It would be an undeserved compliment in my view to describe Avi Shlaim as a revisionist historian. His writings usually make me think more of Francis M Cornford’s definition of propaganda: “[t]hat branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies”. Certainly, it doesn’t take much effort to see through the rather ridiculous plethora of distortions obviously concocted to suit a political agenda in Shlaim’s recent Guardian article. Unless, apparently, one happens to be a Guardian commissioning editor.
“The savage attack Israel unleashed against Gaza on 27 December 2008 was both immoral and unjustified. Immoral in the use of force against civilians for political purposes. Unjustified because Israel had a political alternative to the use of force. The home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead.”
Of course anyone with a grain of objectivity about them would know –and mention – that Israel sustained eight years of rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza before the commencement of Operation Cast Lead and that civilian anger at the Israeli government’s lack of effective response to these attacks was at boiling point. Equally, any objective analysis would also conclude that the previous 96 months of Hamas use of force against Israeli civilians, including suicide bombings, could also be deemed immoral and certainly did not result from a lack of political alternative.
“In June 2008, Egypt had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to observe the ceasefire.”
Contrary to Shlaim’s claims, the actual number of rockets and mortars fired from Gaza during the ‘ceasefire’ was as follows: June -235, July -20, August -8, September – 2, October -2, November -193, December (up to 27/12/08) – 370. Indeed to claim that the average number of rockets fired per month dropped to three, and yet call this a ‘success’ requires the type of intellectual and moral contortion at which Shlaim excels. On November 4th 2008, Israel acted against Hamas operatives tunneling under the border with the intent of kidnapping more Israeli soldiers. Even before this, the ceasefire had effectively been broken by Hamas when an operative was arrested on September 28th also whilst attempting to bring about the abduction of members of the IDF. Despite these incidents, Israel expressed a wish to continue the ceasefire after its December 19th expiry date, but Hamas refused to consider this option.
Next, Shlaim even trumps Goldstone when, appointing himself both judge and jury, he states “[w]ar crimes were committed and possibly even crimes against humanity, documented in horrific detail in Judge Richard Goldstone’s report for the UN human rights council.” He then throws in a bit of old fashioned conspiracy theory for good measure:
“The British government did not take part in the vote on the report, sending a signal to the hawks in Israel that they can continue to disregard the laws of war. Gordon Brown’s 2007 appointment as a patron of the Jewish National Fund UK presumably played a part in the adoption of this pusillanimous position.”
As is to be expected, Shlaim manages to delete from history the cause and context of the 2006 Lebanon war, as well as its consequences for those on the Israeli side of the border: “In July 2006, at the height of the savage Israeli onslaught on Lebanon, Blair opposed a security council resolution for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire: he wanted to give Israel an opportunity to destroy Hezbollah, the radical Shi’ite religious-political movement.” He then goes on to criticise Tony Blair: “As envoy, Blair has been inside Gaza only twice”. Not very surprising when one considers the threats made on Mr. Blair’s life.
Shlaim also conveniently does not allow PM Binyamin Netanyahu’s famous Bar Ilan speech to get in his way when he claims that “There is international consensus for a two-state solution, but Israel rejects it and Blair has been unable or unwilling to use the Quartet to enforce it.”. Shlaim and his fellow travelers are obviously having comprehension difficulties; as PM Netanyahu said perfectly clearly “In my vision of peace, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government.” Shlaim also accuses Israel of sabotaging the Roadmap; obviously he willfully ignores the very first clause of that agreement which clearly states that “In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below”.
Whoever commissioned this ridiculous piece of propaganda must have known very well that it would be lapped up like ice cream on a hot day by CiF’s below the line commentators, and indeed it is interesting to see the sort of opinions held by those who praise Shlaim’s words.
3 Feb 2010, 10:01AM
Avi Shlaim,
Excellent piece, all the more commendable given the opprobrium you will no doubt face from zionist fundamentalists (of testaments both old and new.)
On the subject of which, an article about Blair’s betrayal of Gazans might benefit from a mention of the betrayer’s own psychotic religious bent?
3 Feb 2010, 10:23AM
Avi Shlaim,
A great article -
One day the pro-zionists will be shown the death and destruction Israel has caused in their name, that i have no doubt. Whether it will be before or after the total annihilation of the Palestinian People, is the question.
