"Why is he encouraging such self-deception at the price of bloodshed and Palestinian blood, particulalrly?"

Ummm.. I don't know, because he thinks its true? You willfully distorted what he said, leaving the key statement he made about Israelis and Palestinians living together in peace. He has lived as a man of peace is whole life, but I get he dosen't think Palestinians are subhuman so that makes him violent.

Anyways, we get it already, you really hate Arabs-all of them. It's all you seem to write about. The only other blog entry I can remember that dosen't have to do with Arabs being the root of all evil was about Al Gore.  Why don't you take a break from blogging, move to a cabin and write your materpiece, "The Eternal Arab" and let a new voice in here for a change. Even the "Dearborn Independent" cut  it out after only a decade.

Ummmm....alexmh....how about learning some  accurate history and at least trying to pay attention to real current events, as opposed to the lies and inaccuracies the likes of Tutu, Carter, et. al. spew all over the place...Who is this clown to tell Israel to "remember" what happened in Egypt and Germany??? Is he hoping for a repeat performance???? Sure sounds like it.

Have you read what he said? Who are you to call Tutu a clown anyway?

alexmh...you can always choose not to come here...

...and after all, it is the man's money and time...

...and if he chooses to run a site to which no one comes since people understandably don't like to be infantilized or insulted, having many interesting options on the internet after "TNR's redesign great disaster", it's his options, along with his opinions...

and on Tutu's interests, I must say I find them odd too...even if he were right on his one-sided view (which I don't think he is), there are many things he can refer too, perhaps with more effect...from neighboring Zimbabwe, to also neighboring's Angola's gigantic corruption, from Sudan's genocide to connected China's overwhelming influence in Africa, from...from..., from... from..., all of these things happening right now in his Continent under his pious eyes...

Tutu is a despicable Jew hater.

I read his hypocritical and smarmy op ed piece in the Boston Globe which called unctuously for peace with the Palestinians.

Peace to Tutu, of course, means the abolition of the Jewish State.

Desmond Tutu is a good man but his comment was ill-advised.

Marty, where do start?

"...Israel's actions are a response to the refusal of most Palestinians to talk peace..." Can you point out where the Palestinians have refused to enter peace talks recently.

"The Arabs started every war in the modern Holy Land" Not entirely accurate.

12 years ago Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,". In other words it had at least a small role in STARTING these wars.

Begin's speech to the Israeli National Defense College,  on Aug. 8, 1982. He was referring to 1982, 1956 and 1967.

Also, Marty could you comment on the settlements in the West Bank, as they are now. I've provided a map for you (not that you need it). www.btselem.org/.../Settlements_Map_Eng.pdf

Can you help me find the West Bank amongst that sea of Blue. It's there if you look really, really hard. Tip: try zooming out 50%.

Here's another link that shows the shift in terroritory from 46 to 99.

www.ccmep.org/.../palestine.html

I'm sure you'd argue that was Israeli land regardless, but what I'd really like to know is how you expect a sustainable Palestinian state to survive on those specks of brown?

Or do you advocate Jordan getting it's slice?

It would be nice to hear some solutions or suggestions from the Spine, for a change.

alexmh --- "clown" was the nice word; I could have used more accurate descriptions. I saw a brief report on the Boston speech. More important, I regularly follow Israel/Middle East news and those who comment on it...Tutu is a blatant antisemite, and that word is an accurate description of the various clowns (that nice word again) who, as luispc noted above, choose to hit on only Israel  while ignoring the REAL human rights abuses committed by the likes of various African, Asian, Arab, etc., dictators.....to say nothing of the mindless violence now all but routine in Tutututututu's very own South Africa.   Israel is  in a constant state of danger from the surrounding Arab states which have repeatedly stated their intention to wipe it out, and doesn't come anywhere  near to matching the human rights abuses committed by pretty much every 3rd-world dictatorship. Do some reading, as I suggested above. Learn some accurate information. Grow up.

Ignorant Populist: Same comment -- try researching using accurate sources...(Love your nom de TNR, though)....

SHHH. No expert on History of Israel, but saying that Israel had an "choice" in 1967...is a bit forced...or perhaps we're talking to a Sartrian (I always had guessed that...), according to which we always have an "choice" to live...or commit suicide...

Well, some only excell at friends" lists. Perhaps they should stick to that.

