian children. I note your obsession with human sacrifice, I didn't realise you were willing to sacrifice a whole race for your disgustingly perverse religious ideology. You really have got a lot in common with Hitler.

You really are incredibly dense. I have not argued for Israel being in Palestine I have argued for the 1967 borders to be agreed as per international law. These products were grown in illegal settlements. The people who bought them believed they were helping the Palestinians, but they found out they were aiding the fascists who are illegally occupying their land

One of the big issues in devolution was that Scotland would be free to decide on their on laws. The Westminster government could not overturn Scottish rulings, especially when the same labour administration introduced devolution. Regarding immigration I wasn't talking about true immigrants, but people who come over on a student/tourist visa then work illegally.

You're probably right about the steps I mentioned having very little impact on Israel, but they're first steps.

Incidentally I noticed you felt you had to mention your grandfather was Irish. my great grandmother was Irish so you're only one generation closer to Ireland than I am. I would imagine you still feel very Irish. My mother, who is as close to Ireland as yourself, feels completely English as do I. I think it's interesting how differently ancestry is viewed either side of the Atlantic.

Well my mother was born and grew up in Ardmore, just West of Dungarvin, and I have lots of cousins there whom I see regularly - perhaps a good deal closer than you. The point I was making, however, had more to do with the long-standing divergence of viewpoints between America and Europe, and the UK in particular, and my belief that this difference is growing rather fast in the current age.

With respect to our different experiences, I suspect it is traceable to the different choices our forebearers made with respect to immigration. Coming here to some extent involved a rejection of the past and the desire to create something new, whereas going to England, the heart of the beast, represented accomodation and the desire to assimilate with the oppressor. It is observably true that immigrants here, whether German, Irish, Polish, Russian or Polish Jews or the more recent Central Americans, tend to freeze their attitudes about their former homelands, and the issues surrounding them, and see subsequent events through a fixed lens. That, incidently, explains the firm well organized support that American Jews provide for Israel, and as well some of the motivations of many others here inclined to support other escapees from the ghastly history of Europe.

We have different concepts of what actually constitutes International Law. For me it is the traditional concept that such law is merely what sovereign nations will accept and enforce, nothing more. I recognize that hopefull "progressives" throughout the world imagine that the UN (for example) is a source of law (rather than the usually corrupt bureaucracy and international discussion forum it really is). In the post WWII era many here also suscribed to these ideas, but that has proved to be a passing thing. Indeed other post WWII institutions, including the UN, NATO and perhaps even the EU appear to be disintegrating.

I note that Poland, The Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have just agreed to the creation of a joint military headquarters & force, independent of both the EU and NATO - a strong indicator of their fears of dangers to the East and West. I see that also in the growing divergence between Germany and France. the growing economic connections between Germany and Russia and the increasing economic tensions between north & south in the EU. The world in my view is emerging from the abnormalities attendant to the long 1914 thru 1989 World Conflict that started in Europe, and returning to its former state, now with many new principal actors.

Targeting civilians is a war crime even when the civilians are Israelis.





A teenager killed in self defense as he tries to murder people has hardly been "murdered" himself.

And enough with the dead children gambit. A "16-year-old Palestinian who was attacking people on a battlefield" is hardly equal to a "3-year-old Israeli who has been murdered".





Why do you Nazi creeps always falsely accuse others of your own filth?

Do you really believe that the use of such perjorative terms and excesses improves the quality of the arguments you put forward here, or helps you in understanding other perspectives ? Do you believe that it is an effective means of persuading others of the merits of your viewpoint or better understanding theirs? Or do you simply enjoy such pointless shouting matches?

None of the above. I guess "pointless shouting match" is the best way to characterize any conversation with Izzy. But it is not so much that I enjoy pointless shouting matches. Rather it is that I believe it is important to confront Nazis when they spew their hate.

We have different perspectives on many things, and disagree a lot. However I have not had the experience you describe with her. Perhaps it is partly your fault.

You have not directly confronted her extreme anti-Semitism the way I have. I expect that if you had, you'd get the same response.

I'm not sure that "fault" is quite the correct term. It implies something done wrong. Clearly my choice to stand up for what is right draws hatred from evil people -- hatred that I would not draw were I to let their evil go unchallenged. But I think I've made the morally correct choice in opposing them.

I think it is possible to sincerely disagree, even about moral choices. Coloring opinion with assertions of exclusive morality is the historical hallmark of intolerance and eventual oppression

Much of what I argue is fact and not opinion. For instance, it is a fact that when a 16-year-old Palestinian is killed in self defense as he tries to murder someone, that self defense is not a crime. It is also a fact that when a three year old Israeli child is murdered, that is quite different and is an actual crime.

When it is evil that is being oppressed and not tolerated, is that a bad thing? The world would be a far better place without people making horrific false allegations against Jews and/or Israel.

In a just world, palisavages wouldn't even be allowed to HAVE children, they habitually abuse the privilege:

http://www.pmw.org.il/

Palestinians view their own children primarily as weapons to hurl at Israel.

