Anti-Jewish site on Google

A friend has sent me this:

'Dear Friends, We all have to sign a petition to force Google to remove from their websites list the website .... This site is devoted to anti-Semitism, hate of Jews and so, with false articles and research..It is one of the first website appearing when searching Jew on Google! To force Google to remove this website, we need to gather at least 500,000 signatures. We already got over 300,000 signatures. We need 200,000 more!'

To sign this petition, go here.

Comments

[Paul Halsall]

Websites are not "on" Google. Google is a search engine which indexes websites created by other people.

I agree that JewWatch is a disgusting web project, but, frankly, I would be much more worried about the idea that unpleasant search results can be censored by some petition process.

I suspect there is not the slightest chance Google will respond to such a request; and it would loose a lot of users if it did.

[Phil Craig]

The site is pretty horrific. But I'm not sure we should get Google to take it off their service. You can find millions of deplorable sites using a search engine, but it doesn't mean the engine approves of it.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Isn't this sort of thing against the law?

[Alan Marsh]

I've signed the petition. I don't see why free speech should trump the right of Jewish people to freedom from antisemitic persecution.

[John]

It's nonsense - there's no way that such a petition could "force" Google to stop indexing a site. Google do sometimes de-index offensive sites, but this isn't how to go about it.

If you truly want to stop this site, approach its host and complain under its use policy (these usually prohibit hate speech and incitement, which seems to be the issue here). Google is just an index of what's out there - there is no suggestion that they approve or endorse the content that they index.

It smells very strongly of an email chain letter, to me.

pax et bonum

[ash]

to be fair, this is very old news. Several years ago, JewWatch was the top result on google.

Following a sustained Google-Bombing campaign (endorsed by Google in this case) the top result is now the Wikipedia article on Judaism.

Google lists sites by the number of other sites that link to them using certain words. So, for example, if I link to the Wikipedia article with the word 'Jew' in the link, then Google will count that as '1'. if I search 'Jew' in google, google displays all the sites that are linked to by other sites, using the word 'Jew', and ranks them in order of the most links.

Google-bombing is deliberately exploiting this to fudge their results. E.G., getting a million people who have websites/ blogs to link to a different site using the word 'Jew' in the link. It is actually very effective in cases lik e this, but is also often used for jokes or maliciously.

One famous example is the google-bomb that meant when people searched for 'miserable failure', they were taken to George Bush's biography page on the White House site.

[Alan Marsh]

Apparently Google is not without a sense of humour of its own. If you do a search for "French military victories" Google will tell you it can find no documents matching this, and asks "Did you mean FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS"?

[TW]

"Apparently Google is not without a sense of humour of its own. If you do a search for "French military victories" Google will tell you it can find no documents matching this, and asks "Did you mean FRENCH MILITARY DEFEATS"?"

Not any more. This was quite a short lived google-thing.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

I'm a libertarian in times of peace. I'm against all manipulation of data or web sites for a specific agenda. It's not Google's business and Google should not have cooperated with the Chinese govt ( reportedly)over censoring sites that offend the mainland Chinese.

I would not sign a petition against a web site called "Limey watch.com"

[Peter Bridgman]

I'm not sure why Ruth Gledhill has asked people to sign this petition. If she came across a viciously anti-Anglican site (is there such a thing?), would she (or anyone else) think of asking Google to deny people access to it? I somehow doubt it.

Surely if we find obnoxious sites on the net, we should complain to the site owners rather than the search engine?

[Robin Bather]

There's a lot of anti semitic hate on Jew Watch.

However there's also a lot of truth when it deals with the Jewish lobby in the US and AIPAC's (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) pervasive bribery and tactics which have achieved bending American foreign policy to the favour Israel.
As has been said many times before, the yell of "Antisemite!" is ably used by Israeli apologists to quash any criticism of Israel.

By all means ban Jew Watch -- hateful site that it is, but does nobody care to stand up and question the Jewish propaganda steamroller which would have any criticism of Israel also banned.

It might be the thin end of the wedge.

[Alan Marsh]

TW - "not any more"

I tried it yesterday and it worked. Have you newer information?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Hi, Robin. I was thinking about you the other day and wondering what had happened to you.

Could you please specify exactly what you mean by AIPAC's 'pervasive bribery'.

This is a very serious allegation, and if true, should be investigated immediately.

In the meantime, I should point out to those who don't know that Jews constitute less than 2% of the total US population, considerably less than the Muslim and Arab populations there.

I wonder if they are also guilty of 'pervasive bribery' - I mean, they can't all be into suicide bombings now, can they?

Looking forward to hearing from you on Jewish bribery and corruption, Robin

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Dr. Irene

The issue is Jewish power, period. We can't have any. Otherwise, the whole world is considered our domain and we rule it through puppets.

[Robin Bather]

Hi Irene, I'm fine and trust you are too.
You innocently ask me about AIPAC's pervasive bribery...You can't be ignorant of the not too subtle underworkings of Washington's politics to realize that cash and publicity are major factors.

AIPAC's pervasive lobbying for Israel over and above the US's interests is well known. Presumably the word "pervasive" is not what bothers you so let's see if my use of "bribery" is valid.