Louis, dear friend. I simply don't know how to put you on the friends list. I think you have to "friend or veiw" me first, or something to that effect. Can someone show me how to add a friend to the friend list?

You're my only Portugese friend, even if you only resemble a few bits and bytes.

If I could add you I would.  

Since I am such a democratic, I'll invite you to my carriage.

But please don't invite me to your so-called "carriage", since there are limits to what someone can endure. An Irish cow car, for instance.

It's a piety I'm so democratic really. Or otherwise I would just think, before simpletons, quoting M. de Mirabeu, "why should one worry, if one runs on a carriage, and this poor folks walk"

"Friends are thieves of time".

Francis Bacon.

Some are, some aren't. Anyway, I was expecting something more spirited and not so ranty. You are loosing qualities, dear John.

Anyway, do you really think Israel had an "option" in 1967?

I defer to The Right Honourable Menachem Begin on that one Louis.

Didn't they tell you, dear John,  that authority by itself is not an argument? Or that there are argumentative devises that aren't really acceptable when one is engaging in honorable conversation with respected persons?

Such as finding flaws in the opponent's point of view, reminding unhappy quotes?

Or are you addressing people you don't respect?

Even from my limited understanding of the facts, Israel was under serious existencial threat in 1967. Is this denied by "The Right Honourable Menachem Begin"? Aren't these words being taken out of context? For instance, having meant that a specific strategy could have been avoided and other could have been chosen?

Anyway, dear John, do you really expect to convince people, against the facts they know, by quoting "The Right Honourable Menachem Begin"?

Do you have anything to add on those facts?

Just saying it's not straightforward Louis, that's all.

Trying to add a bit of colour to the Spine Black and White.

"It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows."

Epictetus, reflecting on his short time posting on the Spine in "The Discourses".

I'm dying to see where Begin said the 67 war was not imposed on us, or that we had a choice there. In fact, since he himself started the 82 Lebanon war I'd like to see where he said that too.

On the other hand I'm getting really tired of the comparison of Israel to SA's apartheid. There's not one streak of similarity between the two situations, implementations, peoples, and goals. Nothing to do with each other. As is just too common with any comparison brought forth as argument.

Populist, the first map shows many small insignificant outposts (not real settlements) that would be evacuated in the imaginary occasion of peace. The big blue patches will not be returned, alas. Time doesn't necessarily always work in the Palestinians' favor. Or maybe it never has as yet.

The second batch of maps are also important for you. I'm tired of reminding everyone that the Partition plan was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs, and that as a result of having rejected it the Arabs (as they tend to do after each rejection of a solution) they opened an incredibly massive offensive with 7 different armies against the Jewish state-to-be. So, Ignorant, as we've seen at way too many wars: in war you can be victorious or defeated. Even in a war you yourself initiate. So, the 3rd map in this collection (48-67) shows the unfortunate consequences of the 48 war waged against  us. (unfortunate for the Palestinians). Whereas the 4th map shows another unhappy result of a war  initiated against us...

What to do, ignoramus, you can start as many wars as you want to, but you can't control their outcome. That's the best lesson to learn from these maps.

Certainly not any evil on Israel's part.

and as to solutions: all they have to do now in the west bank is crack down on Hamas and other militant terrorist factions, and annihilate them. As Hussein had done in Jordan. It's doable. Then an arrangement will start moving.

But they won't do that. They never have and never will.

Instead they will insist on the right of return and Jerusalem, which no one can now or ever, let them have.

"12 years ago Prime Minister Menachem Begin admitted in public that Israel had fought three wars in which it had a "choice,". In other words it had at least a small role in STARTING these wars. "

blogs.tnr.com/.../Profile.aspx

Ignorant populist has been reading antisemitic websites again.

Pretending that some Jewish leader made a comment which puts Jews, Zionists, Israelis in the wrong is a favorite time honored rhetorical tactic of antisemites.

This practice antedates the Holocaust.

Ignorant Populist –

I see you are the latest victim of a slanderous tirade by The Spine’s resident lying troll. You might be interested in the text of an address given by then Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the National Defense College on August 8, 1982. You can find extracts of the speech at tinyurl.com/2qtfna.  If you follow the link you will notice the text of the speech is hosted by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In his address, Prime Minister Menachem Begin said

“And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.”

