Sir,

The key to the 100 year old Israel/ Arab war is the existence of Israel, period. It is the Arab that refuses to recognize our right of self determination. The Arab had everything in 1967 that he now demands and started a war nevertheless. Even now, he wants to get back land without signing a peace treaty. He wants to win without having to compromise. Not Likely.

The "Israel Lobby" bogeyman you raise is your being offended that the Jew has the impudence to stand up for himself and petition government. On the other hand, the Moslem actively plots to kill you and your kin yet you bow and scrape before him . Why? because you bully the civil and cower before the violent. It's simply known as cowardice.

Emanual
is not Zionism the view that Jewishness is a manifestation of nationalistic aspiration?

Although European nationalism intrinsically associated the patriotic subject with the land he dwelled on, Jewish nationalism was based on a mere fantasy. It associated the Jew with the land he was supposed to dwell on. Did not Zionism once hold that Israel was founded on a myth of "land with no people, for a people with no land"?

Unfortunately, there were people already present in British Palestine but the Zionists have always pretended either that they were not there, or did not belong there.

According to Amos Elon's review of Queen Noor's autobiography in The New York Review of Books (May 29, p. 7), the Queen once suggested to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife that it would be good if Israeli textbooks stopped spreading the "propaganda" that Palestine in the 1940s was "a land with no people for a people with no land."

"What do you mean?" Mrs. Netanhayu replied. "When the Jews came to this area, there were no Arabs here. They came to find work when we built cities. There was nothing here before that."

I find this retroactive erasure of a population truly chilling.

Since historic Palestine was inhabited prior to Israel being created in the 20th century so the Jews came to Palestine and took the country from the Palestinians. The means used was settlements. Why should the Palestinians accept that?

"is not Zionism the view that Jewishness is a manifestation of nationalistic aspiration?"

Sir,
You have no idea of what nationalism is or means.
A "nation" is a group of people with a common past, present, and future.

Israel was and is a nation although without a bit of real estate until modern times because we were overwhelmed by Rome. Otherwise, we 'd still be there.

"Zionism" is another term for national liberation in and on our own soil, Sinn Fein, we ourselves. We do not want to live next to you and be accused of having too much influence.

The Arab is an imperialist who, not content to be on his own land, killed and mutilated hundreds of other nations to impose a religious imperialism of his own. He killed nationalism wherever he went except for his own.

The Arab rules from Bagdad to Morocco. Let his cousins in the Land of Israel choose which ones to live in. We are not going to furnish one or two Moslem States as the seed of our own destruction.

Emanual
You write:

A "nation" is a group of people with a common past, present, and future...Israel was and is a nation although without a bit of real estate.. "Zionism" is another term for national liberation in and on our own soil

That is an account of what nationalism means in political philosophy. So why do you say that I 'have no idea of what nationalism is or means.'

That Zionism is a form of nationalism is not just my claim--it can be found in documents written by Jews:

The Zionist movement which was formed at the latter part of the last century, sought to endow the Jews with a nationalistic character which was heretofore strange to them. It sought to deprive them of their historically religious character and offered in substitution of faith in G-d and adherence to the Torah, and belief in their ultimate redemption by the coming of the Messiah, a nationalistic ideology and the possibility of establishing through political media, a Jewish national homeland.

More Jewish interpretations of Zionism can be found here.

Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine had an Arab population even though some spoke naively of "a land without a people for a people without a land"), but only a few regarded the Arab presence as a real obstacle to the fulfillment of Zionism--the establishment of a Jewish homeland.

If you want to comment on posts at philosophy.com you need to be more civil in your remark,s otherwise you will be treated as junk. You will be treated as junk if you attack the person and not engage with the arguments.

Sir,
I need no lessons on civility from you since what you portray as our national birthright is an obscenity.

Zionism is the term for Jewish nationalism as good as any other nationalism. We are entitlaed to it as any other nation. For you to say that it's "unnatural " for us is to say that honor and self defense is unnatural also. It's pure philosophical garbage.

Emanual,

where did I argue that Zionism, as the term for Jewish nationalism, is "unnatural " in this post?

You create fictional positions then attack them --its pure philosophical garbage.

"Most of the founders of Zionism knew that Palestine had an Arab population even though some spoke naively of "a land without a people for a people without a land")"

Yes, so what? All of the British imperialists were aware of the native populations in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc. Did that stop them?

The settlement of the question of land of Israel was established in 1948 through war. Two States were established. The Arabs refused to accept partition. Good. They will be beaten until they do as has happened in every other conflict over territory in the history of Man.

Emanual,
aah so you are a maximalist, one who believes that the national struggle between the two peoples would have to be resolved by force.