3 Feb 2010, 8:25PM
zacharyesterson, Avi Shlaim is an actual Israeli historian and an extremely eminent one at that. I can heartily recommend “The Iron Wall, Israel and the Arab World” and I’m currently reading his collection “Israel & Palestine”. Whilst you can argue with Shlaim and sometimes I feel myself wishing to do so, he is so well sourced and argued that it would probably take a fool to even try.
Another clear theme in the comments to this article was the denial of Israel’s right to self defence.
3 Feb 2010, 6:33PM
Israel is a violent, evil and annexationist state and its massacre in Gaza served not to make its border cities safer but an act of aggression to create deterrence and derail any peace initiatives that may have gained traction. That objective has been repeated by Tzipi Livni, Ehud Barak and others. Livni for instance stated in a TV Interview “it is not in the strategic interest of Israel to agree to a continued ceasefire”.
Israel may today be asking for peace talks, but such a renegade and duplicitous regime must be judged purely by its actions and objective analysis quickly reveals unilateral undertakings to void the prospect of a viable and co-existent Palestinian time. A fraudulent settlement freeze has appeased an impotent US administration hell-bent on repeating the same mistakes of previous US administration: blind support of Israel with rhetorical admonishment (at worst).
The 2 state is solution is dead, and as such cannot be rehabilitated, hence the reason the US and Israel are so keen to pursue something which from the beginning is beyond negotiation.
3 Feb 2010, 5:57PM
Only recently, while I was walking the dog, somebody threw a small stone at me.
My revenge was swift: I doused the man in petrol and burnt him alive. I then doused his house in petrol and set that alight, burning his entire family.
I got the idea from watching the way the Israel government treats the Palestinians.
3 Feb 2010, 11:43AM
Why are the Israeli’s so cruel? Even the majority of their civilian population are complicit in the awful oppression of the Palestinians. A brutal and psychotic society. How hellish and hopeless it must feel to be under their cosh.
3 Feb 2010, 9:08AM
To WatchYourSteps,
Self-defence is moral – but the invasion of Gaza is not in self-defence and is therefore very immoral.
To stop the missiles – simple, just end the occupation. If you occupy even a square inch of my country, I have the right to fire missiles at you. It is called self -defence.
Yet another popular theme was the condoning of terror.
3 Feb 2010, 9:54AM
mrgeorgesmith
I ask, what would Britain do if our homes and families were bombed by rockets that were fired from a near by country?
It’d be one thing if that nearby country gratuitously fired rockets apropos nothing in particular.
It’d be another thing if Britain had occupied that nearby country for decades, conducted ethnic cleansing, politicide, ongoing ‘targeted assassinations’, land theft, refusal of right of return for refugees, mass imprisonment of its people, and exacted a 100:1 kill ratio by way of reprisals etc etc – and that’s before we even get into international law, UN resolutions, and the murderous activities of its agents abroad.
repeating outright lies does not make them true.
3 Feb 2010, 10:11AM
Make no mistake that Israel won’t be happy until the people in Gaza either become subservient to the state of Israel or simply no longer exist. How else do you explain their policy stance?
Continually building settlement after settlement. Dispropotionate use of force to “defend” itself. Using phospherous bombs to kill mainly civilians. Shooting children. Bulldozing homes with families inside them. Denying aid, fuel and the materials that the people of Gaza need to become self-sufficient. This all amounts to squeezing 1.5 million people into a smaller and smaller space by prodding them with a big deadly stick.
Isn’t it weird how any supporter of the Israeli cause never mentions these things or even seems to consider them serious or even true?!
The EU need to take strong economic sanctions against Israel until they relinquish their stranglehold on Gaza and at least start treating its innocent civilians as human beings with rights.
I don’t agree with Hamas attitude or policy on Israel. I deplore any violence directed at innocent people of any race, colour or creed. But unless Israel begin to be more tolerant and try and aid the people of Gaza and relieve their suffering then desperation/frustration/outrage will be the fuel that keeps the rockets coming.
But the tit for tat “oh they did it first therefore we are defending ourselves” comments will not do anything to help the peace process.
3 Feb 2010, 10:22AM
TheVoiceOfIsrael
The misery of Gaza is self inflicted and could be resolved tomorrow if the Gazans wanted it resolved.
That’s nonsense. I think both sides are at fault.
Terrorism: the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature… through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear.
the israeli state is a terrorist state, as is the british and US.
although the US adminstration under Reagan changed their definition of terrorism because they were having problems with the actual real one.