Then why are you so stupid as to call it Palestine ? It is Jordan or Israel . There is no modern Palestine .

Your belligerence is writing cheques and your intelligence is bankrupt .

WHAT BLOODY BORDERS ???? Stop making **** up .


You couldnt "note" a double decker bus parked on top of you . If I talk about anything it is an obsession . Well I "note" your obsession with murdering children . Does it get you all wet ?

Are you so fucked in the head that you would play the Jewish sympathy card and yet accuse others of doing it as if it was a crime ??

So its ok to hate Jews if you are pro-Nazi and it is ok to hate Jews if you are pro-Palestinian . Then you can commit the ultimate hypocrisy by declaring anyone who disagrees with your unrealistic ambition as a Nazi . Did you make up these rules yourself ?

First of all, why are you bothering to engage Oralboy, Gunga and Anus in converstaion? These people are hate merchants pure and simple, when you engage such creatures in debate you start to legitimise their bigotry. I stopped reading Oralboy's hate-filled rants a long time ago, with the exception of the posts you've just written. These creatures are motivated by their hatred of all Moslems, it's got nothing to do with any concerns about Israel. Islamophobia is a useful type of hatred because you can still pretend to be motivated by feelings other than bigotry, those three are only fooling themselves. If they had been living in Nazi Germany they would be queueing up to fire up the ovens.

I'm a bit concerned that you keep referring to me as a woman. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just confused by the name izzythepush. Izzythepush is in fact a literary creation by one of the C20 greatest writers, but I thought having Roger Mellie as my avatar might have been a clue as to my gender. I won't assume you're using female pronouns in a mysogenistic perjorative way, unlike Anus.

You do like using perjorative language though, your use of oppressor do describe the people of the UK is a point of fact. Do you use the same terminology to describe the actions of the Hispanics who come into America? The real oppressor is the aristocracy, and the British Working classes have felt this oppression more than any other group. Maybe the Irish emigre who came to these shores realised their oppressor was not the ordinary working classes, and maybe they didn't want to cut all ties with their own country. It's a lot easier to return to Ireland if you just have to cross the Irish Channel than the Atlantic. It would be quite interesting to compare my exchanges with ECY, an Irishman who looks at relations between our two countries based on the reality today, as opposed to historical grievances. Maybe that's an approach you could try to emulate.

You seem to be isolated in your opinion that the UK is moving further away from America than the rest of Europe. I believe a Frenchman would think the exact opposite. The UK's membership of the EU is often viewed as being a way of bringing Anglo Saxon influence to bear, and by that they mean American. The attitudes of Eastern European countries are motivated by the memories of life behind the iron curtain more than anything else, in the same way that many countries in Latin America are now looking towards Russia and China after having suffered American imperialism.

Incidently we do get a lot of news channels on satellite over here. RT, (Russian News) and Press TV (Iranian News) use it as an opportunity to influence European thinking. They ignore the abuses of human rights in their own countries, and instead focus on all the terrible things America does. They're not short of stuff to broadcast.

I know you didn't accuse me of hating Jews, but I'm not going to respond directly to the bigots. I have great admiration for many Jews, particularly Gerald Kaufman and Ed Milliband. What I do hate is the way the Israeli government oppresses the Palestinian people. In the simplistic mind-set of the bigots, that would make me anti-semitic, but I'm not particularly bothered with what nazis think anyway.

I assumed you were a woman based on the name and the overtones in what you wrote. I've no knowledge of or interest in the background of the name you use here. Your concern is noted, but does it really matter?

The systematic oppression practiced by Britain and the British Empire around the world and in particular here and in Ireland is merely an easily demonstrable fact. Your suggestion that the British working class was not involved, did not benefit from it, and bears no moral responsibilty for it - all gives the lie to your country's claims of long-standing democratic traditions and representative government. Moreover the facts of history clearly contradict your claim. These include. just for example, the British use of the largely working class Scots Irish Orangemen in the six counties as the agents of oppression there for the past three centuries; the suppression of textile manufacturing in India for over a century; and the welfare benefits paid to Englishmen by the post WWII British Labor governments with revenues stolen from the Iranian government through the then Anglo Iranian Oil company (I think Eisenhower's realization that he had been duped by the British in overthrowing Mossadeq in 1953 was part of his motivation for telling you - and the Israelis & the French- to get out of Suez & Egypt in 1956.)

Yes I do use the terms 'oppressor and oppression' to describe both Spanish and Anglo-French colonialism in the Americas. However, I do note that the survival of native populations, languages and cultures was vastly bettter in the Spanish colonies (and to an extent the French ones) than it was in colonies established by Britain or Portugual. For them extermination was the rule, not the exception. Spanish government policy, though often ignored in practice, was much more humane and not entirely ineffective.

