tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post2332920446768548015..comments2024-03-01T08:19:54.547+00:00Comments on BobFromBrockley: Henry Siegman’s Liesbobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-2377101888834217902009-01-28T16:35:00.000+00:002009-01-28T16:35:00.000+00:00Paul D - I completely agree with what you say. I n...Paul D - I completely agree with what you say. I now avoid the Neil Clarke sphere and am glad you have the energy to stay and fight there! I also agree on those, like Melanie P, who mirror the same stances. <BR/><BR/>DZ - you are right to point out that Liberal Conspiracy is not homogeneous on this. The existence of that strand of thinking, as well as the continuum that runs from 3WayFight and Shift magazine through the AWL to the Euston manifesto types means we cannot write off "the left" as a whole, as some of my comrades are wont to do!<BR/><BR/>Mod - it seems that a good education is an impediment to understanding, on this as on so many issues.<BR/><BR/>Mike - your comment is very to the point. After I wrote the piece (which, as I say, I did in a very short burst of anger) I wondered about that phrase, which rings of semantic quibbling and therefore veers close to what I accuse Siegman of. It would take me longer to flesh out my position properly, but I guess I am saying that what the proto-IDF did in the Nakba can be described as armed civilians in a basically lawless situation committing atrocities against other armed citizens in a fairly symmetrical struggle, fighting for their physical survival as well as for a longer term agenda. I don't think that saying this exonerates them, but it is something different from terrorism. In the case of Hamas (or Shining Path), they committed atrocities aimed at civilians as the core strategy of their campaign, with the intention of creating terror and provoking escalation. One could argue that this is less or more morally reprehensible than the actions of the Israeli side in 1947/8, but I believe it belongs in a different moral category, just as the Nakba belongs in a different moral category from the Shoah and both belonging in a different moral category than the recent Izraeli assault on Hamastan. Siegman uses the 47/8 guerrilla war as a way of letting Hamas off the hook, rather than as a way of illuminating its reality.bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-70169676652581493812009-01-28T16:02:00.000+00:002009-01-28T16:02:00.000+00:00Hey Bob,While I think I'm probably to your "left" ...Hey Bob,<BR/><BR/>While I think I'm probably to your "left" in my stance on this latest conflict in Gaza, I think most of what you wrote here is dead on. My one quibble is with this sentence: "Although I would condemn those acts, they cannot be seen as “terrorist”, but as part of a spiralling guerrilla war." I think this amounts to the sort of logical trick you correctly criticize in Siegman's piece: just because these actions took place in the context of a spiraling guerilla war does not mean that they were therefore not "terrorist." By that frame of reference, the methods used by the Shining Path in Peru or by UNITA in Angola during the 1980s would be excluded from the category of terrorism. But that's exactly what they were: terrorist. (And while I'm at it, the KLA was certainly not averse to terrorist methods, before, during or after the "hot" part of the Kosovo war.)<BR/><BR/>I don't know nearly as much about the pre-1948 conflict as you do (I've been meaning to read Benny Morris and Tom Segev for some time), but the logic of your argument is flawed, to the extent that it seems to base the definition of terrorism on context rather than the content of the actions in question. It would also seem to be just as easily (and wrongly) applied to Hamas' use of rockets, since these were also "part of a spiraling guerilla war," at least from my perspective. I'm in a rush, so I hope this makes some sense.<BR/><BR/>Solidarity,<BR/>MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-10592348275177434462009-01-28T15:48:00.000+00:002009-01-28T15:48:00.000+00:00Bob it seems there are some real experts out there...Bob it seems there are some real experts out there, for sure on engage. Interesting what Paul D says, I have had a mass of discussion son this point on that liberal conspiracy posting you referred to earlier. I believe there unlike on what Paul says about Neil Clark's blog I believe there was some movement there. But the trend is certainly clear. I even had it in my local caff the other day the idea of all Jews equalling Israeli soldiers is back. Or in other words, because of what the IDF did, fucking bastards for doing that idiotic and cruel kill job (my op), anyone who supports Israel's right to exist, and beyond for many any Jew is also a fucking bastard. And true no word spent on terrorism from the Palestinian camps..Daniel of "Daniels Counter"https://www.blogger.com/profile/09330661760908633366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-60240290051246256502009-01-28T15:31:00.000+00:002009-01-28T15:31:00.000+00:00Dave D,agreed, but you've got a lot of people that...Dave D,<BR/><BR/>agreed, but you've got a lot of people that can't process information and don't base their views on reason (which applies to most at lenin's tomb and to Mel's stuff), shame cos so many of them have had a good education, they should know better.ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-56529781474639355162009-01-28T13:22:00.000+00:002009-01-28T13:22:00.000+00:00I find your article to be sensible, balanced and ...I find your article to be sensible, balanced and thoughtfully considered; and reflects in great part my own outlook on this unhappy conflict. Although I did feel Israel had to do something after 8 years or so of ongoing bombardment of rockets which were achieving an ever increased range into Israel, I am not sure that battering Gaza was right and has achieved much. (I approve also of Jonathan Freedland's article in the JC recently).<BR/><BR/>What has got me, and has led to my taking a much more pro Israeli stance has been the vitriol, hatred and complete obsession by what I call the unthinking left of not Israel and this new world enemy 'Zionism'. I never used to think that being anti Israel as a basic default position made someone in any way anti semitic. However, there is so much evidence of anti semitism appearing all over the blogosphere - much of it perhaps at a low level but there all the same. A good example is at Neil Clark's blog where I have been battling to put forward fair arguments but where my position is not only not listened to but deemed to be beyond the pale. It is hard to think of anyone on that blog who has in any way criticised let alone condemned Hamas in any way. I suppose I should give up. There is worse about (eg Indymedia & Lenin's Tomb.)<BR/><BR/>On the other side it also doesn't help when in defending Israel against injustice there is a failure to accept any Israeli wrongs (eg Melanie Phillips and her hardline blog posters).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-46702937474430360262009-01-28T10:27:00.000+00:002009-01-28T10:27:00.000+00:00Thanks Eamon and Daniel. This article was cross-po...Thanks Eamon and Daniel. <BR/><BR/>This article was cross-posted at Engage, where Brian Goldfarb and "Fred" pointed out a couple of inaccuracies in my text, which is a little embarrassing in a text devoted to unmasking someone else's lies and sloppy research. In my defence, I wrote this quickly in anger while off-line, and didn't finecomb it before posting. Siegman, in contrast, was presumably paid money and went thru the LRB editorial process...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, here's my response to the corrections on Engage:<BR/><BR/><EM>Thanks for comments. Re Brian, yes I got my timeline wrong! 1946: I was thinking of the assassination of Lord Moyne, a good friend of Churchill's, which was in 1944, at the tale end of Churchill's time. When the Labour government won their 1945 landslide, Bevin took over decision-making about the Middle East. Bevin was mildly antisemitic and strongly pro-Arab. The Moyne assassination (by Lehi) sapped Churchill's desire to sort the situation in a more pro-Zionist direction, leaving the fate of Palestine in Bevin's hands, which was bad for Zionism. <BR/><BR/>And the King David Hotel bombing was actually Irgun not Lehi, but Lehi were much more active than Irgun in 1946 in this sort of thing, partly because Irgun shrunk away from terrorist activities after the Moyne assassination. The Moyne assassination marked the start of Lehi's "successful" period of terror operations, peaking in '46. <BR/><BR/>Re Fred and Dogmush: I haven't been following the intricacies closely enough. If it is true that Dogmush switched sides, it is also true that Hamas worked with them. The "restoration of order" in the article you quote is as much political repression and intra-gang warfare as it is a genuine restoration of security. The "disruptive Gaza clans" allied to Hamas rather than Dahlan have maintained considerable autonomy of action.</EM>bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439386754907203808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-59862248299914708962009-01-27T21:29:00.000+00:002009-01-27T21:29:00.000+00:00saw it on engage. brilliantsaw it on engage. brilliantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10131050.post-73240881004952868792009-01-27T21:08:00.000+00:002009-01-27T21:08:00.000+00:00I hope you have sent this to them. Very well well...I hope you have sent this to them. Very well well put commentary.Daniel of "Daniels Counter"https://www.blogger.com/profile/09330661760908633366noreply@blogger.com