3 Feb 2010, 10:27AM
mr georgesmith
I ask, what would Britain do if our homes and families were bombed by rockets that were fired from a near by country?
And I ask what would Britain do if large swathes of our land was occupied by a foreign power, if we had to negotiate numerous checkpoints to travel around in our own land, if land we had farmed for generations were suddenly to be made inaccessible, if we were evicted from property we had lived in for generations, if we were denied access to a clean water supply, if going about our daily business we were abused, threatened and spat at by illegal settlers in our own land and if we had no redress through the courts or the police, if we were denied the right to freely trade with the outside world and the right to operate our own airports or seaports? All of these things, these injustices, and many more are suffered daily by the Palestinian people. Now tell me about a few homemade rockets.
3 Feb 2010, 10:31AM
@TheVoiceOfIsrael
If the gazans wanted the situation resolved, would that stop israel stealing their land and water.
your shiny american helicopters are surely nicer to use than a suicide bomb or home-made rocket but the result is the same.
3 Feb 2010, 10:54AM
I was in Beersheva in December-January of 2008/2009, visiting relatives. The Palestinians shelled Beersheva with rockets trying to kill me, in particular. And I am not even an Israeli. I think if Britain was attacked this way by, say, Ireland, there would be no Ireland now. And please, don’t start telling me about IRA. Those guys were much more civilized.
You don’t see the irony in you being able to waltz into a land the indigenous people were forcibly removed from and still aren’t allowed anywhere near?
They (were) firing rockets at where they used to live.
If anyone reduced me and my people’s lives to a living hell, I think I’d be firing rockets as well.
There were also the ever-present promoters of BDS, one-staters and makers of apartheid analogies; far too many in fact to bring to you here, but some comments a little outside the usual repertoire which caught my eye were the following. Firstly some conspiracy theory coupled with accusations of Jewish dual loyalty.
3 Feb 2010, 10:07AM
Gordon Brown’s 2007 appointment as a patron of the Jewish National Fund UK presumably played a part in the adoption of this pusillanimous position
add to that the Miliband brothers and you get British “impartiality” in I/P issues
Then this:
3 Feb 2010, 11:00AM
Yet, under US supervision and with the help of US army engineers, Egypt is building an 18-metre-deep underground steel wall to disrupt the tunnels and tighten the blockade.
cruel, heartless bastards…..as if any more evidence was needed of continued US support for the Israelis & these disgraceful Egyptian puppets. The more I think about it, the Iranians are correct. You can’t negotiate with any Zionist regime. You might as well attempt to reason with an anaconda gradually constricting you to death.
And finally:
3 Feb 2010, 10:40PM
It is amazing to see that a British institution like the Gurdian is showing the Isreali attack on Gaza and Palestine for what it is , a disgusting massacre of thousnds of people and i applaud your courage for standing up against Israel as many of the leaders of the west have ignored the illegal actions of Israel and the US still continue to pump aid into this country when there are millions of people around the world that require this money to live. Israel are illegaly killing and occupying Palestinian land and it needs to be stopped. Finally have the facts been put right more rockets are fired from Israels side of the wall than from inside, the now virtual prison, Gaza and small land masses once Palestine.
Indeed, that last comment just about sums up the situation; would any respectable newspaper commission such an outright torrent of distortions and lies from a propaganda merchant such as Shlaim and then proceed to bask in the warm glow of approval from below the line posters comprising conspiracy theorists, excusers of terror, users of Nazi analogies and downright antisemites? I think not.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
30 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 10, 2010 at 11:46 am
ahasonist
what exactly is anti-semitic about being a ‘one stater’?
I ask in all seriousness.
March 10, 2010 at 11:55 am
TomWonacott
Thanks IN
The fact that the Guardian faithful and Avi Shlaim believe that Hamas somehow was not in breach of the cease fire despite their rockets and mortar launchings during the cease fire is remarkable – but par for the course. And the tunnel was for groceries?
The left has remarkably low expectations for the Arabs…….
March 10, 2010 at 12:17 pm
JerusalemMite
Avi Slime is definitely well suited to The Guardian’s obsessive crusade against the one Western Liberal Democracy in the Middle East.
He joins the sick ‘House Jews’, this group of social rejects that The Guardian so avidly pulls to it’s inner bosom. (I’m going to be sick.)
March 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm
peterthehungarian
Let’s accept for a second Shlaim’s assertion that after June 2008 the monthly average of rocket attacks was only three (an utter bullshit as every Israeli living in the Western Negev could tell him).
