大象传媒

I know I am going to be shot down in flames but what the hell have caravan parks to do with the Foreign Secretary?

Mossad at it again, are they?

The Salvador Option in Lebanon?

Lebanon - Gazza = The Religion of Peace at work.

Thanks Peter,

For a horrible moment, I thought it might be something to do with being towed by a driver with no sense of direction.

Are there any more credible sources than this site (which seems hell bent on discreding itself - lots of this odd stuff from the 9/11 'conspiracy theorists' ;-):

for alleged Israeli support (or even creation) of Hamas (the suggestion being that such a false flag action would guarantee world support for Isreal whilst dividing the Palestinian cause and promoting the sort of in-fighting we see here).

The 1988 Hamas Charter, with its references to the Protocols etc, does immediately self-discredit in many Westerner's eyes:

I ask given the recently released material on the Entebbe raid in 1976 which suggests that that was a similar black propaganda false flag job.

It makes it all so hard to follow ;-)

Maurice, what on earth are you talking about???

The near state of civil war is the work of Israel and the rest of the "International Community"! They have put the elected government (and the Palestinian population also) under a state of seige while at the same time continuing to channel funds to Mahmoud Abaass and his corrupt cronies!

The "civil war" going on in Gaza is a result of a Western-backed attempt by Abbass to topple the ELECTED government.

This has nothing to do with Islam not being a "Religion of Peace"...this has everything to do with the "International Community"...(with the US, UK, UN and Israel at the forefront) being total hypocrites in calling for democracy in the Arab world but supporting military coups when the results of democracy don't go their way.

If you were watching Newsnight in the Gaza Strip, you'd think the Countryside feature on Newsnight was about Fantasy Island.

Maurice, what on earth are you talking about???

The near state of civil war is the work of Israel and the rest of the "International Community"! They have put the elected government (and the Palestinian population also) under a state of seige while at the same time continuing to channel funds to Mahmoud Abaass and his corrupt cronies!

The "civil war" going on in Gaza is a result of a Western-backed attempt by Abbass to topple the ELECTED government.

This has nothing to do with Islam not being a "Religion of Peace"...this has everything to do with the "International Community"...(with the US, UK, UN and Israel at the forefront) being total hypocrites in calling for democracy in the Arab world but supporting military coups when the results of democracy don't go their way.

I had to switch off Newsnight after another sophomoric debate about Hamas. 鈥淲hy oh why should Hamas recognise Israel when Israel doesn鈥檛 recognise Hamas?鈥� they wailed鈥�

Well folks, the reason is simple and can be understood by anyone who is willing to read the Hamas charter. Here it is (it isn鈥檛 long so go ahead and read the whole thing):

The charter asserts, among other things, that:

鈥淚srael will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

This is not negotiable, this is not up for discussion, it is not an opening gambit. It is fundamental to the objectives of Hamas that Israel will cease to exist. Hamas do not try to keep this a secret. To their credit, they are perfectly frank about their intention to obliterate Israel. There. Got that? No wonder the poor American guy looked perplexed.

This little sticking point was mentioned, briefly, at the opening of the piece, but please would you ask these * Palestinians how they expect Israel to engage with an entity who鈥檚 fundamental and eternal goal is their destruction?

Of course it is Mohammed, of course it is!
Note - we don't deal with Mugabe either!

#7 Mohammad

Democracy is a double-edged sword.

Here is how it works Mohammad. You democratically elect a government whose charter explicitly calls for the destruction of your neighbour. Now your entire state, not just some rogue totalitarian dictatorship, but your entire state, must shoulder full moral responsibility, and accept all the consequences of the policy of your elected government. Because your state calls for the destruction of its neighbour (see Hamas charter below), you are now in a de facto state of war. War can be played out in many ways but your neighbour cannot be expected to hand over tax receipts, materiel, or treasure of any kind to an entity that seeks its destruction. This is natural law. The American chap on the panel tonight said as much, 鈥榮ure Hamas was elected but that doesn鈥檛 mean we have to support them鈥�. Quite right too.

Read the Hamas charter here, it鈥檚 pretty illuminating:

Mohammed: That sounds about right. The International Community is best seen as Trotskyite or Anarcho-Capitalist. It encourages Human Rights, Sex Equality and free-market liberal-democracy, anything *but* strong government as that means regulation. One only has to look at the Austrian (and Chicago Neocons) Schools of economics to see how this all works. Hayek, Margeret Thatcher and Keith Joseph's Ssvengali:

They do the same 'at home' alas, making out the evil empire is always abroad (Stalin/Hitler). They exported Friedman to the USSR in the 80s/90s.

They don't have nations' interests at heart, quite the reverse in fact. One only has to listen to Clinton and Blair to appreciate that, they're quite brazen about it. They tell everyone that globalisation is our future whilst wrecking nations.

Sadly, most people don't see it for what it is - until it's too late. Criticise Israeli or American export of this anarcho-capitalism and one is branded an anti-semite! We get this sort of government through very effective conditioning via the media.

I can see one day muslims killing muslims in England america and all over the world because they d'ont agree with each outher

I farted and followed through the other day.

I blame Tony Blair, George W Bush, and the big bad West.

