Also from this report:
“Like many in Israel itself, they are sceptical that the “disengagement”,(from Gaza), will bring any benefits; rather, they fear that Palestinian extremists will take it as a sign that terrorism works.”

At least they were right on that part.

Well, it would appear that Hamas opposes the statehood bid too!

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-opposes-tactical-palestinian-statehood-bid-at-un-1.384466

It seems it`s the Palestinians who are advocating Apartheid. http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jpost.com%2FHeadlines%2FArticle.aspx%3Fid%3D237917&h=EAQDADaPgAQA8o8M_l5yQIE69oBDSukfAlLphdMAYdPSQFg

Yet another dismal failure to examine the issue, and a reversion to the reflexive need to get things exactly wrong.. Standing behind Kevin Quires on his soap box are the usual suspects, the Islamo-fascists who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel. And boy are they smirking at having such a willing fool to offer them cover. They know that Kevin Squires and his fellow travellers won’t be putting any questions to them about tyranny and despotism in their own back yards, or mounting flotillas to destinations in Syria or Iran. No intercessions for the Kurds on the horizon either, I’m guessing, and no curiosity about the fate of Armenians to boot. No, they can continue to procure the means for killing Israelis, and for that matter, anyone who opposes their despotic rule and goals. Yes, they can relax in the knowledge that Mr Quires and his crowd have fully accepted as axiomatic that greatest feat of mass-delusion that Arab and Islamic states have put over on their own populations – that Israel is the problem. Yes, vivid proof that Mr Squires is wholly under the spell of the ‘Blame Israel For Everything’ mantra. It’s the same victim mantra of self-pitying rage that Arab despots foster to displace and to lie about their own responsibilities for the misery of their peoples and the backwardness of their societies….
There are errors of fact in Mr Quires’ piece that are too silly, but too toxic, to let pass.
Israel did not exile ‘millions’ of Arabs living in the state that was declared Israel. He must be referring to the burgeoning descendants of those who were settled – corralled, or penned into, to be accurate – in the refugee camps that are so bitterly and proudly ‘the revenge of the cradle,’ all administered by the UN. It is not clear whether Mr Squires is advocating for the so-called right-of-retrun of those born in the refugee camps, but I am guessing that he does support this de facto demographic colonization of Israel and its rendering into another Arab, Islamic state.
There were murders and forced expulsions committed by Arabs and by Jew/Israelis both. I don’t know of any ‘clean war’ but I do know that in his piece Mr Squires has bought into blaming Israel only. The hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forcibly expelled, their property expropriated, from Arab countries don’t reckon in Mr Quires view. (There are documented numbers, Mr Quires, not another iteration of the bogus math that you use on current estimates of those who call themselves Palestinians today.) As a consequence of this, we have on display the classic double-standard: for the Arabs of Mr Squires imagination only infinite exculpation, sympathy and forbearance. For the Israel of Mr Squires’ imagination, only infinite blame, suspicion and hostility.
Well I know what this is when I see it – a perfect storm of Orientalist fantasy, with a powerful current of anti-Semitism (the Jewish division of the ancient Semitic people, I had better add.) I do not know if Mr Squires can afford the fall-out from an honest self-reflection here, but were he to do so, he might catch a glimpse of just how utterly condescending his views of Arabs actually are. It is a racism of low expectations – a witches’ brew of paternalism, fanaticism and a warped romance for a culture and a history he does not understand.
Few Arabs and no Islamists are interested in any border negotiations to pre-1967 lines. Simply put, they want no Israel. Their long and lavish traditions of double-speak always come to a crashing halt when they are asked to commit to this two-state status: they baulk, they evade, they defer, and confident in how their societies have been conditioned toward hatred for Jews, they incite ‘the Arab Street.’ Their only interest is in undermining and then destroying the state of Israel. I can’t see why it keeps on escaping people like Mr Squires that Palestine has been a state since 1948. The state of Palestine came into being the same day, in the same declaration, that Israel did. Neither the Arabs nor the Israelis were happy with how the borders were laid down in the declaration. Israel reluctantly accepted them, and immediately began to build and defend its state. The Arabs did not accept the borders given the state of Palestine. So, though they had and have a state, they renounced it or refused to accept that is a state at all, because they want neither the borders laid down for it, nor even any borders. There was to be no Israel in their view so they immediately tried to annihilate Israel. Since then, Arabs and Islamist extremists have done everything in their power, by whatever means they can, to destroy Israel. They have failed over and over again.