I'll agree that the Irish are quite free of anger or the desire for retribution for their long suffering and oppression at the hands of the English. The decaying, little used old Church of Ireland structure in the center of most towns in the Republic and the more recent Catholic structures farther from the center; St Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity college in Dublin are all reminders that they made no attempt to erase the legacy of their former oppressors or inflict retribution on them. (although the occasional famine museum one encounters in the West is a reminder that not all is forgotten.) There is also some understandable self-selection involved. The most desperate and adventurous Irishmen emigrated, and carried their then contemporary attitudes with them, while those who remained had made different choices and had the subsequent experience of adapting. Which viewpoint is more accurate?

I don't believe that the UK is moving farther from America than the rest of Europe at all. Instead, I believe that America is instead moving away from all of Europe, and that, following the collapse of the Soviet Empire, a very unnatural and temporary affection for America abruptly ended across Europe (starting in the prosperous West) and was replaced by their former contempt and scorn for the anti European culture their castoffs created in the Western hemisphere (consider the standard literary portrayal of the crude, crasping, materialistic Yankee in 19th century European literature from Russia to Britain.). I believe that many currents are at work in Europe today; the EU bureaucratic apparatus grows, steadily extending its influence; while at the same time the motivation for real European political integration diminishes - from Galway to Riga, Naples and Lisbon. The Franco-German unity is clearly severely strained (the Germans are considering the relative economic inportance of their EU partners and the Russians); the former Soviet satellites are organizing to deal with traditional enemies on the east & west; and the British are (as ever) playing the game of being almost in and exploiting differences among other European states. In short the old, pre 20th century order is slowly returning. (Indeed it reads a lot like the Congress of Vienna.)

We get them too. They would focus on Britain & France as well, if you were more interesting or threatening to them.

You betray a confusing collection of contradictions and rationalizations in you words above. 'I'm not anti Semitic: I even have many friends who are Jews'. You refer to other interlocutors as bigots and then, in the next sentence refer to them as Nazis. I see you believe your expressed hatred for the oppression inflicted by Israel on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is admirable. However, I find your very odd continued disregard for the selfish, deceitful actions of your country in creating the awful mess in Palestine (indeed throughout the former Ottoman Empire) and the actions of nearly all continental European countries in motivating millions of European Jews to leave everything behind and flee to Palestine, to be clear and direct contributors to this situation - certainly equal factors to the motives of Isralei settlers and security forces. It seems to me that all of you do "protest too much" about the behavior of the Israelis.

The American public increasingly sees things through these lenses as well. It is very interesting to see wide support for Obama;'s hands off policy with respect to Lybia even from conservatives who suspect and generally despise his motives. They too are interested in seeing the Europeans for once acting responsibly to address the problems they have created.

I'm not going to respond to everything you said, mostly because I really don't have the time. I do not think it fair though to state I show scant disregard for the part the British Empire played in the problems in the Middle East today. I think I have acknowledged a lot of that. However, I still do think you are very critical of other countries whilst viewing your own through rose tinted spectacles. You did say;

(I think Eisenhower's realization that he had been duped by the British in overthrowing Mossadeq in 1953 was part of his motivation for telling you - and the Israelis & the French- to get out of Suez & Egypt in 1956.)


Now who's being naive? Eisenhower wasn't duped by anyone. It was this coup that established America as the 'Great Satan,' in the eyes of the Iranian revolutionaries not Britain. Eisenhower told us and the French to get out of Suez because he hadn't been consulted in the first place. As I remember Israel actually did quite well out of the whole deal.

Neither of us knows Eisenhower's inner motives for sure, and the then ongoing Soviet suppression of the revolt in Hungary was no doubt also a factor. However, perhaps you should read up on the prelude to Mossadeq's overthrow.

The violent dispute and strike at the Anglo Iranian refinery at Abaddan had been going on for a year. The U.S. had just negotiated a 50-50 split of oil revenues with the Saudis in ARAMCO; and Mossadeq wanted the same deal from the British. He threatened nationalization of British assets if he didnt't get it. Then President Truman hosted Mossadeq in Washington for a nearly two month long visit, during which he and then Secretary of State Atchenson vainly tried to persuade the British Labor Government to agree (their response was they needed to go on screwing Iranians to pay social benefits to British workers - Truman did not agree.). There were strong supporters of Britain in our political circles, and amidst all these effects, Eisenhower, soon after Truman left and he took office, was persuaded to finance and take control of a spy network, willing Iranian Colonels and coup that had already been carefully organized by the British. The result for us was was very much as you described: we played your game and were hurt by it. The British got their continued revenues and we got the Shah. Our fault for sure.

I prabably am looking at my country through a favorable lens, but not nearly so much as are you doing the same for yours - even descending to the point of blaming a vanished aristocracy for your sins, and - in the case of Palestine - criticizing your former Zionist paymasters as well as others, who are attempting to clean up the intractabe mess in Palestine that you and the other European states worked very hard to create - and which you abandoned when the going got tough and ceased to be profitable in 1948.