AIPAC orchestrates PACs (political action committees including many Jewish "stealth PACs") and private Jewish donors to shower vast funds on political candidates who propose pro Israeli Bills in the House or The Senate. "Bundling" is the term used by AIPAC to bypass the maximum allowable limit of payments legally permitted to be paid to a candidate. It's a devious, almost illegal finagling.

On the other hand, AIPAC frequently funds any candidate whose opponent is deemed by AIPAC to be anti Israel, or who even questions the vast flow of US cash and weapons to Israel.
In this manner wealthy Jews in say, New York or Florida, can by means of AIPAC, make a determining influence in say Utah or Texas or Indiana.

Hence the democratic idea of "one man one vote" is subjugated to cash payments to politicians who bend to AIPAC's subterfuge and money.
Why is cash paid at all to candidates if not to influence them?
And influenced they are....by raw cash, and AIPAC is the Paymaster General.

Irene, "lobbying" in the US equals "cash", and paying cash to a politician is nothing but bribery.

Hence my term "AIPAC's pervasive bribery" stands proven.

[John]

Irene,
That's precisely the sort of statistic that just makes me wonder: if the Jewish population of the USA is so much lower than its Muslim population (which I quite believe), why is the USA's policy in the Middle East so pro-Israel?

(I have no axe to grind here - it's a genuine enquiry. On what basis does the USA decide that its interests are best served by a strong Israel? As you show, the decision cannot be based on which policy (pro-Israel or pro-Arab) would produce the most domestic votes, so there must be some other reason. It could be genuinely geopolitical, or it could be down to special-interest lobbying, or oil, or historical obligation, or something else.)

(I also appreciate that this is _way_ off topic so, Ruth: if you don't want this post to stray off in this direction, please do say.)

pax et bonum

[Anne Klausner]

I received this link in an email today: http://www.google.com/explanation.html. It's an explanation from Google about the site in question and how it came to be top in searches. There is an apology at the end of it.

[Kate]

When will you 'get real' Robin Bather. Your Jew bashing proclivity (circa 1930s Europe) is precisely that evidenced by the invidious Jew Watch. Perhaps you might care to provide pointers to "the Jewish propaganda steamroller"?

The American Jewish Year Book, 2006, shows that Jews (5+ million) comprise 1.78% of the total USA population.

The American Muslim Council (AMC) estimates perhaps seven million Muslims in the USA - 2.84% of total population. CAIR estimates eight million and accuse those disputing the figure of Islamophobia. The figures of Allied Media Corp for Ethnic Markets concur with CAIR.

These numbers are served by more than 2000 mosques. Chicago alone has 90 mosques.

Now correct me if I am wrong but information filtering out of the US is all about prayer mats for public schools, foot baths, halal canteens, special supervision for children during Ramadam, prayers for Muslim children five times each day? What!!

Somewhere I read that prayers were banned in US public schools 40+ years ago. That of course means Christian and Jewish prayers. I suppose they have all the time, quietly been feeding the whole primary population kosher food? Or maybe just imposing fish on Friday when it was a Catholic requirement?

The accommodations which have been granted to Muslims for their RELIGIOUS PRACTICES at school, college and work level are unprecedented.

Still you persist, the Jews, the Jews! That vast conspiracy (lobby) manipulating US government foreign policy to suit Israel? Yeah. Ever heard of
OIL my friend. OIL, Saudi wealth and American corporate interests (capitalism without a human face).

Courtesy of 'friendships' (well documented) and untold financial advantage between past and present Bush administrations and the Saudi royals, "two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's family were urgently evacuated from the United States following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington" (The Saudi ambassador to Washington).

The younger members of the family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas(?) and then to Washington. (The Times Sept 30th, 2001).

The FBI have, after 9/11, called on the President for powers to allow closer monitoring of Saudi interests in the US. NOTHING has been done.

Affiliates of Saudi Wahhabis have built or taken over hundreds of mosques in the US and have opened branches of Saudi universities there for the training of imams. Along with the controversial Saudi-funded London mosque, a $24 million Saudi-funded mosque and cultural centre is being built by the Islamic Society of Boston - a group with proven links to terrorist organisations.

The Muslim Student Association (MSA) of America is "a key lobbying organization for Wahhabism", with chapters on 240 college and university campuses across North America. MSA members at UCLA raise money for Hamas and Hezbollah at their annual “Anti-Zionist Week.” (Washington Post).

The Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Arab and Islamic Studies Program at the University of California-Berkeley, is $5 million endowment "generously" donated by the Saudi royal family each year since 1998.

"Official Saudi Saudi data show that at least $50 billion over two and a half decades, and perhaps as much as $75 billion financed strictly ‘Islamic activities in the US.’

Former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey testified before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Government Reform in April this year that “Some $85-90 billion has been spent from sources in Saudi Arabia in the last 30 years, spreading Wahhabi beliefs...”

Sorry Robin - International Jewish Conspiracy?
Doubtless you will make an admirable dhiminni
or perhaps you have already converted. Jew hate makes strange bedfellows.

