My speech on countering delegitimization @ ‘Big Tent for Zionism’ conference: Manchester, Nov. 27


Here’s a clip of my presentation at a session I participated in at the Big Tent for Zionism‘ conference in Manchester (November 27, 2011) on countering delegitimization in the media.

The conference was an enormous success, by any standard, for the organisers, the Manchester Jewish community and the inspiration behind the event, Rabbi Jonathan Guttentag.

More than 700 people attended the event aimed at encouraging  grass-roots advocacy and activism to counter the delegitimisation of Israel in the UK.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UK, H.E. Daniel Taub, was the keynote speaker and – as if briefed by CiF Watch before his speech! – called out the Guardian’s Deborah Orr for opprobrium as an especially egregious example of journalists who, abandoning any claim to objectivity, employ antisemitic tropes in the service of undermining the Jewish state’s right to exist. 

Participants at the panel discussion included Jonathan HoffmanRichard Millett, and Richard Gold.

97 comments on “My speech on countering delegitimization @ ‘Big Tent for Zionism’ conference: Manchester, Nov. 27

  1. I saw the article pop up, and I wondered to myself, “how long before the first lie is told?”

    So I click play on the video. First bullet point, first slide, a blatant, unchallenged lie:

    “EU Working Definition of Anti-Semitism includes denying Israel’s right to exist”.

    At least I didn’t have to waste much time.

    • “First bullet point, first slide, a blatant, unchallenged lie” debutante

      Rest assured, prof debutante, we all have the very same feelings about all your posts.

      • In

        http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

        we read:

        “Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

        Denying the Jewish people their right to self­determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

        Now, prof debutante, as you are caught in a lie for the uptenth time, will you apologize or will you distort and change subjects or pretend you have no time?

        • The right of the Jewish people to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist. A high school student should be able to see that.

          There’s a reason that Adam can’t cite the working definition correctly. If he does, if he starts talking about self determination, it becomes embarrassingly obvious to viewers that Israelis have their right to self determination, but also that Israel is denying the same right to Palestinians.

          It also follows that if denying the Jewish people the right to self determination constitutes anti-Jewish racism, then, clearly, denying the Palestinian people the right to self determination is also racist.

          That’s why we talk about Israel’s non-existent right to exist instead of framing the discourse in the language of self determination.

          Thanks for highlighting Adam’s dishonesty.

          • The right of the Jewish people to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist.

            In your book maybe they are not the same but your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.

            A high school student should be able to see that.

            Maybe an especially unintelligent and immature one in first class. Most of these will grow up and doesn’t remain on your level dubi.

            There’s a reason that Adam can’t cite the working definition correctly.

            Adam cited it accurately but certainly there is a reason that you are trying to accuse him with the opposite.

            It also follows that if denying the Jewish people the right to self determination constitutes anti-Jewish racism, then, clearly, denying the Palestinian people the right to self determination is also racist.

            Correct. If their self-determination doesn’t include the denying of the same from the Jews. Sadly it does exactly that.

            That’s why we talk about Israel’s non-existent right to exist …

            For you our right to our own state is certainly non-existent – this is natural – a common denominator of every Jew hater.

            Thanks for highlighting the true face of the so-called human rights lawyers.

            • “The right of the Jewish people to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist.

              In your book maybe they are not the same but your opinion in this matter is irrelevant.”

              Thought experiment. Have Jews in the US realised their right to self determination? Yes. Israel’s non-existent right to exist is not related to the self determination of Jewish people.

              “Adam cited it accurately but certainly there is a reason that you are trying to accuse him with the opposite.”

              Find the phrase “right to exist” in the working definition. Or admit that you are making a fool of yourself.

              “Correct. If their self-determination doesn’t include the denying of the same from the Jews. Sadly it does exactly that.”

              Laughable. If you genuinely believe that Palestinians must be continually oppressed in order for Jews to have the right to self determination, you are completely detached, but at least you recognise ( I think) the hypocrisy of your position.

              “For you our right to our own state is certainly non-existent – this is natural – a common denominator of every Jew hater.”

              Jewish people, like Catholic people, like Christian people, like Hindu people, have the right to self determination. Do Catholics have a right to a state? Buddhists? Atheists? Scientologists?

              • I understand your point dubi. Being Jewish is just the same as being Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist etc.
                I have to inform you that Jewishness is much more than being a member of a religious community, it is a common culture, history and a nation. About half of the Jews of the world are atheists or belong to other religion not Judaism. But I understand that you as an international human rights lawyer has a very limited knowledge about history, anthropology and sociology – even the real world.

                • Just a correction: debutante is an international human-rights pseudo-lawyerist. If he *really* cared about humanity and law he´d be focusing his diffuse energy in the scandal in Syria.

                  The rest of your post is impeccable. :)

                • peterthehungarian,

                  “I have to inform you that Jewishness is much more than being a member of a religious community, it is a common culture, history and a nation.”

                  Yes. But you’re wasting your time, Peter, with this piece of work who’s on record for agreeing with Shlomo Sand’s crackpot hypothesis of the Jewish nation being a modern invention.

                  This… thing, like all Sandbaggers, is worse than a Holocaust Denier. It isn’t worth being dignified with considering its thoughts to be of any seriosity. Let it crawl back to the hole it came from.

                • I agree. This type of slime like our own prof debutante is worse than holocaust denialists because, being cowards by nature AND to appeal to the progressive mob, they put this worn-out mask of humanitarians and moralists. Even Julius Streicher was more honest than these types, that entangle their obvious judeophobic drive in pseudo-legalese and fake outraged rethoric.

                  So, doc debutante don´t have the balls to confess his personal hatred of Israel, but each and every of his posts display that relentless, Goebbels-style, mendacious double-standards, demonization and delegitimation, which are the standard routine of Israel haters.