You reject the presumption of Arab national rights in the occupied territories and Israel, You see no need to negotiate with local Arabs as your aim is to acquire the entire country (Greater Israel) by armed force. The method you choose to expand the boundaries of Israel is the settlements.

This places you on the Likud right of Israeli politics and your political philosophy is might makes right.

Sir,

Learn to read. I said that the war of 1948 established two States in the Land of Israel. I'm willing to accept the fact provided the other side is peaceful. A maximalist would want it all.

If the other side is warlike, then all arrangements are off and the land is a prize of war.

Gary, not only does an organised Israeli Lobby group exist in Australia in the form of the AIJAC as you suggest, but there is also a fairly vocal collection of various right-wing pro-Zionist individuals in the blogosphere in Australia who spend a great deal of time on various blogs, including and mainly Webdiary and the Harry Heidelberg blog, arguing the right-wing pro-Zionist cause.

Currently they are trying to justify the latest Israeli incursion into the Gaza. This they do by highlighting the actions that Palestinian fighters have taken against Israel and painting those Palestinians as 'terrorist criminals' for daring to capture an Israeli soldier and sending over Kassam rockets into Israel. They ignore entirely that this was done in response to constant artillery shelling, naval bombardments (which killed many innocent civilians), aircraft and helicopter missile attacks in attempted extra-judicial executions of Palestinian activists, the killings of innocent Palestinian civilians generally, many of them children, and the destruction of homes and workplaces.
These Australian Israeli apologists spend countless hours writing hundreds of posts in response to those that dare criticise Israeli action.

The mainstream press in Australia, particularly the Murdoch press, also are a part of the Israeli Lobby in Australia feeding the Australian public with pro-Zionist extremist propaganda originating mainly from the American neoconservative think-tanks and writers.

All of these organisations and individuals perpetuate the same stories consisting mainly of lies and deceit that support the right-wing Zionist position.The Israeli Lobby is not confined to the US. Taking full advantage of right-wing pro-Zionist activists within the Jewish Diaspora around the world, the Israeli Lobby is a vast network of international propagandists that seem to have influence throughout much of the Western world -- including Australia.

Hi Damian,
thanks for the pro Israeli link over at Harry Heidleberg's weblog.

I never knew about Harry Heidleberg blog Club Chaos. I do recall reading his chapter in Margo Kingston's 'Not Happy John' book and I remember reading his entries on the old Webdiary ie., the one at the Sydney Morning Herald.

I found the comments by Noelene Konstandinitis on Club Chaos to be quite extraordinary:

"Of course it is EXCELLENT news that Israel is FINALLY sticking up for itself!

What neither the Pals, nor the western bourgeois left, seems to be able to get their think heads around is that Israel could have destroyed Egypt, Syria, AND Jordan AND kicked the Pals out in 1948, 56, 67, 73, etc. The only thing stopping them every single time was the US!

All this would have been over DECADES over, if the U.S. had just let nature take its course.

The wretched camel-jockeys have NO right to be in the Holy Land and the sooner they catch the next magic carpet or camel sleigh to Jordan, Syria, or Egypt the better! The Israelis MUST seize this opportunity to totally turn around the whole tedious farce of the middle east. It is time to bitchslap the fetid Muhammadans into next week. Vaporize the pigs!

A world without Muslims would be a lovely world indeed!"

That really is bigoted Zionist hate speech and yet few of the commentators condemned it---to his credit Will Howard did, even though he is an apologist for the Israeli actions when he says:

The Palestinians are lucky Israel has been as restrained as it's been so far. Hitting the power station and bridges were non-lethal gestures. If they'd wanted to kill people they could and would have.

Well the Israeli's have; many of them are civlians.

In many ways I find Will Howard's outright lies and subtle deceptions far more dangerous and repugnant than Konstandinitis' disgusting and overt remarks. At least with Konstandinitis, now that she has revealed herself as nothing more than an extremist hate-monger, one can simply ignore any of her other ravings.

But with Will Howard, the approach is far more subtle. He likes to come across at Webdiary as caring about the plight of the Palestinians and presents himself as being 'neutral' about the whole Middle East debate. At Heidelberg's, however, where his fellow commentators are almost exclusively of his own ilk, Will Howard is less cautious though still takes care not to reveal himself as an extremist. (Hence his denouncing of Konstandinitis' remarks.) He usually then follows up his seemingly more liberal approach with carefully selected right-wing pro-Zionist articles which he palms off as being qualified academic pieces, but are in reality merely right-wing think-tank propaganda pieces written invariably by pro-Zionist American neoconservatives or their supporters in either the US or Middle East media.
He uses interesting, but, nonetheless, still transparent, tactics in his propaganda form.
All this, of course, is standard Israeli Lobby tactics.

Damian,
re-reading the comments on the Club Chaos Israeli moves into Gaza post again I notice that a lot of the people making the comments hang out at Tim Blair's blog. Did they hang at both Tim Blair's blog and the old Webdiary?