And PLEASE let us not have a comeback vis a via the 'poor suffering Palestinians'. Israel has had more than 60 years of Arab malevolence, mutilation and murder. Perhaps there is something of poetic justice in the present internecine carnage in Gaza.

[Mollie Mozart]

It might be good to leave it there so the world can see what the "peaceful" Islamists are doing. Quite the peaceful religion!

http://musicalinfidels.blogspot.com

[Robin Bather]

Oh Kate, you have cleverly skated off the subject in question and started a tirade against the Muslims and the Saudis--people who I have no special interest in or hatred of.
The infiltration of Muslim religious practices, if true, is indeed reprehensable and I understand your anger that this is permitted in public schools.

Oil and Washington's interests are of course an important part of the intrigues.
But to get back on topic.

The Jewish propaganda steamroller used to whitewash Israeli misdeeds, procure US financing and weapons for Israel, and generally portraying Israelis as poor, underdogs is part of the coordinated efforts of organizations such as AIPAC, the right wing media (Fox's Gail Berman, Mitchell Stern, Jane Freidman, and Norman Pearlstine, Edgar Bronfman, Murray Rothstein, George Bodenheimer, Sherry Lee Heiman, David Westin, Al Ortiz) with many well known Jewish commentators (Charles Krauthammer), and even Hollywood's famous Jewish moguls (Gerald Levin, Michael Wolff, Howard Stringer, Rick Kaplan) who continuously bombard us with pro Jewish and pro Israel movies.

Get real and open your eyes Kate.
The Steamroller is omnipotent and pervasively influencing public opinion on behalf of Israel.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating--just look at the vast wealth and high tech weaponry showered on Israel while others starve.

[Kate]

Robin: "Oh Kate, you have cleverly skated off the subject in question and started a tirade against the Muslims and the Saudis--people who I have no special interest in or hatred of."

Three points. 1) My post was not a "tirade" but a statement of published fact. 2) I have not 'skated' anywhere. 3) You ARE actually on record as having a 'special interest' in Muslims; the Palestinians you so valiantly support are Muslims.

In order to assess the validity of your consistent and harmful assertions re. Jewish lobbying in America, one must examine the prevailing system there - compare and contrast like with like.

My conclusions: lobbying is an accepted way of life in American politics. MONEY and business advantage speaks loudest - not the Arts or journalism or the film industry.

The most successful and freedom-threatening lobbyists in the US have been the Whabbi Saudis. Vast capital resources - corporate business associations (share-holdings and 'friendships') plus huge donations to academia and mosque building have enabled covert subversion of the much-vaunted USA constitution, e.g. religious privilege in public schools and elsewhere.

Let us be clear. Nobody in their right mind could 'fear' Jews per se. There is no logical reason to do so. Jew-hate is a more intrinsically subjective phenomena than simple objections to Israeli politics. There is no historical record of Jewish colonisation, proselytizing, terrorism or demands for 'special' religious or legal exemptions in those countries in which they settle.

NB: I have consciously used the word 'terrorism' as it pertains to unprovoked attacks by immigrants against an indigenous population e.g. 9/11, 7/7, Milan. In the context of the time - extermination of European Jewry - reference to the Irgun attack on the King David is a busted flush.

By 1943, when the Holocaust was a known fact, immigrant ships which succeeded in escaping from occupied Europe were prohibited (by Britain) from entering Palestine, and sometimes forced to go back to Europe, even though the fate of their passengers was certain death.

My point is: Jewish immigrants have contributed (out of all proportion to actual numbers) in the arts, academia, medicine, science and business in all countries in which they settle. While doing so, they live as peaceful law-abiding citizens.

You say: "Get real and open your eyes Kate.
The Steamroller is omnipotent and pervasively influencing public opinion on behalf of Israel."

Maybe in Mexico Robin but certainly NOT anywhere else in the western hemisphere. Israel, as a result of propaganda such as yours, is now the pariah in western media reports.

For these, the 'Neighbourhood Bully' is Israel. You attempt the same canard with reference to people starving. WHO, might I ask, is the cause of starvation in Gaza and West Bank? Why have Jordan and Egypt not integrated the Palestinian refugees from these territories? I refer you to Mattheus Mei's and David Cohen's accurate perceptions on the thread 'Archbishop taken to task over Iraq'.

"... vast wealth and high tech weaponry showered on Israel"? I very much doubt that all the Jews in the world can rival the Sauds and the Gulf states in wealth. Nor are Jews interested in using what they have for the purpose of World domination.

For centuries, the Irish diaspora bankrolled their
spiritual and ancestral homeland. Right now, the Poles in Europe are doing the same thing. WHY then are Jewish financial contributions to Israel condemned? Is the thinking along the same lines as 'every country in the world has the right under International Law to defend its citizens from attack' but NOT Israel?

Sorry Robin, your arguments are emotive and facile. They do not bear forensic examination of Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian or Islamic historical fact. Islamic history is drenched in blood. Hindu blood, Christian blood, Jewish blood.

In every country in the world to which Muslims have emigrated there is evidence of civil strife and subversion.