Then what?
These “peaceloving” good for nothings really except from a sovereign state (or any other entity BTW) to tolerate this?
I wish for Shlaim to live in a city where only one rocket attack occurs in a month and preaching to the population and his own family that it is OK, we musn’t do anything against it – we have a ceasefire with the attackers.
This is more than stupidity, this is simply an extreme perversion of any decency and fairness.
March 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm
JerusalemMite
ahasonist – what exactly is anti-semitic about being a ‘one stater’? I ask in all seriousness.
Assuming that you are actually serious, assuming. A single state would be the end of a Jewish Zionist state as the implication is that if it ROR were realised and the entity remains Democratic, very quickly the Muslim birth rate will mean a loss of a Jewish demographic majority and the return of the land of Israel to Muslim/Arab control with all the negative implications.
It is the ‘wet dream’ of the ‘Hate Israel’ lobby. Especially The Guardian editorial staff and other assorted Looney Lefties like Berchmans, Preemptive, EdwardMacaroni, talknic, laRitShit, spectreovereurope and ‘Gentle Hermine’. (Who seems to be ‘restrained’ from getting to her keyboard to pump her filth out).
March 10, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Gerald Kreeve
arsonist wants to know why wanting a one-stater is anti-semitic though I am sure that if he thinks of it he will understand for himself.
Israel was designed as a safe haven for Jews after centuries of persecution experienced while living in the countries of others. A single state in which the Palestinians, employing Yasir Arafat’s womb bomb weapon soon would overwhelm the Jews in number, turning this state into just the 23rd Arab state thus defeating this purpose. Deliberately defeating the purpose of a Jewish state — to safeguard Jews, is antisemitic.
March 10, 2010 at 1:58 pm
pretzelberg
@ Israelinurse
Obviously we disagree on a lot of things, but I would like to see you challenging stuff like the above at source, i.e. directly on CiF – not least because of the recent further shift among comments, i.e. with the balance even more against Israel than it used to be.
Or have you also been banned?
(sorry if that’s been made clear before)
March 10, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Israelinurse
Ahasonist – a one-state ‘solution’ would have the net result of denying the Jewish people their basic right to self-determination which is why the proposal is anti-Semitic.
It would entail the Jewish people of Israel living once more as a minority in a majority Muslim state. Despite the fact that so many Guardianistas are enamoured of this idea, if one looks closely at the history there is no reason to believe that it would be accepted by anyone who would actually be affected by it.
Certainly the early Jewish immigrants of the first and second aliyot, some of whom back then envisioned a joint Jewish/Arab state, were met with stark refual from the other side. Also, one must take into consideration the animosity of the last 62 years and realise that on a practical level and for there to be any hope for long term peace, there is a clear need for separation in the form of two states for two peoples.
March 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm
peterthehungarian
Hi Pretzelberg
Do you really (but really really) believe that Israelinurse’s posts would be left uncensored on CIF?
March 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm
pretzelberg
@ peterthehungarian
Well, you know me: the eternal optimist etc.
If she left out the references to the CiF commissioning editors, then I do believe her reponse above would be left to stand.
Oh, and perhaps omit the “intellectual and moral contortion at which Shlaim excels” bit as well – even though I personally do not deem that comment offensive. After all, it’s just an opinion and not an ad hominem.
March 10, 2010 at 3:49 pm
modernityblog
The one state solution is essentially an Orientalist’s answer to the immediate conflict, because
1) it is utterly utopian.
2) it denies Jews the right to self-determination
3) it is more liable to increase strife than reduce it
4) and it is something that people in the West have rarely tried themselves, sucessfully
I would much prefer with the British and everyone else could make Europe a “One state” and do it successfully, then in about 150 years Israelis could think about it.
And here is the problem, a very large problem, the British and other colonialists who suggests this one state solution in the Middle East can’t even make it work in Europe.
So if they can’t make it work between the British and French, the Germans, the Italians, etc then how do they expect a conflict which has long-term animosities, plenty of weaponry and a smaller area to be successful ? It won’t.
I say: One State solution in Europe, first!