“As for Operation Peace for Galilee, it does not really belong to the category of wars of no alternative.”

Your statement about wars of choice is therfoer demonstrably correct and jacksondyer has once again been exposed as a lying troll. His insinuation that you are an anti-Semite and his subsequent association of you with the holocaust typifies his slanderous mendacity.

When one brings some "colour", one should actually bring some "colour", and not more black.

And on that reflection by Epictetus (I suppose you bought a quotations book and know nothing about the context of the quotations...), there's a good point for you to reflect upon. It would sure make determine improvements.

This, from a friend, dear John, that really do thinks, like Epictetus, that every man is perfectable.

Alex, you're an imbecile - of the self-righteous kind, who of course has something against Jews. Say no evil against those lovely Arabs, eh? Perhaps it was Swedes who murdered 3,000 New-Yorkers in a day, Swedes who voted Hamas, eh? Maybe also Swedes who name their streets after fucking suicide bombers.

Begin even said that though WW2 was a no-choice war, it could have been avoided. Which is strange, because it contradicts the rest of his line of argumentation.

But what he says in a very clear voice is that if the 67 war "with alternative" had not taken place, the

price could have been out very existence. He provides an explanation of the distinction between these 2 kinds of war: a war of choice according to him is when a state decides to ignore acts of aggression against it, and waits for the enemy to take an invasive action.

And this is not anything any country the size of a spec can afford to do.  

About the 67 war he says:

"We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a CAUSUS into a BELLUM."

In other words: we could have given up our southern outlet, and succumbed to this new state of affairs, in which Israel cannot use the red sea...

He defines a "war with no alternative" very clearly as a war in which an army of one country INVADES another country's territory, which is common to the 3 wars he denotes as wars with no alternative:

And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.

It's ridiculous to interpret his speech in such a simplistic infantile fashion.

But what else can you expect of the anti-Israel community?

Y'yasher Kocheich... well done.

Increasingly you are sounding like the proverbial liberal who's been mugged.

hershel g.

P.S.   Do you want me to see if I can arrange to get you fitted with set of horns and a pointed tail?

Man! You should know by now that I'm no leftie.

It doesn't mean I have ANY sympathy or tolerance for visions generated by religious dementia.

There's no Mashiah and he won't come, and let's replan the whole scheme based on this assumption.

None of your Eretz Israel Hashlema.

The green line plus the cursed big chunks is good enough for me. I wish we could get rid of those too, and in fact of every single house ever built outside the green line.

Not coz I'm a liberal. Just coz I don't want Arabs in my country, and I do want them to have at least an emblem of a state of their own.

Hold it with those horns and tail for the time being.

babigail - thanks for the well-thought out contribution. You make some salient points and you're probably right about the quote. I'm sure Begin didn't intend to refute the Israel as victim narrative but it is frustrating to see how it's very black and white in Spineland: the Palestinians are the cause of the occupation, the Palestinians are the cause of all the wars, the Palestinians are the cause of the settlements which we would give back in a magnanimous gesture if only the Palestinians weren't there in the first place and on and on.

Mac, new site, new rule. Ignore Jack.

Louis - leave my book of quotes out of it. It's my only hope to look like anintillectual. And you're absolutely right, I have no idea about the context. The only context I know is how Tevez fits into the new striking partnership with Pele. On that I am an expert. Good day to you Sir!

LISAH wrote-

"Israel is  in a constant state of danger from the surrounding Arab states which have repeatedly stated their intention to wipe it out, and doesn't come anywhere  near to matching the human rights abuses committed by pretty much every 3rd-world dictatorship. Do some reading, as I suggested above. Learn some accurate information. Grow up. "

Hey thanks for the compliment, I've always been told I look young. I have done some reading. I've even actually spoke to real Palestinians before; folks who had their homes bulldozed by IDF tanks, who had their offices bombed by jets, had their neighbors gunned down. Here is some reading for you about human rights abuses

web.amnesty.org/.../ENGMDE150662007

web.amnesty.org/.../ENGMDE150602007

web.amnesty.org/.../ENGMDE150572007

web.amnesty.org/.../ENGMDE020012007

And you're right, I don't have to read this so I'm out of here, but the kind of demonization of Arabs that goes on here is dangerous. If you replaced Arab/Muslim in any Peretz post with any other ethnic/racial group it would be considered by most right thinking people to be bigoted, racist garbarge. Could you imagine the New Republic in the 60's running articles seconding US Army claimsthat the Vietnamese had less regard for human life. That's what Peretz does on a regular basis and its disgusting.