In every Muslim-ruled country there is violence and discrimination against all other faiths. The latest in today's Telegraph reports on Christian Ethiopia - attacked by Somali Muslims.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Kate et al,

A curious point has been raised by one of the contributors who was puzzled by America's "support" of Israel given the small percentage of Jews in the total US population. The premise is that a country's international relations are dominated by the % of ethnic aliens in its midst. Therefore, in 1939, the Polish residents of England were responsible for the English response to the Germans' invasion of Poland and World War II.

This malicious foolishness is behind every assertion of the "Jewish Lobby" and American foreign policy. Could it be that American administrations have seen the hostility of the Arab/ Moslem world to its ideals and that Israel is closer to them than Saudi Arabia's or Iran's?

The question every Briton has to ask himself is why do the "educated classes" support cultures so inimical to the common British man?

[John]

Emanuel,
You miss my point. Irene bought up the low proportion of Jews in the USA population precisely to counter a previous commenter's suggestion that they wielded undue influence. I merely mentioned that this actually leaves the question open once more. The USA is one of Israel's staunchest supporters in international politics - does anyone here dispute this? Whatever the Media are saying, the operation of politics hasn't changed. And I'm not claiming that that strong support is either right or wrong, merely taking it as a fact.

That being so, the point remains - why is the USA so strongly supportive of Israel? I reiterate: I have no ideological axe to grind here. I'm not anti-semitic, anti-Jewish or anti-Israel. I'm not pro-Arab, pro-Palestine or pro-Muslim. I am genuinely confused by the "Real Politik" that surrounds the nation of Israel - and utterly frustrated by people who are unable to distinguish between questioning a government's policies, discussing a religion's doctrines and persecuting someone on the grounds of race.

I'd love an answer that doesn't appeal to my supposed 'anti-semitism' or presuppose that I'm an idiot in order to ignore the question. Is it true, even in part, that money talks? Whose money? How big an influence is the Religious Right, part of which believes that the nation of Israel is needed to speed Armageddon? Or is the policy justified on purely geopolitical grounds?

Anyone?

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear John,

I didn't miss your point at all.

Why is America so supportive of Israel? Maybe because Israel has right on her side? Maybe because she has the right to live like any other nation? Maybe because the Moslem Arabs have land from Bagdad to Tangier? Maybe because the UN partitioned the Mandate you failed so miserably to administer? Maybe because Israel had enough might to defend herself?

Any other questions?

[J Pearce]

Robin,

I've gotta be honest, I think you're getting dangerously close to crackpot "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"-style conspiracy theories here! For a start, the Hollywood references don't stack up - California is quite probably the most Liberal/left wing outpost in the States - and we all know how much antipathy the Left has for Israel. Also, please name all these "pro-Israel" films!

I don't disagree with your assertion about "lobbying/bribery" but surely there are a number of vested interest groups who do precisely that? I'm pretty sure there is a powerful pro-Arab lobby in Washington, the Yanks have done and continue to sell plenty of arms to Arab regimes all over the world (Saddam ring a bell?). Hardly indicative of an exclusively pro-Israel state policy, is it? They just go where the money is.

If you're looking for a superpower with vested interest ties with Israel, you'd be better off looking at Russia, many of whose oligarchs are now beginning to invest heavily in their religious homeland (Roman Abramovich being the most obvious example). Who knows where that’s going to go?

[John]

Emanual,
If Israel has right on her side, which 'right' is this? The UK-USA partition scheme? Why is that 'right' when it manifestly deprived the indigenous folk of the country of their homeland? Or is it 'right' because this is the divinely mandated homeland of the Jews? If the latter, how do we connect this religious position to US politics? The USA is supposed to have totally separate church and state, after all!

If Israel has the right to live like any other nation, doesn't that right apply equally to her neighbours? True Israel is the attacked as well as the attacker - but we don't see the USA leaping to the defense of Syria or Lebanon.

If 'Moslem Arabs have land from Bagdad to Tangier', what difference does that make to the support of Israel? We could equally say that 'Christian caucasians have land from Seattle to Vienna' - does that mean that we must support Turkey? That's not a logical argument in any way.

And, I have to say that 'because the UN partitioned the Mandate you failed so miserably to administer' is just _ad hominem_. I personally had nothing to do with it, of course. Nor did anyone from my generation. And a poorly administered Mandate doesn't address the question of whether that Mandate was itself right in the first place.

As for 'Israel had enough might to defend herself', that makes no sense at all. If Israel was in that position, why would she need the USA? Or allies of any sort?

This is all precisely the point I was making. I would dearly love to see a reasoned account of Israel's position in global politics. But all I ever read are variants on 'you're antisemitic if you criticise Israel', 'poor little us, everyone's against us' and 'it's all the other guy's fault'. Please, can anyone cast some light on this?

(And, lest it's not obvious, I don't want any conspiracy theory stuff, either. That's no more helpful than the other side. Reality, please.)

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To J Pearce and John,

I'll try to answer your questions in this limited medium. I'd prefer that you write me directly at irgun43@mindspring.com. I'm not looking for intimacy but freedom of the pen as I can't here.