Where they have succeeded though is in exploiting the weaknesses of the west. Propagandists have been duping Westerners into supporting them, and to adopt a wilful blindness of their means of achieving their goals. They make use of the ills afflicting western societies generally, what some commentators call affluenza: moral equivalence, ignorance of history, of philosophic and religious traditions that underpin egalitarian societies, a romance with violent people and groups, the narcissism and sense of entitlement now endemic to successive spoiled generations, the debasing of thought and language by media and third rate academics protected by tenure – in short, all the sheer intellectual and moral flab of a bored and increasingly anxious civilization that is looking for heroics to relieve itself of its unconscious anxieties. In this they have resurrected a murderous hatred for Jews – yes, Jews plain and simple, not ‘Israel.’ It is a serious charge to level, but it is justified, because pieces like Mr Squires’ are efforts at respectable expression for this prejudice. Does it not occur to Mr Squires et al that we have had this in Europe before? Its roots in the psyche are well explained for some time now. However disguised, and however rationalized, is a hatred of modernity in general, an atavistic revulsion at how the world is changing, and how fast, an sense that one is losing one’s footing and place in the world. Thrumming along beneath opinions like Mr Squires is that old nativist reaction to those they see as interlopers. There is the fastidious and traditionalist distaste for the more adaptable, the more resourceful, the more coherent and cohesive a people. It’s envy, and it’s resentment, and it’s the sight of their own imagined loss of whatever priivilege and preferment they feel entitled to. It is evidence of primitive thinking, this ‘closed pie’ approach, that another’s success must necessarily mean one’s own diminishment. Is there any need to wonder why anti-Semitism has found a home amongst what is mistakenly thought to be ‘the Left’?
It is the most dismaying thing of modern times to see how easily, and how readily, educated westerners have been duped into providing cover for for the genocidal opponents of Israel’s existence and the de-facto anti-Semitism that it carries with it. It is staggering to see how rapidly this has happened, and how wholly unaware the likes of Kevin Squires are of their part in this. It is testament to the power of denial to see the white-hot indignation at being called out for their anti-Semitism. Just as dispiriting is to witness the likes of Mr Squires re-enact the same prejudices of the Arabists in the British Foreign office who devised the maps that led to this mess, and they too sublimate their own resentments into a festering grudge, and then build a pinata of Israel. And you’ll hear the results in a conversation in Ireland too, with someone who has apparently been educated too: ‘Yeah, well blowing kids to smithereens in a pizza shop is bad, but sure you have to understand the context going back in the history ..(etc)’ As if no categorically absolute prohibitions exist, or should be attemptedMore and more, I regret to say, this is evidence of an Irish preference for excusing anything, and for dodging personal and social obligations.
The continuous assault on Israel and Jews around the world has also succeeded in making it ever harder for moderate Israelis to influence the situation. Arab tactics, absolutism and intransigence have produced a reactionary response in Israel, reviving the old Likud and Kadima hard-line Zionism that works for an Israel from river (Jordan) to sea. The arrival and persistence of the likes of Avigdor Lieberman on the scene is proof how debased and polarized things have become because of it. It is thanks to this Arab and Islamicist extremism that right-wing extremist Zionists have a narrowly rational basis to much of what they say and want. They see that the intent of the Arabs and the Muslim world is to annihilate Israel, and they have proved this intent over and over again. In their view, nothing Israel can do is going to satisfy them, and the Arabs have duped the west into ever-burgeoning volumes of casuist claptrap. They make no apologies for being Jews willing to fight, and this is something that inflames the so-called Arab Street to volcanic fury. They are not willing to have their hands tied behind their backs by the likes of Mr Squires while rockets rain down on their homes. They know the rules for defending oneself are rigged: that their own cultural and religious edicts against killing are a poor match for suicidists who have the tacit support of cultural suicidists of the west. These Zionists have thus set about their ‘facts on the ground’ policy as a way to buttress and defend Israel from invasion. The road to this extremist policy is via the remains of suicide-bomber’s deeds in Tel Aviv, the fanatical rallies of the shahids in Tehran as well as the death camps of Europe. Just as there is no alternative to destroying Israel for Islamist and Arab fanatics – of course there is, but they depend on being perpetually infantilized by Mr Squires and excused of any and every deviation into violence and hatred – many Israelis have come to believe that there is no alternative to defending their lives except that offered by extremists like Lieberman.
In the middle of all this, Mr Squires is well and truly lost. It is beyond insulting for a western would-be bien pensant like him to wander in to this situation, and then to stridently decry Israelis for wanting not to be destroyed. Lost, as in ‘gormless’ or ‘naive,’ is fine as long as the subject is, well, where to get the best pint, or who can take on Wayne Rooney. Lost, as in Mr Squires’ inflammatory and bristling defence of his own supposed right to be catastrophically wrong, and then happily stumbling into the role of apologist for those out to destroy Israel, is certainly not.