The TNR has gotten a lot better since it ended it flirtation with neoconservatism, its too bad its publisher remains such a racist pig.

populist,

"I'm sure Begin didn't intend to refute the Israel as victim narrative..."

What victim narrative?  What are you talking about? Thank God we're done with that narrative. Now we kill instead of choking on Cyclone B, this is the new narrative. That's the one that will remain. Trumps any other narrative.

---------------------------------------------------------------

"the Palestinians are the cause of the occupation"

THEY ARE

"the Palestinians are the cause of all the wars"

THEY ARE

"the Palestinians are the cause of the settlements..."

NO they ARE NOT. The crazy settlers cause this by intimidating all our govenments in some magical way.

"I've even actually spoke to real Palestinians before; folks who had their homes bulldozed by IDF tanks, who had their offices bombed by jets, had their neighbors gunned down. "

How many REAL Israeli orphans and widows have you spoken to?

How many mutilated kids?

How many devastated families?

How many friends of vanished whole families?

amnesty my ass.

"leave my book of quotes out of it"

I'm affraid it is impossible since the only things you are offering are quotes and cliches about "spineland".

Are you loosing qualities or I overrated you in the first place?

I did try, but it is much of an effort to show the meaning of colours to a daltonic.

Perhaps the best is for you to add my name to that ignoring rule of yours.

And a very good day to you as well.

Babigail - one out of three ain't bad. That's unanimity in these parts.

Israel as the victim narrative, excluding the holocaust. Israel fighting off massive Arab armies when in fact it's the strongest military power in the region, has been for some time and can act with impunity.

I think you overrated me Luois. That makes you and my mother. A daltonic?

I had to look that one up Louis. They never covered those kind of words in Woodwork.

An inherited defect in perception of red and green; red-green colorblindness.

Colour blind! I like it Louis, very drool.

You've made my day, dear John.

At least I could teach you the meaning of a new word. Everything else seems not to be apprehended.

Well, one says with abandonment, one cannot expect too much at start from ordinary creatures.

This is one of the lessons to be learned from the Stoics...oops,...better to remind "the quoter" that Epictetus is a Stoic...or perhaps one should not be too demanding...

Don't make me get out my book of quotes Louis. I'll do, god damn it, I'll do it!

Have to attend to angry customers. They'll never take me alive.

Do get that book of yours, dear John!

We were having so much fun.

And I haven't entirely given up on you (perhaps I'm too much like your mother...).

I do believe that "gratia naturam non destruit sed perficiat"

I am not surprised that the bigoted Jew hating Mackenzie would cynically quote the cynical Begin:

“And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.”

Begin was of course trying to justify his Lebanon campaign and a close reading of his address shows that he did not make his case that the 67 war was a “war of choice.”

A war of no choice to Begin is one in which a country is actually attacked while a war of choice is one where a country goes on the offensive before it is attacked. This to say the least is simplistic. A country may have treaty commitments to fulfill but is actually not attacked and hence decided to go to war in order to support its ally. (This happened in 1939 when England anf France decided to go to war against Germany in order to support Poland. Neither of these countries had at that point been attacked.)

A country may also be about to be attacked and decide to go on the offensive before it happens. This happened in 1967.

This is what Begin said about it:

“In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.

This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.”

Only a die hard Begin supporter or a fool or as in mackenzie’s case an antisemite would take Begin’s argument about wars of choice and wars of necessity seriously.

jeez, you really are ignorant.

Israel fought off massive Arab armies in 48 when in fact it was the weakest by far country in the region and had practically no military power at all.

How have you managed to get your brains so thoroughly washed?

alexmh the people doing the demonization here are people like you and Mackenzie. Your reasons may be different but it amounts to the same thing. To you the Israelis are evil and the Palestinian Arabs are saints.

This is also Tutu’s of the Arab Israelis conflict. To your clownish hero the Palestinians are innocent not because they are actually innocent but because the Jews are always guilty.

Ignoble populist said he wasn't going to post here anymore.  