First to J Pearce - your attitude to Power is similar to those of your ancestors in North America in 1776. They had enough of bullying and went their own way. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own Bible with a Deist perspective. Google it.

Those who wish us (Israel, the people or the State) ill are offended when we achieve success and mastery, especially in a high prestige area such as finance or the arts. Hence, all the references to "international banking" and "Hollywood" as if all of you are mindless puppets under our spell. If that were the case, would Israel be in danger today?

I'm ignorant as to how the Parliamenterary system operates with your major parties. I don't know how important fund raising is for either the Tories or Labor. It's crucial in America since the media is private and the political message costs beaucoup dollars to get out. Fundraising for the individual candidate is very important. It's not "bribery" although it can degenerate into that. Therefore, who contributes gets the man's ear in proportion to the amount. The man has the option to turn down specific money as Rudy Giuliani who turned down Arab money.
Those who wish us ill are offended that we participate in the process while not saying booh when our enemies do. That's a bigot.

Regarding you comments about Russia and Israel, I'm afraid that you don't know the game. Individual Jews ( they're Russian citizens but not Russians) may put their money in a safe haven which is Israel. It's not Russia at all. She's always been our enemy. It's genetic. The further we are from her, the better I like it.

To speak with clarity, simply pick up Paul Johnsons's A History of the Jews.

To John,

You want " a reasoned account of Israel's position in global politics". What the hell does that mean?

All I can say is that your teachers and the British media have betrayed you for the last 40 years since your questions are inconsistent. Once again, I'd point you in the the direction of Johnson's book on us.

Let me try to address your questions one by one. The only thing I demand is consistency. You will not use one principle for yourself and one for me.

1. "If Israel has right on her side, which right is this?"

The right to live as a nation as if she were France or Belgium or Poland in 1939/ 1940.

2. The question of "indigenous folk"

What people are more indigenous to the land of Israel than us? The Arabs are nothing more than religious imperialists who came out of Arabia and brought their pestilence by force from India to Spain. No one wanted them nor needed them.

We are on our own land. You, on the other hand, established yourselves in North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. I'm not asking you to dismantle these countries and everyone return to the UK but I could for consistency.

3. Ad hominem attacks - you will not escape history re this topic. If you don't want to discuss history, if you want to base you attitudes on the political fashion of the moment, then this is pointless. You want to be judged as an individual in 2007 and not be responsible for the actions of the British people as a whole re this part of the world. Yet, you want me to discuss a whole nation to satisfy your needs. It won't wash.

Both The League of Nations and the United Nations established the principle of a Jewish territorial nation to live side by side with the Arab nations. If that is not valid for you, then the right of conquest, our conquest of the land to satisfy us, will have to do for you. If you don't like it, you can join Robin Bather in eating your liver till you die. However, it's a pity to waste your time with such mania.

[John]

Emanuel,
You ask "What the hell" is a reasoned account? Well, I'd hoped that it would be obvious but, for your sake: "reason" means "To think in a connected, sensible, or logical manner; to employ the faculty of reason in forming conclusions" (from the OED). In other words, I'm asking for arguments that start from clear, simple premises and build in logical fashion to a conclusion, without digression or logical fallacy.

This excludes incomplete arguments, as in your wish to use the US Mandate as total defense - disregarding the obvious question of whether that Mandate itself was either justified or humanely carried out. It excludes straw man arguments, which consist of misconstruing what the other person means and arguing against that, rather than arguing against what they've actually said. And it excludes ad hominem arguments, which are arguments that say "you're bad, too, so you can't criticise me".

Let me also be clear (again) that I am NOT attacking Israel, nor in any way claiming that Israel has no right to exist as a nation. Indeed, I haven't even once brought up that topic. (As I've said, the continual repetition of the claim that to oppose certain Israeli Government policies is to oppose the nation's existence - or even that to ask why the USA supports her is to deny her right to exist - is desperately frustrating to those of us who are neither Zionists nor antisemites. And, lest it's not obvious, that is the vast majority of us.)

The question here is why the USA supports Israel so strongly. Any answer that talks about "Israel's right to exist" is thus answering the wrong question! But, to avoid your repeating yourself on this issue again, I will make an absolutely clear statement:

I believe that Israel has as much right to exist as any other nation. I believe that Israel has as much right as any other nation to extend her borders and to make herself safe within her borders.

Does that satisfy you?

Can you now please tell me why Israel's rights exceed those of Palestine? Or those of the Lebanon? You say that Israel deserves the same rights as France or Poland. I agree. Why do these other countries around Israel not deserve the same rights? Because, if one country has the right to her borders and to security, ALL countries have those rights. Yes, Israel is under attack from terrorists, and she has every right to defend herself against them. But those rights do not include the right arbitrarily to invade another sovereign country that is not itself a party to the attacks.

And back to the original question - why does the USA implicitly and explicitly support the Israeli military invasion and occupation of foreign territory? What is the political reason for this *for the USA*?