From 1948-1967 Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was controlled by Jordan. They banned Jews from visiting their holiest site – the Western Wall (of the second Temple, upon which now sits the Al-Aqsa Mosque). There was, during and before that time no mention of an independent Palestine (just the destruction of Israel) with the exception of the British Mandate for Palestine which in 1917 provisioned that Palestine (including Transjordan) should become a national home for Jews – reaffirmed in 1922 by the league of nations (23 years before the end of WW2) but at that time Transjordan had been taken off the table (78% of the land) and turned into what became Jordan. Before that Palestine and Transjordan was occupied by several imperialist nations (Roman, Arab, Ottoman, British) but had not been an autonomous country since biblical times – e.g no autonomous government, capital or flag.
Today the Arab Palestinians want to create another state in the region in which they purge the land of Jews, as Jordan already demonstrated in 1947 and Gaza in 2005. In contrast, 20% of the Israeli population are Arab citizens, including MKs (TDs) and Olympic heroes. So to support a Palestinian state is to support ethnic cleansing of Jews from land inhabited by Jews for millennia.

” the unlawful and crippling Israeli siege of 1.5 million people in Gaza”

If you’re referring to the blockade on Gaza in response to the regular barrage of rockets at Israeli towns and villages, a UN report recently ruled that that was legal.

“The second intifada which Arafat deliberately started after the Israeli’s gave him more than they had ever agreed to in the past?” Two lies in one sentence – pretty good going.

Good piece. What needs to happen for the Palestinian people to achieve justice is for international law to be upheld. As the international community, specifically the US and the EU, refuses to ensure that apartheid Israel complies with international law, the BDS campaign is key to ending apartheid and ensuring the rights of the Palestinian people are secured.

Whilst Palestine’s statehood bid via the UN will, most likely, prove more symbolic than anything else, in terms of highlighting myriad state’s solidarity with Palestinian’s inherent right to self determination, and equally, unveiling the the UN’s current limitations, the PLO’s strategy is more than apt. Great article.

How do cyber Zio-trolls come out of the woodwork on cue in order to repeat the same old tired lies that nobody believes anymore?

So you regard the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra as a representative of fascism! ( Should I take it that the use of that particular word was intended to compare Israel with Nazi Germany?) And as for the ordinary people who no doubt paid good money to hear that orchestra and whose enjoyment of music was disrupted, you seem to say that’s their tough luck. Meanwhile direct questions to representatives of the IPSC on this forum are some sort of ” inquisition”. The hyperbole is unending!

Political Zionists based the claim to what is now Israel on the scriptures.. However they missed a hugely important point.

ONLY the messiah may lead the Jews out of exile. They were placed there by their god, Yahweh, and say a prayer at holidays asking the him to send this messiah to lead them home.
Thing is.. The messiah hasn’t shown up yet.. Also it clearly states that NO blood may be shed in the reformation of Israel (guess they can wave bye bye to that one).. For this reason the state of Israel goes against their god. If they are to bring the bible and their religion into it, perhaps they shouldn’t cherry pick..

As far as a claim on the land due to bloodlines, the majority of the worlds Jews today (according to their own figures -95%) are Ashkenazi Jews, meaning they descended from the Eastern Khazars, and therefore have no blood ties to Palestine at all.

For all of these reasons the state of Israel is a heresy. But don’t take my word for it, ask the Rabbis over at http://www.jewsnotzionists.org

And since their declaration as a state, how many acts of aggression against their neighbours have they been censured for by the UN?
These are not the actions of true Jewish people, as their faith places a large emphasis on morals and compassion. These are the actions of psychopaths using the Jewish faith as a shield against criticism for their actions, because what better shield is there than being able to call anyone in opposition an anti semite?

(and BTW, all those who wish to start Muslim bashing, semetic refers to a group of languages, including Hebrew and ARABIC, in your disdain for Islam and Arabs, it is actually YOU who is being anti semetic)

Excellent article. The fact is that nothing will change. Israel behaves the way it does to the Palestinians for the simple reason that without America’s support it would be a failed state. It has to maintain the illusion that it is under constant threat. It pushed America and its British lapdog into war with Iraq and would love to do the same for Iran.