                  It´s interesting, though, to observe how he absorbed and now regurgitates the ideology of the international lawyerist front, who are the post-modern, post-Soviet, post-neo-Marxian revolutionary-chic attempting a juridical coup-d´etat against the modern nations. But their dream of a juridical caliphate can be stopped, as the case of Baltasar Garzón shows. Here´s a a judged that was willing to break the law to enforce his *personal* and selective view of justice. People finally had enough of his BS. So there is still some hope for the West.

                • I was thinking that a spider might be the nearest thing to this doodoo but I like spiders and don’t mind avoiding their webs which have usefulness and often beauty whereas doodoo’s output is just a tiresome thing to skip over.

              • “Jewish people, like Catholic people, like Christian people, like Hindu people, have the right to self determination. Do Catholics have a right to a state? Buddhists? Atheists? Scientologists?” doc debutante

                Curiously that you didn´t include Muslims in your laughable pseudo-indignant rethorical question. Are you afraind of being accused of islamophobia?

                But, never mind, why discuss these trivialities about self-determination if you already decided that states are born from conquest anyway,

                Your inconsistency is quite funny, prof debutante.

          • ‘It also follows that if denying the Jewish people the right to self determination constitutes anti-Jewish racism, then, clearly, denying the Palestinian people the right to self determination is also racist.’

            In a sense, yes. The point is to allow the same for both, in the same small piece of land. And the whole conflict arguably devolves to original Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian resistance to Jews living in the land in above the tiny numbers imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid decreed, since the birth of modern Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian national consciousness, an apartheid-cum-resistance that evolved into an expulsionism or eliminationism against Palestinian, Israeli and, arguably in some cases, other Jews.

            That means, inter alia, allowing both peoples, for instance, a right of return to their respective states.

            The P. A. rep. in New York wouldn’t even sign up to the formula ‘Two states for two peoples’, lest one of those peoples be interpreted as the Jewish.

            From what I can see, you too have a Resistance to such a view, though I could be mistaken.

            • “In a sense, yes.”

              Not “in a sense”. Just “yes”.

              “The point is to allow the same for both, in the same small piece of land.”

              Agreed.

              “Two states for two peoples” is a euphemism for denying refugees their legal rights. At least be honest about it.

              “From what I can see, you too have a Resistance to such a view, though I could be mistaken.”

              I support the right of self-determination of everyone. Two state, binational state, no-state, these are the details.

              • “Not “in a sense”. Just “yes””

                That depends if the other side makes the corollary concession. It’s a tango, and it takes two.

              • “I support the right to self-determination of everyone.”

                Well good for you. Aren’t you wonderful? That’s great in principal and very creditable. Unfortunately in the situation we are considering here one people’s rights directly opposes another’s, so you can’t just say “I support both”.

                The Palestinians want the right to self-determine from the Jordan to the sea. That leaves no room for Jewish self-determination at all. Israel has, on the whole, accepted that at least part of that land must be given up to allow for Palestinian self-determination, but she is not willing to do so in a suicidal way.

                This is practical realism, not idealistic claptrap or racist, genocidal dreaming.

                • “Unfortunately in the situation we are considering here one people’s rights directly opposes another’s, so you can’t just say “I support both”.”

                  That’s faulty thinking. And if you’re suggesting that the existence of Israel *requires* the oppression of the Palestinian people, then you are suggesting that Israel is a “racist endeavour”, which would make you anti-Semitic.

                  You might feel they oppose each other, but only because you are starting from the end point and working backwards.

                  “The Palestinians want the right to self-determine from the Jordan to the sea.”

                  The PA and Hamas are quite clear on wanting a two state solution based on international law.

                • “The PA and Hamas are quite clear on wanting a two state solution based on international law.”

                  Cite? Or is it nitpicking to ask of you to provide supporting evidence, evidence where the version for Western eyes is the SAME as the desire stated for Arab eyes and ears?

                • Did you read my post? I did NOT say that the existence of Israel requires the oppression of the Palestinian people. You are reading your own racism into my comments.

                  Instead, I pointed out the practical problems which occur when two people wish to self-determine in the same land.

                  You are correct that PA and Hamas want a 2-state solution – as a first step to the removal of Israel in its entirety. There are numerous sources for this, before you accuse me of lying. Just look at the map that is displayed at Palestinian events – it shows the entire area shaded green (i.e. Palestine). No room for the Jews there.

                • “Any different to Likud’s stated aim of stealing all Palestinian land?” debutante

                  I dunno. But talking about land stealing, why aren´t you protesting to the ICC about your country´s occupation of Argentinian land (Malvinas) and Spanish land (Gibraltar)?

                  What a hypocritical twat.

                • “The PA and Hamas are quite clear on wanting a two state solution based on international law.”

                  This would be why PA and Hamas-run educational systems, newspapers and TV routinely call for the “liberation” of all Palestine, depict the entire area between Jordan and the Med as “Palestine” with no mention of Israel etc etc etc.

                  You want citations? See Palestine Media Watch for dozens, but I will pick out a few:

                  On Hamas-run Al Aqsa TV in March 5 2010, “Allah, we have entrusted you with the throats of the Jews; Allah, count them and kill them one by one, do not leave even one of them upon the land of Palestine.”

                  PA Text books with no mention of Israel, only “the Zionist enemy”, “the Zionist entity” etc.

                  PA TV’s endorsement of the message that Palestinian children “were created to be fertilizer for the land of Palestine,
                  and for our pure land to be saturated with their blood.”

                  PA TV honouring the murderers of the Fogel family and other terrorists guilty of mass murder of Israeli civilians as “heros” “role models” “glorious” “legends” “the crown of our heads”…

                • “I support the right to self-determination of everyone.” debutante

                  No, you don´t. That´s the traditional “humanist mask” you use to hide your judeophobic addiction. You are just a run-of-the-mill ideologue. A very ordinary one, with all this pseudo-intellectual dress.

                  You just don´t have the balls to state your hatred openly, but you don´t need to: it exudes from everything you post.