You said:
"You, on the other hand, established yourselves in North America, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa. I'm not asking you to dismantle these countries and everyone return to the UK but I could for consistency."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but are you suggesting that all races belong only in their "natural" homelands? In the UK, that's regarded as an extreme right-wing, racist and usually antisemitic position. If that's not what you meant, can you please explain what you did mean? Because I've said NOTHING that relates to any kind of repatriation - whether to Israel or away from Israel. I have never even questioned Israel's right to exist! Instead, you merely assume that because I ask a question about US (!) foreign policy, that I'm antisemitic. This is grossly unfair, prejudiced and offensive.

And, in closing, I'll address one more point you made:
"What people are more indigenous to the land of Israel than us? The Arabs are nothing more than religious imperialists who came out of Arabia and brought their pestilence by force from India to Spain. No one wanted them nor needed them."
So, you're basically saying that you're quite happy being a racist yourself, but woe betide anyone who is racist against you? Because that paragraph translates into two very simple sentences:
"We are divinely appointed to have this land. Arabs are scum."
If that's not what you meant to say, I'd suggest that you rethink very carefully what you have said, and try to be more careful. (And do remember that Israel was not the first nation to occupy the lands of Israel. That honour belongs to the Canaanites. Are you suggesting that we ought to give the land to them?)
To address the point you were,I think, actually trying to make behind the rhetoric - Israel does have a historic claim to the land. However, she was absent from it for nearly 2000 years. During that time, other people obviously moved in. That's not their fault - the Romans destroyed the old nation for rebellion. What were they meant to do? Leave the land empty for 2000 years just in case? The local Arabs may not have the historic claim that Israel does but they do have 'squatters rights', as we say here. (They've been in Israel rather longer than the English have been in England!) In creating the nation of Israel, there was certainly an obligation on all concerned (including Israel) to ensure that no undue harm was done to these local Arabs, and that they were fully integrated into the new nation, or helped to move elsewhere. This has failed almost totally to be done.

However, this is a completely different point to the one I was originally trying to make, which was about US foreign policy ONLY. It's desperately annoying to have to defend myself against positions that I simply haven't taken. It wastes my time and yours, as well as clogging up Ruth's blog. However, this is largely why I'm not taking this to email - I have little faith in your ability to discuss things dispassionately and sensibly, without assuming partisan opinions on my part that I simply don't hold.

pax et bonum

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear John,

Re the American support of Israel- there's a congruency of interests. For example, the Arabs allied themselves with America's enemies, Russia and the Soviet Bloc.
Second, there's a natural sympathy for the familiar democratic structure which you seem to lack. There's the example of the Arab Moslem world being totally insane such as the takeover of the American Embassy at the start of the Kakameimi revolution in Iran. Last, the Arabs being themselves. That's enough.

Re your other points - you demand a certain structure which I've tried to adhere to but it doesn't satisfy you except possibly the first paragraph here.

Be advised that I will not make my points except as I decide. I will not let you be the judge and jury over my thoughts.

A nationalist doesn't have to argue as a lawyer. It's enough that he love his nation. If that makes me a "racist", then I say to you and to every other member of your tribe - "racist and proud".

Palestine is not a concept either legal or actual. It's a propaganda concept that the Russians helped devise for Yasser Arafat in the 1970's. Before that, then Arabs referred to themselves as Arabs v. Israel. The nations around Israel deserve quiet if they behave themselves. You and your friends will not have quiet if you attack me and then complain that I retaliate. You would never stand for continual bullying from your neighbors but expect the Jews to do so. To hell with that noise. If you you want further info, do some basic reading.

The Mandate was not a US Mandate but set up by the League of Nations in 1920 as a way to dispose of the Turkish Empire giving all the nations in the area the right of self determination including Israel. It's the Arabs that have started all the violence and keep it going. Yet, the victim is the one you choose to attack. If that is your logic, I want no part of it.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear John,

I answered your points yesterday. They haven't been published.

(Emmanuel - I have't held any comments by you - plse resend if they are not up now - v sorry if they've got lost - happens quite a lot to everyone sad to say. rg)

[John]

Emanuel,
First, sorry about the "US Mandate" - that was a typo. I meant to write "UN", following the nomenclature you used (using "UN" to apply to both the League and the UN proper).

"the American support of Israel- there's a congruency of interests...."

Thanks for that. Just the sort of thing I was looking for. To start with. A shame that you felt the need to descend rapidly into comments like "the Arab Moslem world being totally insane" and even "the Arabs being themselves. That's enough."

Basically, then, apart from a little political context that is useful, your argument is, as far as I can make out: "I hate Arabs, who are scum, therefore everyone else should." That's not an argument, simply a prejudice. If you're happy with that then bully for you. But I'm sad to say that I'm now simply writing you down as a bigot. That you're a Jewish bigot doesn't really affect things as far as I'm concerned. Bigotry is never helpful or a good thing.

And I will point out that there's a (huge) difference between patriotism and bigotry. GK Chesterton summed it up (if I recall correctly) as something like this: believing that it is a very good thing to be English does not imply at all that it is a very bad thing to be French. One may be proud of one's nationality without believing that everyone else is inferior purely on the basis of their race, colour or nationality.

pax et bonum

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear John,

If I were you, I'd sue the authorities for having failed to educate me in the most elemental logical process. I'm afraid it's a British wide phenomenom.