March 10, 2010 at 4:43 pm
sababa
pretzelberg, I think you are right when you say that there used to be much more serious debate on Cif, and in particular, there were some eloquent pro-Israeli commentators who tried to make their case. But by now I would say: why should someone like Israelinurse waste her considerable talents on Cif? The site is now a few years old, and with all the time and effort pro-Israeli commenters put in to plead for a fairer coverage, things have, if anything, gotten only worse. Cif made it very clear that they liked hate-filled rants against Israel both above and below the line, because it was this kind of articles that Cif kept commissioning, at times at the rate of one a day, and it was this kind of commenters that they allowed to drown out any debate. Even Seth Freedman used to post below the line openly denigrating, mocking and ridiculing anyone who dared to see anything positive in Israel. I think when AKUS was banned, it send a clear enough signal.
March 10, 2010 at 4:48 pm
icclearly
I say:One State solution in Europe,first!
It’s already happening,one Islamist state.
March 10, 2010 at 4:59 pm
icclearly
CiF,has become an asylum for the mentally disturbed,the same posters who post the same posts again and again,some posts are actually funny,but you shake your head in despair at the majority of the rest of them.
The Guardian is starting to lose control of CiF,hence the large amount of deletions.
March 10, 2010 at 5:14 pm
icclearly
Why are we even mentioning a one state solution,it’s not on.
Which Israeli in his right mind besides the likes of Avi Shlaim would want to live in a country that is being run by the palestinians.
In fact Avi Shlaim and his mates would be the first ones to shoot off,if and when that ever happens.
That is if they don’t want to be the first ones to be knee capped thrown off high rise buildings,shot like dogs in the middle of the street,and then dragged behind cars.
March 10, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Mitnaged
sababa, I agree with you that Israelinurse, and anyone else intelligent enough to argue coherently, should not waste their time on CiF.
And, (hafleh v’afeleh) I agree with you pretzelberg that the standard of debate used to be higher on CiF.
Do you think it’s lower now because people of the calibre of Israelinurse are deciding not to waste their time banging their heads against the brick wall of denseness there?
It often is a case of “I don’t want to be confused by facts.”
March 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm
peter1
Perhaps 1/4 of China should run to the USA and claim refugee status, naturally all being accepted in the land of the free.
Never mind that the 400 million “new” Americans will outnumber the “old” Americans.
Only a racist would be opposed to it, only a heartless genocidal pig would be opposed to it.
Israel, oh those tricky Jews, they won’t agree like the Americans, they refuse to allow themselves to be over-run.
I don’t know how people can have the nerve to feign innocence when they talk of a one-state “solution”.
Its a “solution” only for people who deny the right of the Jewish people to have their own country.
March 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm
icclearly
The very thought of me wanting to live in a state run by the corrupt,nepotistic,murderous palestinians,makes me burst out laughing.
And chilled to the bone both at the same time.I shudder at the very thought.
March 10, 2010 at 5:48 pm
pretzelberg
@ sababa / Mitnaged
Interesting that you both read between the lines of my post, because that is exactly what I had in mind when wishing that Israelinurse were posting on CiF, i.e. not only to redress (well, slightly) the balance but also to raise the standard of debate. Look at today’s two Israel-related threads to see that.
On the one I had my first four comments deleted, which I’m sure is unprecedented.
(in fact their deletion was understandable, as I in frustration resorted to personal insults)
There might well be something to accusations on CiF of me being a fence-sitter – but I have noticed that my comments as a whole have become far more “pro-Israel”* over the past year, and this is primarily because of the mushrooming anti-Israel bilge exhibited both above and below the line there.
Some of my detractors right here on this site have called me argumentative – and you know what? They’re right.
* And when I say “pro-Israel” I mean how my posts are interpreted, i.e. I challenge all the tw*tty comments about “apartheid/racist state” and Gaza being a “concentration camp”.
I disagree with a lot of the stuff posted here on CiFW (and that has earned me plenty of aggro), but FFS that doesn’t mean I’m some dogmatic anti-Israel idiot.
March 10, 2010 at 5:51 pm
pretzelberg
@ modernityblog
btw: you missed point no. 5 (or should that be no. 1?)
- The majority of Palestinians (like Israelis) prefer the two-state to the one-state solution.
March 10, 2010 at 5:54 pm
peter1
Shlaim gives us an example of the wonderful circular logic that abounds among the NeoLibs.
“Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to observe the ceasefire.”- Shlaim
Israel launches a raid that kills hamas fighters.
Hamas retaliates….by rocketing civilians.
Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks on civilians as an excuse to launch its insane offensive.
If Israel wanted to protect her citizens, she should observe the ceasefire.
A nice little package that is so clear and obvious, how could and who would be able to question such a statement?