            • “The point is to allow the same for both, in the same small piece of land. And the whole conflict arguably devolves to original Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian resistance to Jews living in the land in above the tiny numbers imperial Christian and Islamic apartheid decreed…”

              “Actually UNSCOP recommended it because of the overwhelming Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian hostility/resistance/apartheid to a more than tiny traditional Jewish presence a priori.”

              Now, of course I’m only familiar with them through second-hand research, but if there’s anything the early Zionist leaders were not saying, it was “allow the same for both.”

              An internal WZO memorandum in 1907 by Ruppin called for creating a Jewish majority in Palestine through buying and settling as much land as possible and achieving autonomy in those districts where Jews became the majority. This document led to him establishing the Palestine Office in Jaffa that later became the Jewish Agency. Elsewhere, Ruppin wrote, “We are considering a parallel Arab colonization. Thus, we are planning to
              buy land in the regions of Homs,257 Aleppo etc. which we will sell under easy terms to those Palestinian fellahin who have been harmed by our land
              purchases.” (quot’d in Arthur Ruppin and the Production of the Modern Hebrew Culture, Bloom, 363)

              So clearly he was not interested in a small Jewish presence sharing the land with the Muslims and Christians.

              As for Weizmann, “Weizmann himself expressed his confidence that as
              “we have in times gone by cooperated with the Arabs in Spain, we shall do so again in Palestine” (in: Berkowitz 1996, 105), but Weizman, like Ruppin, indulged in doublespeak.Already in 1913 Weizman wrote to his beloved Vera: “There is alarming news from Syria about the Arab national movement. With the weakening of the central authority in Constantinople, the periphery of Asia Minor is beginning to organize, though in a very primitive manner. They consider Palestine their own and have embarked on an intensive propaganda campaign in their semi-national, semi-Christian, and ‘semi-anti-Semitic’ (an expression that can hardly apply to the Arabs) pressure against the selling of land to ‘Zionists,’ the enemies of Turkey and the usurpers of Palestine. We shall soon face a serious enemy and it won’t be enough to pay just money for the land.”268″ (Bloom 369)

              I’ve yet to see any evidence that any given Zionist who had an impact on 1948 – Buber and Magnes don’t count – seriously entertained the idea of sharing the country with the Arabs and only wanted no more than a Jewish presence that would not replace the natives. That’s before going into aborted territorial designs like the East Bank (Transjordan) and the Litani River which were demanded by Weizmann and Ben-Gurion at points. Although as the multiple invasions of Lebanon show, Ben-Gurion’s successors didn’t give up on the Litani.

          • ‘The right of the Jewish people to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist.’

            But that is the basis of any Jewish state’s or Israel’s having come into existence in the first place; the basis of the Balfour Declaration, League of Nations Mandate and UNSCOP i.e. international law, a priori.

            • ‘The right of the Jewish people to self determination is not the same as Israel having a right to exist.’

              Israel was founded following UNSCOP’s provision for a quote-unquote ‘Jewish state’.

                • ‘Israel was founded following the conquest of Palestine by Zionist terror groups.’

                  You mean those threatened with, or subject to, ethnic cleansing also did themselves? Yes.

                  You excise one half of the picture. It was a war. It was also a tango.

                  ‘It had nothing to do with UNSCOP’

                  Rubbish.

                  UNSCOP allowed for a Jewish state, as well as Jewish right of return, both of which Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians resisted, to the point of threatening expulsion or elimination of Palestinian (and arguably other) Jews.

                • “It was a war.”

                  It was terrorism. It was ethnic cleansing. I have no problem saying that.

                  “UNSCOP allowed for a Jewish state, as well as Jewish right of return, both of which Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians resisted, to the point of threatening expulsion or elimination of Palestinian (and arguably other) Jews.”

                  Pure ignorance. UNSCOP was a committee, which made a recommendation to the UN General Assembly, which in turn made a recommendation to the British. The British declined to impose partition.

                  When the Zionist organisations sensed the crumbling of political support, they unilaterally declared Israel to exist on what was, at that time, predominantly Arab land.

                • “It was a war.”

                  It was terrorism. It was ethnic cleansing. I have no problem saying that.’

                  Neither do I. For the other side do, which you clearly have a problem saying.

                  “UNSCOP allowed for a Jewish state, as well as Jewish right of return, both of which Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians resisted, to the point of threatening expulsion or elimination of Palestinian (and arguably other) Jews.”

                  ‘Pure ignorance. UNSCOP was a committee, which made a recommendation to the UN General Assembly, which in turn made a recommendation to the British.’

                  The legal basis for Israel, and for the P.A.’s statehood bid.

                  The British declined to impose partition.’

                  So what?

                  ‘When the Zionist organisations sensed the crumbling of political support, they unilaterally declared Israel to exist on what was, at that time, predominantly Arab land’

                  Land UNSCOP/181 allowed for a ‘Jewish state’. End of. Clearly international law doesn’t appeal to you. Like Norm says, you are highly selective in its application, Pot.

                • “Israel was established through conquest, not through law. It demonstrates your ignorance of the subject to contend otherwise.”

                  Israel was established through LAW and RESISTANCE to Islamist aggression, Islamist open calls for genocide and a second Holocaust.


                  1941 The Grand Mufti meets Hitler

                • ‘Israel was established through conquest’

                  Well, a war she had to win. You omit the other side of the story, as usual.

                  ‘not through law.’

                  181. Like the P.A. uses. But rejected, back then.

                  ‘It demonstrates your ignorance of the subject to contend otherwise.’

                  No, rather, yours.

                • ‘‘Israel was established through conquest’’

                  Mr English Christian Crusader, the way you tell it, history was a repetition of the crucifixion, Jesus Christ in Palestinian Arab national incarnation, crucified by evil Zionist Jewish interlopers (again).