You put words in my mouth and not rebut my points as I made them.

I explained the congruence of interests between the US and Israel.

Second, you argue as if you were some sort of State Prosecutor where I'm on the dock and you're not. Blast that. This is a tennis match and if you don't like it, let's top this nonsense right now.

What I said is that Israel is a nation like any other entitled to attack if attacked. Her neighbors will have peace if they're quiet. If not, violence and more violence. It's their choice.

Israel has been attacked since 1948. Others have pointed out the similarity between the Indian and the Israeli exchange of populations in 1947=1948. No Paki demands the return of Moslems to India. Why? Because they'd have no chance of taking over unlike the Israeli case where a massive return of Moslems would make Israel a Moslem majority state shortly. It's a conquest through demographics and the ballot. Never!

You demand saint like behavior from me and a perfect history but won't discuss your behavior and history. Who died and made you boss? No one, and that's why you r group and mine will never get along because we see right through your nonsense. Enough said.

[Robin Bather]

Actually John, the person with the email address glorifying terrorism against the British, has a lot of truth in the "congruence of interests" between the US and Israel, to wit:

Both have stolen other people's lands (The US with the annexation of half the Mexican territory; Israel with the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and the Sheba farms).

Both regularly attack other countries (the US in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama and Iraq; Israel with Gaza, Lebanon and Syria).

Both believe that they are always right even when most of the rest of the world disagrees.

Both use widespread propaganda tools seeking to justify their policies (the US with FOX News, the Voice of America; Israel with AIPAC, the Jerusalem Post).

Both have been labelled racist due to their internal policies (the US with the blacks, the Hispanics, the Muslims; Israel with the Palestinians, the Muslims and the Arabs in general).

And last but not least, both have in common the US dollar (the US giving to Israel; Israel receiving from the US).

Mmmm..."congruence of interests"

[Robin Bather]

Interesting to see the use of the word "Moslem" instead of the usual "Muslim". (see above posting).
Wikipedia mentions that the use of the word "Moslem" is offensive to some.
But the user of this word is offensive to most who disagree with his jaundiced Judaic centrist view of the world.

[Kate]

Robin Bather: "the email address glorifying terrorism against the British"!!

Evidence only of the vacuity and inaccuracy of your position is your standard fall-back - revolt against the British - 70 years ago!

Irgun was established as a defence against Arab attacks on Jewish settlers. At the outbreak of the Second World War the Irgun elected to support the Allies.

"To avoid disrupting the course of the war against Germany, and in order to invest maximum effort in assisting Great Britain and its allies, the Irgun Zvai Le'umi has decided to suspend all offensive activities in Palestine which could cause harm to the British government and in any way be of assistance to the greatest enemy the Jewish people has ever known - German Nazism."
(September 11, 1939)

As with all such organisations, there was a 'split' -
what became known as The Stern Gang - leader Avraham Stern - seceded from the Irgun. For Raziel - the then Irgun leader - the Germans were the arch enemy of the Jewish people, and he argued that no impediments should be placed in the path of the British. How right he was!

As I have noted above: By 1943, when the Holocaust was a known fact, immigrant ships which succeeded in escaping from occupied Europe were prohibited (by Britain) from entering Palestine, and sometimes forced to go back to Europe, even though the fate of their passengers was certain death.

This despite the Jewish units fighting under the British and recruited by Vladimir Jabotinsky, who headed up the leadership of Irgun. AND who had been one of the founders of Jewish units fighting for the British in WWI.

NOTHING is quite as simplistic as you would have us believe Robin.

In a 1971 television interview, Richard Crossman bluntly accused the former Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, of having "tried to destroy the Jews of Palestine."

When, in 1947, the Arabs rejected the partition of Palestine and refused to set up the projected Arab state, the British, then still governing under the Mandate, refused to carry out the UN plan.

Britain announced that she would not carry out the orderly transfer of any functions to the Jews.

Immediately after the UN decision, the Palestinian Arabs launched their preliminary onslaught on the Jewish community; the British army was ordered to give the Arabs cover and aid. It obstructed Jewish defence on the ground; it blocked the movement of Jewish reinforcements and supplies to settlements; it opened the land frontiers for the entry of Arab soldiers from the neighbouring Arab states; it maintained a blockade in the Mediterranean and sealed the coast and ports, the only places through which the outnumbered Jews could acquire necessary reinforcements; it handed over British arms dumps to the Arabs.

When Jaffa was on the point of falling to a Jewish counter-attack, the British sent in forces from Malta to bomb and shell the Jewish force. It continued to supply the Arabs with all the arms they asked for and made no secret of it.

The British were unabashed Arabists throughout the period of the Mandate. Still are - to the great detriment of indigenous Brits.

In every area of history, you are not only an 'unabashed' anti-Jewish propagandist but wrong.

Areas captured by Israel were NOT captured from an entity called Palestine but from EGYPT, JORDAN, and SYRIA - the Gaza Strip (now returned), the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula - the latter returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 following the Six Day War, calling on Israel to withdraw from Occupied Territories (extent disputed) under comprehensive peace treaties. Only Egypt, eventually, 1979, agreed to make peace.