Hamas fighters were killed while building a tunnel into Israel, preparing for another attempted kidnapping while refusing to extend the ceasefire.
Hamas seized the successful IDF attack on the tunnel as an excuse to renew rocket attacks on Israeli CIVILIANS.
Israel warned hamas that if they don’t stop, the IDF will stop them.
Hamas crowed that they have prepared a graveyard for the IDF and they relish the opportunity to unleash their “surprises”.
Israel’s citizens clamored for an end to the attacks and pressured the government to ignore hamas crowing and put an end to it.
The IDF moved with surgical precision to protect Israeli civilians and moved into Gaza causing minimal death, minimal damage.
Western Sahara, Belgian Congo, Darfur, Georgia, Serbia would give a left testicle to have absorbed such a “genocide”.
You know, the death of one is too many and I can safely say that we all agree with that in principle, however the reality of life does get in the way of such noble ideas.
Holding Israel up to such standards as to remove her ability to protect and defend herself from the Arabs who insist on acting like lemmings is both immoral and unjustified.
March 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Israelinurse
Pretzelberg – I have many faults, but masochism is not one of them so I won’t be posting on CiF anytime soon
To be honest, I don’t have the time either; some people must have very liberal employers!
March 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm
pretzelberg
@ Israelinurse
I hear you loud and clear on both points.
Nonetheless I would urge people here – assuming they can – to continue/resume posting on CiF, even if it’s a thankless task.
March 10, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Serendipity
I wouldn’t pretzel, even if I were not banned.
Why on earth should anyone here who supports Israel bother to waste his/her time there?
Why paddle in a cesspit?
March 10, 2010 at 6:34 pm
modernityblog
pretzelberg, I stand corrected, a much better point than I made
March 10, 2010 at 6:40 pm
peter1
pretzelberg,
You aren’t argumentative, you’re pedantic.
Why should people waste time at that bastion of anti-semitism?
The less people from here that go there the more it sinks to depravity.
The guardian gets exposed daily over here, its like shooting fish in a barrel.
The rabid crowd feeds on itself and people who go there to verify what we are saying can see it clearly in the postings of the guardian faithful.
Why provide them with cover and allowing a modicum of intelligence to be displayed?
The guardian has been feeding the below the line commentators a steady diet of bilge, they deserve the level of debate (?) they have.
March 10, 2010 at 7:06 pm
pretzelberg
@ peter1
The charge of “pedant” has also been levelled at me on CiF.
Perhaps finally something that unites both websites.
Fine by me.
March 10, 2010 at 9:35 pm
peter1
Shlaim takes the route of the NeoLibs in framing the situation as onein which the Arabs cannot be held responsible for their own actions, they have no responsibility for the situation they find themselves in, they have no obligation to support themselves.
In short the Arabs are portrayed as perpetual victims of situations out of their control, situations which they cannot, do not and have not impacted.
The focus is on Israel exclusively, if only Israel did a, b or c then things would be alright.
In a sense he’s right as we all know what their position really is:
No Jews, No Israel,No problem.
March 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm
JerusalemMite
sababa – ‘pretzelberg, I think you are right when you say that there used to be much more serious debate on Cif, and in particular, there were some eloquent pro-Israeli commentators who tried to make their case.’
There can still be good debate on CiF as long as Israel isn’t mentioned. Look at the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/10/egypt-religious-conservatism-women?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
March 11, 2010 at 12:02 am
Abandon hope
sababa
.
” I think when AKUS was banned, it send a clear enough signal.”
Some of us wanted AKUS unbanned despite not knowing why he was banned and despite him not answering the many requests as to the nature of his banning. His patience and balance was noted and CIF misses him.
icclearly
“CiF has become an asylum for the mentally disturbed,”
This is blog which monitors and exposes bias. Allegations of mental instability have been used in the past to discredit critics and will be in the future….but on a site attempting to take on the Guardian they will simply be seen as evidence of scant argument.
peter1
“The guardian gets exposed daily over here, its like shooting fish in a barrel. The rabid crowd …”
The idea is that you are meant to hit and kill the fish. Use of verbiage like ” rabid” is fine on this site ..as it engenders a “them and us” delineation.. but it is an allegation of madness and …as I said ..above evidence of lack of argument.
Pro Israelis are missed on CIF Pretzelberg was the only one brave enough to comment on the CIF thread about the snub to Biden. Here was an opportunity to explain why this happened….