                • Some spelling corrections, in case my meaning wasn’t clear:

                  “It was terrorism. It was ethnic cleansing. I have no problem saying that.”

                  Neither do I. For the other side TOO, which you clearly have a problem saying.

                • “It was terrorism. It was ethnic cleansing. I have no problem saying that.”

                  Why would you? It’s no skin off your nose.

                • ‘“It was terrorism. It was ethnic cleansing. I have no problem saying that.”

                  Why would you? It’s no skin off your nose.’ conchovor

                  BINGO! Once again, debutante gets an E- in intellectual proficiency but an A+ in shameless hypocrisy.

                • “Israel was established through conquest, not through law. It demonstrates your ignorance of the subject to contend otherwise.” debutante

                  Oh, man, are we back to that!!? Can´ t you come up with anything new? You think you are soooooo smart, don´t ya?

                  Liste, doc, if Israel was established through conquest, as most other nations on Earth, the what the f*** you are whining about? If might is right, the your palestinian professional victims have NO damns “rights” to anything whatsoever. So, your Israel obsession is your mental disturbance.

                  You flunked once again, debutante.

                • Oh, yeah, it was just like the Anglo-Saxon barbarians´ conquest of England.

                  Maybe you should write a thesis about that, prof debutante.

                • “…the conquest of Palestine by Zionist…”

                  Impossible. The Jews being the one and only true Palestinian nation, they cannot be considered conquerors of this land, only retakers of it. It is the Arab settler-colonist invaders who are guilty of imperialist aggression here, against the Palestinians, who are the Jews and only the Jews.

                  Any just and viable piece in the Middle East requires that the Arab nation cease and desist from illegally occupying land belonging to the indigenous Palestinians, who are the Jews.

              • ‘There’s a reason that plans for partition were abandoned’

                Actually UNSCOP recommended it because of the overwhelming Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian hostility/resistance/apartheid to a more than tiny traditional Jewish presence a priori.

                Such plans were never adopted by Palestinian Arab Muslims or Christians, to be abandoned, to begin with: it was more important to deny Jews a state, or place, in Palestine than acquire one themselves.

                • I don’t have to. It is well known that, for instance, Haj Amin Al Husseini called for the expulsion or worse of most Palestinian Jews, and he remained in the Palestinian leadership up to 1948 and beyond.

                  It is also well known that Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian notables lobbied successfully for a firman against all Jewish immigration in 1882, and that remained the tenor of Palestinian Arab nationalism subsequently.

                  As for traditional Christian and Islamic exclusion of Jews, as a people to be largely exiled and dispossessed for their rejection of the prophets, not only appeared in the earliest Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian literature, it still appears in domestic Palestinian Arabic discourse that is less guarded, away from western eyes and ears.

                  As for traditional Palestinian Christian and Islamic apartheid against Jews, that is easily evinced by e.g. the periodic threats of the Ottoman authorities to deport Palestinian Jews, their closing the great synagogue in Jerusalem, the expulsion of Ashkenazim from Jerusalem in the 18th century, the abuse of Jews at the western wall in the 19th, the forbidding of Jews to enter the cave of the patriarchs in Hebron, even in the Mandate period, and a deal of other things.

                  You just don’t want to see it, Dubitante (you +want+ to doubt it, for whatever reasons).

                • “You just don’t want to see it, Dubitante (you +want+ to doubt it, for whatever reasons).” conchovor

                  Nonsense. This dr debutante is no bona-fide “doubter” looking for truth, but just a pseudo-intellectual anti-Israel ideological crusader, who is too coward to show his true collors.

                • “I don’t have to. It is well known that, for instance, Haj Amin Al Husseini called for the expulsion or worse of most Palestinian Jews, and he remained in the Palestinian leadership up to 1948 and beyond.”

                  Moreover, this palestinian role-model was a NAZI, who shared Hitler´s enthusiasm for the extermination of the Jewish people, was criminal fugitive, for his role in establishing a Bosnian SS division in the Balkans.

          • ‘If he does, if he starts talking about self determination, it becomes embarrassingly obvious to viewers that Israelis have their right to self determination, but also that Israel is denying the same right to Palestinians.’

            Has the P.A. or Hamas ever allowed the right of a Jewish national self-determination, which was, after all, the basis of UNSCOP’s provision for a Jewish state alongside an Arab one?

            From Israel’s point of view, the point of Oslo and the peace process was to arrive at a point where both parties could acknowledge the rights of the other, and divide the land accordingly. For my part, I still believe the Geneva Accord is the way to go, but Abbas seems to have rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer of that. I do not know if Netanyahu is prepared to go that far, but I am not sure Abbas wants/wanted to go that way anyway. I think he prefers the BDS siege until ‘the end of Israeli apartheid’ i.e., in Norman Finkelstein’s words, ‘the end of Israel’.

            I am not sure how or what Israel will, or is prepared to, do, in response.

            Things are likely to get very dark if negotiations cease, all round.

            Israel will feel, I think, there is little incentive to concede anything. Perhaps, rather, the reverse.

            • “Has the P.A. or Hamas ever allowed the right of a Jewish national self-determination, which was, after all, the basis of UNSCOP’s provision for a Jewish state alongside an Arab one?”

              It is the position of the “PA” and Hamas that a solution to the conflict should be along the lines of international law. They are pretty consistent on this.

              UNSCOP issued a recommendation, nothing more. A recommendation, it has to be said, that was not implemented by the mandatory power.

              As Norm says. International law is very clear. It isn’t complicated. It isn’t controversial. Not once has Israel “offered” the Palestinians their legal entitlements. Not once. Always have they demanded huge concessions.

              I don’t support BDS, never have, but not for the same reasons as Norm.

              “Israel will feel, I think, there is little incentive to concede anything. ”

              Israel has never, to my knowledge, conceded anything. From 1948 to the present day. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

              • ‘It is the position of the “PA” and Hamas that a solution to the conflict should be along the lines of international law.’