Yes you are right. The group around the Club Chaos blog have a Likud perspective and are part of an Israeli Lobby, though they have a strrange idea of how the Lobby works. It's understood to be a grand puppet master pulling the strings in Washington whereas the argument is that the effect of the Israeli looby is to create an identity between the US and Israeli national interest in the Middle East. I take it that they have not read John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt's "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy," text?

Suprisingly, the Likud group around the Club Chaos blog seem to be disconnected from both the Australian and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) in Australia and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Where is Will Howard sourcing the articles he drops in?

I notice that Will Howard does say that the real stakes in Gaza are the rocket atttacks on Israel:

Since 2001, the Popular Resistance committees and Hamas have lobbed about a thousand rockets of various types and increasing size into Israel...It is only a matter of time before communities in southern Israel will be suffering the equivalent of the London Blitz in miniature. In addition, the Al Aqsa Brigades have announced that with the help of Allah, they have developed chemical and biological weapons and will "surprise" Israel.

That does ignore the right wing Zionist history of occupation and settlements tto create a Greater Israel, doesn't it. Even though Howard does say that 'I actually agree that often the Israelis' reponses have been heavy-handed' he does work with Charles Krauthammer's arrow. He says we now have a:

..Palestinian government openly committed to terrorism and to the destruction of a member state of the U.N. openly uses terrorism to carry on its war.That is no cycle. That is an arrow. That is action with a purpose...consider the history of the past 12 months. Gaza is free of occupation, yet Gaza wages war. Why? Because this war is not about occupation, but about Israel's very existence. The so-called cycle will continue until the arrow is abandoned and the Palestinians accept a compromise--or until the arrow finds its mark and Israel dies.

Nothing there about the Palestinains in Gaza being under seige by the Israeli's.

On another entry Will Howard says:

The strategic significance of the Qassam attacks on Israel-proper (not the occupied West Bank) and of the kidnap of Cpl. Shalit also from Israel-proper is that they are NOT acts of terrorism, in my view. They are outright ACTS OF WAR against Israeli sovereignty under international law. This is where Hamas has blundered badly. Israel has every legal and moral right to hit back.

He seems to assume that Palestinians are an independent nation state and not a colonised people.

Gary, you ask if commentators at the Heidelberg and Tim Blair blogs also commented at the old WebDiary. Certainly some names crop up that are common to all three blogs but I cannot be sure if they included those that commented at the old WebDiary as well.

I've found those that post at Tim Blair are a very mixed bag of right-wingers ranging from those that profess to be 'liberal', which these days I cast straight into the neocon bin (a bin that has a fairly broad opening!), to the outright blatantly racist and fascist. Scattered among them are the right-wing pro-Zionists and Israeli apologists though there aren't too many of them there. I sense that among some of the more neo-nazi white-supremacist style right-wingers who also post at Tim Blair's, the Zionists are not welcome and occasionally cop a bit of stick. One tends, therefore, to find more Western-style Islamaphobes at Tim Blair's rather than pro-Zionists.

More later.

Damian,
If we 'find more Western-style Islamaphobes at Tim Blair's rather than pro-Zionists",then do we find more pro-Zionists at Harry Heidelberg's blog.

At the latter blog Michael Park, it seems, is arguing for America as world hegemon they formulates policy and acts almost unfailingly in its own (national or imperial?) interest. He says that US foreign policy kept a sure and steady eye on the battleground that mattered: economics and resources throughout the second half of the 20th century. He adds:

Grasping an unparalleled opportunity, the Bush administration fabricated, fashioned and foisted a case for war against Iraq. Like Rome, the current administration decided that it had had enough of third party meddling and decided absorption was the way to go. If we are to believe some of what we read, this was done at the behest of the Israel Lobby in Washington. Again, to believe that this course of action was taken to benefit the nation of Israel is to believe that the US "engagement" with Azerbaijan and the other assorted "Stans" (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc) of the Caucasus is all about the furtherance of democratic principles. The invasion of Iraq had little to do with Israeli interests and much to do with strategic US interests. Those interests being resources, along with economic and political influence.

This distorts what Mearsheimer and Walt say. What is argued by them is:

We also traced the lobby's impact on recent U.S. policies, including the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Neoconservatives inside and outside the Bush administration, as well as leaders of a number of prominent pro-Israel organizations, played key roles in making the case for war. We believe the United States would not have attacked Iraq without their efforts. That said, these groups and individuals did not operate in a vacuum, and they did not lead the country to war by themselves. For instance, the war would probably not have occurred absent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which helped convince President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to support it.

The Israeli Lobby contributed to the shaping of the policy to invade Iraq and establish a powerful military presence on the Middle East.