In reply to Charles Mark, although it has nothing to do with Kevin’s article and he appears to be setting himself up as some kind of inquisitor:
I greatly dislike such actions as that of a number of British groups, including anti-Zionist Jewish groups, that disrupted a concert by Israel’s leading cultural ambassador, the IPO. I also approve of them, because when it comes to opposing fascism through opposing its representatives I believe that all diplomatic etiquette is redundant.

I’d really suggest that people come along to the discussion in the Teachers’ Club on Thursday at 7.30PM. Kevin’s article sums up the alternative perspectives very clearly, and I expect John Reynolds to do the same in still greater detail.

The second intifada which Arafat deliberately started after the Israeli’s gave him more than they had ever agreed to in the past? It is not the actions of Israel that are galling to me but the breathtaking hypocriscy of those Arab states surrounding Israel that have used the Palestinians as puppets in their battle with Israel.

Since writing the above, I see that the UN has now come back on the Palmer/Uribe report that Impartial Eclipse believes in so implicitly. Here’s a link for anyone who has a sincere interest in this issue and isn’t merely a mouthpiece for Israeli propaganda: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913

Interesting the way Israel-firsters like to caricature themselves as victims of some kind of discursive oppression. Nowhere did I suggest that I “object to people asking me questions” (like “the fascists of Hammas” – [sic] Paddy O Farrell can’t even spell the name of the organisation). I remarked on the inquisitorial tone, by which I meant the peremptory posing of questions unlinked to what the person being questioned has just written. I nonetheless answered the question that had been posed – so clearly I don’t “object” to being asked a question.

The assertion that my reference to the IPO as being “representatives of fascism” was intended to make a comparison with Nazism is just another example of straw man argumentation, intended to evoke the usual implications of anti-Semitism. Fascism was/is a political tendency of which Nazism was far and away the most extreme example – although in many ways it exceeded the traditional definitions of fascism – the classic text here is Robert O. Paxton’s “The Anatomy of Fascism” in which the author (who is clearly not opposed to the Zionist project) maintained that under Sharon and Likud Israel was veering “close to a functional equivalent to fascism”. I believe that with the current Netanyahu/Lieberman regime it has crossed the line, and this is emphasised by the arming of gangs of illegal settlers in order to intimidate and brutalise Palestinians within the Occupied Territories. This has nothing to do with equating Israel to Nazism.

As for Apartheid, it’s a common mistake that the Apartheid nature of the Israeli state is to be ascertained by “comparing it to South Africa” – unfortunately, Apartheid South Africa comes out of such a comparison rather well, since it was never as bloodthirsty or oppressive as Apartheid Israel. The point is that both Apartheid South Africa and Israel conform to the definitions of the crime of Apartheid found in the UN Convention on the Suppression of the Crime of Apartheid (1973), so the question of detailed comparison, while interesting, isn’t relevant. Those most insistent that Israeli Apartheid is comparable to but worse than South African Apartheid, by the way, are South Africans (some of them Jewish) who participated in the struggle against Apartheid in their country – Mandela, Tutu, Kasrils…

As for the “UN report [that] recently ruled that [Israel's blockade on Gaza] was legal”, it was preceded by a UNHRC report that found it was illegal. The more recent report has been damned by, among others, Richard Falk. One of its authors was Alvaro Uribe, the former Colombian president, who was himself responsible for gross crimes against humanity when in power, and who was an intransigent ally of Israel. The Palmer-Uribe report isn’t worth the paper it was written on. And by the way, there is no such thing as “the regular barrage of rockets at Israeli towns and villages”, whereas the murder, imprisonment without trial but with torture, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by the Israeli army takes place on a daily basis.

The gnats are out.
Have a look at this extraordinary document, the final interview by the late Tony Judt – one of the greatest Jewish intellectuals of the last 60 years or so – as he faced imminent death. Note his opinion that Israel is “close to a neo-fascist state.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/tony-judts-final-word-on-israel/245051/2/?single_page=true

http://www.economist.com/node/4269709
Special Report done by the Economics on the situation in 2005.
One quote from it reads ‘Keeping the occupied land will force on Israel the impossible choice of being either an apartheid state, or a binational one with Jews as a minority.’
It’s absolutely not in Israel’s interest to hold on to the occupied land, if they want to keep control of their own Jewish State.