                Then they have to acknowledge the legality of a Jewish state, and the Jewish national self-determination behind it, or at least not contest it.

                ‘They are pretty consistent on this.’

                As to Hamas, of course not. As to P.A., getting there, or they were. Having resisted a large scale Jewish presence in Palestine until at least 1988, events subsequent needs be the subject of negotiation.

                ‘UNSCOP issued a recommendation, nothing more.’

                A ‘Jewish state’. End of.

                ‘A recommendation, it has to be said, that was not implemented by the mandatory power.’

                So what?

                ‘As Norm says. International law is very clear. It isn’t complicated.’

                A matter of opinion. Law is something that doesn’t exist outside of interpretation or context. That’s why there are lawyers, and they are allowed to make a case on behalf of their client.

                e.g. you can’t defy international law for 40 years, as did the Palestinians whom the P.A. represent; until today in the case of Hamas, and expect the clock to go back to when you should have accepted it.

                That is why events subsequent need be discussed or negotiated, according to the powers that be, the arbitrators of international law.

                ‘It isn’t controversial. Not once has Israel “offered” the Palestinians their legal entitlements. Not once. Always have they demanded huge concessions.’

                A matter of opinion, according to the powers that be.

                The way you tell the story, it’s a kind of crucifixion, of a Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian Christ (Christ-like in essential innocence if not virtue) in national incarnation, crucified by alien Zionist Jewish interlopers. You excise fully one half of the story.

                ‘ don’t support BDS, never have, but not for the same reasons as Norm.’

                OK.

                “Israel will feel, I think, there is little incentive to concede anything. ”

                ‘Israel has never, to my knowledge, conceded anything. From 1948 to the present day. I don’t see that changing any time soon.’

                Read the Geneva Accord,

                http://www.geneva-accord.org/

                which Olmert offered at Annapolis.

                • “Then they have to acknowledge the legality of a Jewish state, and the Jewish national self-determination behind it, or at least not contest it.”

                  They are required to accept and recognise the existence of the State of Israel. Nothing more. Any tag-ons are artificially erected barriers to peace.

                  “As to Hamas, of course not.”

                  Hamas’s political leaders have been indicating for some years that they want a solution to the conflict along the lines of international law.

                  “A ‘Jewish state’. End of.”

                  Why are you interested in the recommendation of a committee with precisely zero legal standing?

                  “A matter of opinion. Law is something that doesn’t exist outside of interpretation or context. That’s why there are lawyers, and they are allowed to make a case on behalf of their client.”

                  The international community, the UN and the International Court of Justice are in agreement. Like Norm says, it’s not controversial.

                  “Read the Geneva Accord,”

                  Could you highlight a concession in it for me?

                • “Then they have to acknowledge the legality of a Jewish state, and the Jewish national self-determination behind it, or at least not contest it.”

                  ‘They are required to accept and recognise the existence of the State of Israel.’

                  But they won’t even sign up to ‘Two states for two peoples’

                  But I am not dogmatic on this. For instance, I’d be happy so long as they didn’t press the right of return.

                  ‘ Nothing more. Any tag-ons are artificially erected barriers to peace.’

                  Not ‘Two states for two peoples etc’

                  “As to Hamas, of course not.”

                  ‘Hamas’s political leaders have been indicating for some years that they want a solution to the conflict along the lines of international law.’

                  Not Haniyeh. As you know. Your willful ignoring of this makes you an enemy. A kind of de facto Nazi. With all that entails for our obligations to you.

                  “A ‘Jewish state’. End of.”

                  ‘Why are you interested in the recommendation of a committee with precisely zero legal standing?’

                  A loaded question. They did have legal standing, for their recommendation was accepted as law.

                  “A matter of opinion. Law is something that doesn’t exist outside of interpretation or context. That’s why there are lawyers, and they are allowed to make a case on behalf of their client.”

                  ‘The international community, the UN and the International Court of Justice are in agreement. Like Norm says, it’s not controversial’

                  But according to the powers that be, the legal arbitrators, it is more complicated than that.

                  “Read the Geneva Accord,”

                  Could you highlight a concession in it for me?’

                  You haven’t bothered to read it, have you, Mr English Intellectual?

                  E.g. giving land in exchange for most of the settlements close to the green line, and Jerusalem. Surrendering most of the old city, except the western wall, the Jewish (and maybe Armenian) quarter, with some kind of shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount; giving up Hebron, pulling back troops, ending checkpoints and Israeli control over Palestinian territory; compensation for refugees, with a token number allowed back into Israel, inter alia.

                  Principles that have been around since Oslo and Camp David II.

                  But +nothing+ will convince an ideologue like you. Nothing.

                • “But they won’t even sign up to ‘Two states for two peoples’”

                  That is an artificial requirement, imposed by the Israelis as a barrier to peace. They are required only to accept the fact of the existence of the State of Israel.

                  “For instance, I’d be happy so long as they didn’t press the right of return.”

                  You’d be happy as long as they didn’t ask for their legal rights? That’s an odd position.

                  “Not Haniyeh. As you know. Your willful ignoring of this makes you an enemy. A kind of de facto Nazi. With all that entails for our obligations to you.”

                  To quote him: “We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees.” – In other words, international law.

                  “Your willful ignoring of this makes you an enemy. A kind of de facto Nazi. With all that entails for our obligations to you.”

                  Lame ad hominems, not worthy of a response.

                  “A loaded question. They did have legal standing, for their recommendation was accepted as law.”

                  No it wasn’t. They were a committee, empowered to make a recommendation to the UNGA. And the UNGA was empowered to make recommendations to the British. Nothing about it had a legal character.

                  “But according to the powers that be, the legal arbitrators, it is more complicated than that.”

                  The powers that be? Ha! That has to be the worst citation ever. It isn’t even remotely controversial I’m afraid. It’s dishonest to contend otherwise.