The West Bank was not in the 'ownership' of a Palestinian 'nation' at any point. It was captured and occupied by JORDAN during the 1948 war.

The Gaza Strip was captured and occupied by EGYPT after the 1948 war. In 1950, JORDAN annexed the West Bank.

Israel’s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defence.

International Law requires "the extent and conditions of the handing back to be negotiated between the parties." To date, only Egypt has fulfilled these conditions. All other attempts by Israel have been rebuffed by her Arab neighbours.

Many Arabs moved to Palestine on the back of the prosperity brought by the returning Jews during the first half of the 20th century. Between 1922 and 1947, the Arab population in Palestine rose by 120 per cent. And they regarded themselves as mainly Syrian.

In 1937, the Peel Commission found that the Palestinian Arabs and their kinsmen in Syria ‘clung to the principle that Palestine was part of Syria and should never have been cut off from it’.

On March 3, 1977, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper 'Trouw' that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. I quote:

‘We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity... it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity.'

I have little interest in the accuracy of your claims re. USA aggression BUT the equivalence you seek to impose with Israeli actions is simply a malicious distortion of historical fact.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I think that this recent posting on normblog is the best response yet to those who hold to Jewish supremacist conspiracy theories:

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/10/words-symbols-a.html

I've chaired Professor Norman Geras on the subject of the Holocaust and he's a tough cookie - Marxist as well, by the way.

As for Mexico, I always thought it was the Spanish who caused most of the trouble in that country, but seeing as they are also terribly pro Muslim, maybe Robin decided that venting his rage on the States instead would be a more popular move.

By the way, Robin, the book I offered to send you about the fundamentals of Judaism, as you said you knew nothing about the subject, has now sold out.

However, 'Elements of Judaism' is still available from Amazon.

May I suggest that you get hold of a copy.

[Niamh Devlin]

Reading through Robin Bather's comments here I get a sense of something not quite right.

1) To the best of my meagre knowledge Israel has 'stolen' no land. They were attacked in 1967 and, in the course of a war, made territorial gains.

2) Could Robin Bather enlighten us (with dates) about Israel's unprovoked "attacks" on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.

3) Does Robin Bather not know that Gaza has been handed over to the Palestinians? Hamas now fires rockets into Israel from there, every day?

4) Does Robin not know about the murder and mayhem in Gaza between the opposing factions of Fatah and Hamas?

5) The bit about the Jerusalem Post made me laugh out loud. Does he REALLY propose it is on a par with FOX News and the Voice of America?

The most hilarious bit of all is "Both have been labelled racist due to their internal policies (the US with the blacks, the Hispanics, the Muslims; Israel with the Palestinians, the Muslims and the Arabs in general)."

Huh!? Ever heard about what happens to Christians in Palestine, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi et al? We all know what happens to Jews.

Ever heard of Daniel Pearl? "... forced to relate his Jewish background ..." for the video as they prepared to behead him. (see The Daily Telegraph 8/05/2004) for full details.

Margaret (Fitzpatrick) Hassan? - An Irish woman who spent her adult life in Baghdad, involved in a NGO, married a local, kidnapped and beheaded.

Ken Bigley, a civil engineer from Liverpool, kidnapped along with Jack Hensley and Eugene Armstrong. All three were civil engineers working on reconstruction. All three were beheaded.

Ever heard of the REAL racism and genocide perpetrated by the Arab militias RIGHT NOW in Darfur?

Either you haven't a clue Robin Bather, or as Kate has noted above, you are dedicated to disseminating hateful anti-Jewish calumnies.

In Nov 2004, I attended a debate at Trinity College Dublin and heard Anjem Choudary justify the kidnapping and killing of all Westerners in occupied Muslim lands.

He accused Margaret Hassan and Co Armagh UN election worker Annetta Flanigan of shoring up the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq!! His actual words were: 'They only have themselves to blame. These people are all legitimate targets.'

Doubtless, holed up in Mexico, you have never heard of the delightful Anjem Choudary? Seen any pictures of protesters calling for the death of the Pope outside Westminster Cathedral? The one carrying the poster is Anjem.

In the same debate, he denied that the Sudanese government was guilty of genocide in western Darfur. He defended the armed Islamic militia the Janjaweed, which is engaged in mass slaughter.

He called it: 'all nonsense and lies designed by the Americans. The Janjaweed are not involved in any so-called genocide.'

After that experience, I understood too well what Israel has been up against and what western society now faces. It is much simpler than the old racism you are so keen on. Implacable Islamic theocracy and imperialism has no time for colour, race, or nation, it just demands absolute submission - across all boundaries - to the creed of Islam.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America.

To all,

How low have you all fallen that the simple English word "Moslem" is now forbidden by the Bather.

I wish he'd bathe his "Muslim" rag clean off the innocent people's blood that he's so willing to tolerate. So long as the "Moozleem" does the killing all's fine , just as in 1939 the Moseley gang saw nothing wrong with Herr Hitler's (Hmm) national brand of Socialism.

See, it's always down to the Joo.
Get a life!