He lied. It's in his nature to lie which is why he set himself up as a defender to the Palestinian Arabs.

This bunch of ignorant anti-Israel anti-Semites are beginning to get on my nerves.

It takes a special skill to read into the Israeli-Arab all this crap secreted by amnesty and the other NGOs around, and be convinced by it.

Have you all forgotten that these rotten organizations woke up to ring the bell and make a fuss over the Hutu who, after having eradicated three quarters of the Tutsis to the sounds of silence from the NGOs, crossed the borders and THEN a loud outcry for these poor murderers reverberated at long last across the enlightened West?

So far Israel has withdrawn from all territories when she was offered REAL peace, so that point has been proven already. It doesn't have to be re-proven.  She has also, regrettably, withdrawn from 2 areas without being offered peace, and to no one's surprise has been attacked from both ever since.

What does it take for you pumpkin heads to realize this?

What, short of annihilation of this state, does it take for you idiots to realize that Israel is the innocent party to this conflict?

What?

BABIGAIL, I'm pro-Israel, you know that, but how is taking private property out of Palestinian hands--which the Israeli government has documented, in leaked papers--such an innocent act?  How can this be seen as a defense against terrorism.  And in this case it's not just about building the security wall or creating checkpoints.  It's outright taking their land.  

I do agree that what we've taken directly outside the green line is a necessary buffer, but this isn't what the leaked papers were addressing.  Please don't bite back.  I'm really curious here.  

I don't live in Israel (though I have family that do) and I wasn't on the kibbutz on which a mother and two children were shot in cold blood.  But, isn't it possible that some acts, made in the name of self-defense, are indefensible?

People often say, well, how would America react if Mexico started coming through the border and committing acts of terrorism.  Hopefully, we'd fight back, without using a so-called "proportionate" (pu-lease) response.  Would this entitle us to take land/even confiscate land well beyond what would be deemed a "buffer" zone?  

Again, I'm not asking these questions to be polemical.  I'm just asking, is all.

JACKSON:  I've missed you around these parts.  Hope you're back.  

Alex...re your silly citations: when I suggested you do some reading, I didn't mean you should just continue to go to sources that routinely hit on Israel. Go back to school.

And just in case you're still around, read the postings from  jacksondyer and babigail. They know what they're talking about. You don't.

Also -- no one around here is "demonizing" Arabs and Muslims. They're just providing accurate information. Try and learn the difference between accuracy and propaganda.

Ignorant Populist: Yes, Israel has what may be the most pwerful army in the region. If it didn't, it would have been wiped out. What don't you get about that? And it can't act "with impunity" because the great wide world essentially won't let it -- if anyone's playing the victim game here, it's the so-called "palestinians" and the Arab dictators using them. They're the ones the likes of much of Europe and the "Israel lobby" nutjobs see as victims. What don't you get about THAT?????

Oy, I've forgotten to check here Molly.

Any land that Israel or Israeli take in the territories conquered in 67 is wrong. I can't say it's a crime, coz I believe it will be returned just as the Gaza lands had been, and the Sinai lands for all the settlements in both areas.

If the rabid settlers will not move out, then a substitute land will be given the Palestinians.

It was probably the stupidest mistake even done by Israel. worse than the 73 near-failure.

It cannot be justified in any way.

It MUST be undone when the time comes.

But I have reason to believe the time will never come. You'll have to refer to the Palestinians about this. They happen to be a notch stupider than we.

Marty's post on Desmond Tutu's speech in Boston last week, in which the former Archbishop of

ndmackenzie  referred us to the address given by then Prime Minister Menachem Begin to the National Defense College on August 8, 1982  ( tinyurl.com/2qtfna ) .  Please read the full speech yourselves.  Mackenzie's extract out of context is the lie.  His comment is informed by his tunnel vision.  Israel had good cause to choose to hit first at fully mobilized Arab armies parked on its border.  Begin makes this point very well, and Mackenzie chose to distort it.

The U. S. had a choice too, in the 1940s.  We could have ceded Europe to the Nazis and Asia to Hirohito.  I am glad we chose to defeat the axis nations.  I am glad Israel chose to make the first strike in June 1967.    Not doing this in 1973 almost cost Israel its existence.  Mr. Mackenzie, take a very long walk off a a very short pier.