                  “You haven’t bothered to read it, have you, Mr English Intellectual?”

                  Of course I’ve read it, precisely why I was able to ask you a question I know you couldn’t answer. You think you gave an example of a concession? Really? Do the Geneva Accords offer the Palestinians more or less than that to which they are legally entitled?

                  Example, your example concession included giving up Hebron. Giving it up? It’s not Israel’s to give up! If I steal your car, I can’t call it a concession if I give it back.

                  The only way you can claim that Israel has made a single concession, as you ably demonstrate, is if you choose as your frame of reference Zionist territorial ambitions. If you choose international law as the point of reference, then you will clearly see that Israel has made not one single concession.

                • “International law is the only framework we have which governs the actions of states.” debutante garzón

                  Oh, yes, indeed. That´s what the UK applied in the Falklands. International Law and some Exocets.

                  “As Norm says, repeatedly, it’s not complex, it’s not controversial.” debu, the wise-man-of-the-mountain

                  Oh, yes, indeed! Stinky-Finkle, that great “scholar” and authority on Earth.

                  “The highest legal authorities on Earth agree with me, argue with them if you must, but please cite your legal credentials first.” lord debutante

                  Now, now, quit your grotesque arrogance, dr pricklish, and cite YOUR legal credentials first, as YOU are the one posing as international-lawyerist here. I´d believe in your credentials as a major circus clown, though.

                • ‘“But they won’t even sign up to ‘Two states for two peoples’”

                  ‘That is an artificial requirement, imposed by the Israelis as a barrier to peace.’

                  Not at the time, which was discussions between Israel and the P.A. in New York.

                  ‘They are required only to accept the fact of the existence of the State of Israel.’

                  No, its legitimacy in law. Even Hamas accepts ‘the fact’ of its existence.

                  “For instance, I’d be happy so long as they didn’t press the right of return.”

                  ‘You’d be happy as long as they didn’t ask for their legal rights? That’s an odd position.’

                  Ask, is one thing. Demand another.

                  “Not Haniyeh. As you know. Your willful ignoring of this makes you an enemy. A kind of de facto Nazi. With all that entails for our obligations to you.”

                  ‘To quote him: “We accept a Palestinian state on the borders of 1967, with Jerusalem as its capital, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and the resolution of the issue of refugees.” – In other words, international law.’

                  No. Because it is only temporary. And it doesn’t recognise Israel.

                  ‘Your willful ignoring of this makes you an enemy. A kind of de facto Nazi. With all that entails for our obligations to you.”

                  ‘Lame ad hominems, not worthy of a response.’

                  No. You’re an enemy.

                  “A loaded question. They did have legal standing, for their recommendation was accepted as law.”

                  ‘No it wasn’t. They were a committee, empowered to make a recommendation to the UNGA. And the UNGA was empowered to make recommendations to the British. Nothing about it had a legal character.’

                  But 181 has.

                  “But according to the powers that be, the legal arbitrators, it is more complicated than that.”

                  The powers that be? Ha! That has to be the worst citation ever. It isn’t even remotely controversial I’m afraid. It’s dishonest to contend otherwise.

                  “You haven’t bothered to read it, have you, Mr English Intellectual?”

                  ‘Of course I’ve read it, precisely why I was able to ask you a question I know you couldn’t answer.’

                  But you knew wrong. Hence my thinking you’re either lazy or, now, a liar.

                  ‘You think you gave an example of a concession? Really?’

                  Yes.

                  ‘Do the Geneva Accords offer the Palestinians more or less than that to which they are legally entitled?’

                  The same.

                  ‘Example, your example concession included giving up Hebron. Giving it up? It’s not Israel’s to give up! If I steal your car, I can’t call it a concession if I give it back.’

                  It is if you tried to steal my car first, and threatened to murder me. Not to mention kept me dispossessed of the car in the first place.

                  ‘The only way you can claim that Israel has made a single concession, as you ably demonstrate, is if you choose as your frame of reference Zionist territorial ambitions.’

                  i.e. the existence of Israel.

                  ‘If you choose international law as the point of reference, then you will clearly see that Israel has made not one single concession.’

                  Rubbish. You select to your agenda.

                • “No, its legitimacy in law. Even Hamas accepts ‘the fact’ of its existence.”

                  They are required only to offer de facto recognition. Anything else is, again, an artificial barrier to peace.

                  “Ask, is one thing. Demand another.”

                  When human rights are your enemy, it’s time to look in the mirror.

                  “No. Because it is only temporary. And it doesn’t recognise Israel.”

                  Anyone who studies the conflict closely knows that any such agreement would lead to a de facto settlement of the conflict. Only those interested in perpetuating the conflict would disagree.

                  “But 181 has.”

                  Wrong again. 181 was a non-binding *recommendation* to the British issued under Article 10 of the UN Charter, that’s all.

                  “Rubbish. You select to your agenda.”

                  International law is the only framework we have which governs the actions of states. As Norm says, repeatedly, it’s not complex, it’s not controversial. The highest legal authorities on Earth agree with me, argue with them if you must, but please cite your legal credentials first.

                  The Palestinians are legally entitled to a state in Gaza and the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just resolution of the refugee problem. We know the arithmetic, it’s not hard. Israel has never once offered the Palestinians their legal entitlements. Not once.

                • ‘“No, its legitimacy in law. Even Hamas accepts ‘the fact’ of its existence.”

                  They are required only to offer de facto recognition. Anything else is, again, an artificial barrier to peace.’

                  No. Recognition of ‘fact’ is nothing. Hitler recognised ‘the fact’ of Jews’ existing.

                  “Ask, is one thing. Demand another.”

                  ‘When human rights are your enemy, it’s time to look in the mirror.’

                  It depends what you mean by ‘rights’.

                  ‘No. Because it is only temporary. And it doesn’t recognise Israel.”

                  ‘Anyone who studies the conflict closely knows that any such agreement would lead to a de facto settlement of the conflict.’

                  Hmm. Norm says he wouldn’t trust such as you were he Israeli. So your norm for ‘anyone’ isn’t mine.

                  ‘Only those interested in perpetuating the conflict would disagree.’

                  Disagree.

                  “But 181 has.”

                  ‘Wrong again. 181 was a non-binding *recommendation* to the British issued under Article 10 of the UN Charter, that’s all.’

                  Then what is the legal basis for Palestinian statehood?

                  “Rubbish. You select to your agenda.”

                  ‘International law is the only framework we have which governs the actions of states.’

                  e.g. 181. Or Camp David II, Taba and the Geneva Accord.

                  ‘As Norm says, repeatedly, it’s not complex, it’s not controversial. The highest legal authorities on Earth agree with me, argue with them if you must, but please cite your legal credentials first.’

                  The U.S.?

                  ‘The Palestinians are legally entitled to a state in Gaza and the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a just resolution of the refugee problem.’

                  i.e. the Geneva Accord, albeit with the problem of Hamas in Gaza.

                  ‘We know the arithmetic, it’s not hard. Israel has never once offered the Palestinians their legal entitlements. Not once.’

                  The Geneva Accord, by Olmert?

                • ‘The powers that be? Ha! That has to be the worst citation ever. It isn’t even remotely controversial’

                  It is, e.g. with the U.S and the Quartet. Even the E.U. recognises the need to negotiate. It didn’t nor doesn’t exclude Camp David II, Taba or the Geneva Accord as incompatible with international law.

                  Jimmy Carter doesn’t: “the best chance for peace in the Middle East.”

                  ‘I’m afraid. It’s dishonest to contend otherwise’

                  Not really.

                • “It didn’t nor doesn’t exclude Camp David II, Taba or the Geneva Accord as incompatible with international law.”

                  No agreed solution would be incompatible with international law. But even in the Geneva Accords, Israel offers not a single concession, whilst demanding concessions from the Palestinians.

                  If threatened by the Geneva Accords, Israel can simply use the ambiguity in the refugee section to demand extreme concessions from the Palestinians, ensuring a rejection.

                  Netanyahu’s long standing extreme precondition has been an insistence that international law is not a part of any final status discussion.

                • “Netanyahu’s long standing extreme precondition has been an insistence that international law is not a part of any final status discussion.” herr dubitante

                  Cut this pseudo-legalese crap, debutante. Go preach that BS to Hamas and the Salafist gangsters. Invite them for a beer with falafel and then give your pathetic lectures on international law. If you survive, then we continue the discussion.

              • ‘Israel has never, to my knowledge, conceded anything’

                That’s not actually, in your case, ‘knowledge’. It’s an ‘idée fixe’, an ‘ideologically immovable certitude, an article of faith’.

                Israeli, Zionist Jews are the evil crucifiers of the Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nation.

              • ‘Israel has never, to my knowledge, conceded anything. From 1948 to the present day I don’t see that changing any time soon.’

                Here are a few to be going along with:
                – Immediately after the 6-Day War, offering to withdraw from most of the captured land in return for a comprehensive peace (google Khartoum 3 Noes for the Arab response)
                – Withdrawing from Sinai (and destroying the town of Yamit, plus other smaller settlements) in return for peace with Egypt
                – Withdrawing from Gaza (and leaving behind high-tech greenhouses, which were promptly trashed)
                – Terrorists released from Israeli prisons as “goodwill gestures”

                The fact that you never credit Israel with making any concessions says much more about you than about Israel.

                • Let’s go over why you’re wrong.

                  “- Immediately after the 6-Day War, offering to withdraw from most of the captured land in return for a comprehensive peace (google Khartoum 3 Noes for the Arab response)”

                  It is a fundamental principle of international law that states cannot acquire territory by war. So the land was not Israel’s to concede.

                  “- Withdrawing from Sinai (and destroying the town of Yamit, plus other smaller settlements) in return for peace with Egypt”

                  It is a fundamental principle of international law that states cannot acquire territory by war. So the Sinai was not Israel’s to concede.

                  “- Withdrawing from Gaza (and leaving behind high-tech greenhouses, which were promptly trashed)”

                  It is a fundamental principle of international law that states cannot acquire territory by war. So Gaza was not Israel’s to concede.

                • Actually, you’ll find that “fundamental principle” does not apply to a defensive war. And before you pull the “Israel struck pre-emptively so they weren’t fighting a defensive war” card, I’m old enough to remember the build-up to the Six-Day War. Nasser told the UN “peacekeepers” to get out of the Sinai because he wanted to drive the Jews into the sea. He also blockaded the Straits of Tiran (a causus belli right there), and the Syrians massed troups on the Golan Heights.

                  Jordan didn’t join in right away, and Dayan told King Hussein that if he stayed out of it, Israel wouldn’t attack Jordan. However, King Hussein believed the overblown rhetoric of the Egyptians and Syrians in the first days and wanted to get in on the action.

                  I believe the “fundamental principle” you’re looking at says, “ISRAEL is not allowed to acquire territory by any means whatsoever, and furthermore, any concessions that Israel makes aren’t really concessions.”

                • BINGO! Doc debutante goes down yet another time. He goes back to “Norman Finkelstein´s Handbook of Selective International Lawyerism” to get some other tropes. Meanwhile he´s got another D-.

                • “Actually, you’ll find that “fundamental principle” does not apply to a defensive war.”

                  Firstly, you’re disagreeing with the highest legal authorities on Earth. Do you want to cite your legal credentials. Is there any reason we should take your word over the opinion of the International Court of Justice?

                  The defensive war myth has been debunked enough times, but for our purposes, we’ll let it slide.

                • “It is a fundamental principle of international law that states cannot acquire territory by war.” debutante

                  Indeed. Well, then, as you yourself declared that basically all nations were created out of conquest, we cannot but conclude that ALL current nations are ilegal under so-called “international law”. Which is the conclusion your type of international lawyerists want people to swallow, so that your ilk can be the new autocrats of the universe, more or less what´s happening in the EU (no wonder it´s disintegrating).

                  So, ok, you are free pursue your little pathetic John Lennon pipe-dream of establishing your juridical caliphate. But begin by dismantling *YOUR* own country. Good luck.

            • “If he does, if he starts talking about self determination, it becomes embarrassingly obvious to viewers that Israelis have their right to self determination, but also that Israel is denying the same right to Palestinians.” dr. debutante

              How the heck Israel can deny a non-existant right, prof? And, as a brilliant pseudo-intellectual, you should know by now that Israel is not a person, so it cannot “deny” anything to anybody. Only persons can do that, remember?

              You get a D-. Try again next year.

            • “Israel is denying the same right to Palestinians”

              But the Palestinians already do have a right of self-determination in no less than 3 entities — Jordan, Fatahstan, and Hamastan. Why do they need more?

          • Norman Finkelstein:

            ‘You know and I know exactly what we’re talking about because if we end the occupation, and we bring back 6 million Palestinians and we have equal rights for Arabs and Jews, there’s no Israel. That’s what it’s really about. And you think you’re fooling anybody? You think you’re so clever? That people can’t figure that out for themselves? No, they understand the arithmetic perfectly well.’

            http://www.jewlicious.com/2012/02/norman-finkelstein-exposes-the-bds-movement-as-dishonest-a-cult/

            Is he a liar, too?

          • As a pseudo intellectual, I’m sure you’re perfectly capable of following this trail of thought: racism is bad and must be abolished, since the state of Israel is a racist endevour, it too must be abolished. I think denying the Jewish people their right to self determination and denying the right for Israel to exist as a state (as if any other country would entertain the thought of its own right to exist being a precondition or something which is negotiable) both go hand in hand with abolishing Israel as a ‘racist endevour’.

            Whilst Adam might not have cited the definition word for word, what he put in the presentation is true. Stop being disingenous and pedantic.

              • ‘No state on Earth has a “right to exist”. Israel is alone in demanding recognition of this right, and they demand it only from the Palestinians.’

                Because they have been denying it for so long, and in some ways still do. Hamas certainly does.

                Recognising the legitimacy of a former enemy goes a long way to a display of future good intentions, certainly an absence of bad ones. Actually states formerly at war often do formally recognise the other in peace treaties.

                There is nothing novel about it at all.

              • Yeah, dubitante, you´re back to that worn-out key. I see you´re a disciple of ex-judge Baltazár Garzón. And you deserve the same fate.

              • Who the heck are these “palestinians” to demand anything??!

                After all, in a now classic paper published in the reputable “International Journal of Amateurish International Legalese”, prof debutante used advanced logical techniques, such as “ad falso quodlibet”, to show that States are built by conquest anyway.

                Well, Palestinians tried to conquer Israel, at least 3 times and LOST. Ergo, they are in no position to demand jack shit from anybody.

                Q.E.D> Case closed. Once again, doc debutante is knocked-out and drowns in his own legal-coprology.

              • “Firstly, you’re disagreeing with the highest legal authorities on Earth.” debutante

                Like Baltasar Garzón? Like the “legal scholars” of the UN? The ICC? Or the theocrats of Iran? Your pick.

                ” Do you want to cite your legal credentials.”

                YOU cite yours, mr hypocrite. You are the one posing as legal authority, while you proved yourself a recurrent liar and ignorant twat.

                “Is there any reason we should take your word over the opinion of the International Court of Justice?” debitante

                The ICC can´t protect Israel from palestinian terrorists and islamic genocidaires. Why should Israel risk its survival for the opinion of a bunch of powerless pseudo-humanitarian internationalists? A country´s duty is first and foremost to protect its citizens, not to satisfy some self-righteous moralist pricks such as yourself.

                “The defensive war myth has been debunked enough times, but for our purposes, we’ll let it slide.” debutante

                The only myth around here is your credibility to pontificate about anything at all. Go drown in your own coprolegalese.

          • “Thanks for highlighting Adam’s dishonesty.” dr. debutante

            Thanks for highlighting your mendacious stupidity, dr. debutante, though we all knew that you´d spin anything to fit your ideological hatred.

  2. Adam- Good presentation. I’m sure you were trying to get across many points and ideas, but you should pace your talk a bit more slowly.

    • Thanks for the feedback, Terry. I agree. I was trying to cram a lot into a ten minute time slot and likely should have omitted some material.

  3. Thanks for posting that, Adam. Useful material to help wash away the perverted slurry spread by slime like ‘dubitante’ – no doubt about his inclinations!

    • Dr. debutante is a prominent citizen of Neverland. But, in fact, as this masters of pseudo-scholarship has shown, no person on the Earth has the right to citizenship, which is just a meaningless western mental construct with no basis in reality. Just ask the Syrian people.

  4. Meanwhile the Syrian regime, the Assad family dictatorship, the Alawite klan is busy using military weapons on its own population.

    7,000 dead.

    And the left, progressives, socialists, “anti-war” activists, czar putins russia, are busy defending the Assad regime.

    Where are the left, progressives, socialists, “anti-war” activists, “international law experts”, NGOs, Marxists, marching against Assad, demonstrating outside of Syrian consulates in Western countries???

    Hardly a peep until the politburo gives the proper decision???

    Arabs killing Arabs is not worthy of self-righteous indignation?

  5. Great work Adam. You sound great.
    Next time try to look @ the audience a bit more and don’t worry about the PPt. The PPt is not the show. You are. Its a tool.

  6. I have to connect speakers to watch and listen to Adam but meantime I hope people will benefit from this bit of what might have been.

    It’s tragedy to look at Syria and Lebanon now in that kind of light.

    Antisemitic trolls with delusions could never appreciate that.

Comments are closed.