Dear Alan C (ref post # 10. At 11:12 PM on 13 Jun 2007)

You have apparently failed to read and comprehend the charter you are quoting.

The quote "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.", (leaving the issue of translation aside) is an assigned quote to one presumably dead Imam - Hassan al-Banna. It is a "quote" from that person and not one of the charters "article"s or "objectives".

Therefore the charter does not assert what you claim it does.

As for using that quoted "quote" to argue, as you did, about "鈥淲hy oh why should Hamas recognise Israel when Israel doesn鈥檛 recognise Hamas?鈥� they wailed鈥�". You ought to try looking at (elected) parties in Israel and the things their members say about Palestine and Palestinians. And you might learn something about the nature of the racism that pervades the Israeli state as it carries out its ethnic cleansing against indigenous Arabs. A racism and policy of ethnic cleansing that was there long before Hamas came to be.

Alan C: Articles 17 & 18 have both elements of profond truth/wisdom (which we reject at our peril) as well as elements which are surely contrived to elicit the wrath of the West.

We shouldn't forget that Orthodox Judaism treats its females much the same as the Muslims. We buck that trend, to our cost. Most people think about secular Jewish feminists who have rebelled against Orthodoxy, encouraging gentile women to follow suit. Meanwhile their extended family relatives conform. Do secular 'Westerners'?

And don't forget, the home for Europe's Jews had a dark origin acording to Lloyd-George in his memoires. I believe he said it was our version of the sealed train sent into Russia at the end of WWI to get the Russians off the German's backs, except in this case, it was to palestine to get the Turks off Britain's back.

Last but not least, Marshall told Truman not to recognise Israel when it unilaterally declared itself a State in 1948. We regarded them as terrorists back then remember! Whilst the USSR was the first to recognise Israel, it soon backed the Arabs and by the early 50s was livid with his 'rootless cosmopolitans' for backing the enemy when Golda Meir visited:

Did any of them want stability in this domain of The Great Game? What about now?

How come they never tell the story of the fox and the scorpion anymore, they always used to tell that tale in reference to the middle east again and again. When the scorpions can't get past the new wall so easily anymore to sting the foxes....they sting each other. After all they are scorpions aren't they? That was the point of the whole story.

Adrienne, I wouldn't get my hopes up over China if I were you. In fifty years if there is still anyone around left alive, number one will still be....USA, USA, USA, USA, USA..... Don't believe it? Just listen to 大象传媒's series "America, Age of Empire." That's the conclusion they came to and they hate America even more than you do.

It was quite clear from watching the Newsnight progam that the US along with Israel has recently been engaging in the supply of weapons and training to anti-Hamas anti-Democratic Palestinian forces. While at the same time denying basic human rights and funding (let alone the Palestinians own revenue) to the Palestinian people.

Its an utter disgrace and was revealed to the world by Newsnight.

To ronnie shakespeare (post # 16 At 11:58 PM on 13 Jun 2007)

"I can see one day muslims killing muslims in England america and all over the world because they d'ont agree with each outher"

What, with the US and Israel providing the arms and training camps?

Non muslims have been killing each other of and on for quite a while now, both in England and America. Not to mention teh two wrodl wars and the 100 years war the war of ... etc etc and on.

Get a grip, the US and Israel are supplying anti-Democratic forces, its nothing new though, there's a history of it, a track record.

To Alan C (ref post # 10 At 11:12 PM on 13 Jun 2007)

"It is fundamental to the objectives of Hamas that Israel will cease to exist. Hamas do not try to keep this a secret. To their credit, they are perfectly frank about their intention to obliterate Israel. There. Got that?"

Though Isreal does appear to keep its intentions of wiping away the existance of the Palestinian people completely secret from you. The Israelis are not always as frank as Hamas, and they are not always as honest as Hamas either. There. Got that? Or do you need internet links and references because you've never bothered to look it up for yourself?

"...USA, USA, USA, USA, USA...".

I hope so, if you take the USA away what would make us Brits go....HaHa, HeeHee, HooHoo.....Well, I suppose theres the East.

Mad as hatters, both of yeah....HooHoo, HeeHee, HaHa...

I can rant all day long about the Islamic religion and happily suggest that its just a sickness that needs treatment, but when i hear Palestine being mentioned, i jump over to the aid of the oppressed Palestinians every time, i make a strange bed fellow for them and they look in horror, that me, a questioner and ridiculer of their faith, somehow wishing to support them in exposing their enemy as wicked and evil.

Israel is an illegal state backed mainly by America, don't get confused here, check the history , read as much as you want and if you can do that as objectively as possible, your only conclusion is that, yes, Israel is an illegal occupier of somebody else's land; well you can argue that the Jews were promised this land by their God but personally i don't buy that argument, and its their only legitimate argument for claiming this 'promised land'.

The west and especially Israel, did not like the outcome of the then democratic elections for a Palestinian authority with hamas having a big part in it, the machinations by America and Israel is clear for all to see and they have undermined the elected representatives of the Palestinians since the elections. We all new that a strange kind of 'divide and rule' was the game plan by Israel with the USA backing one side and undermining another, they sat back and waited and they are now watching the outcome they engineered; its a classic tactic used many times and the US and Israel are masters of this..but easily spotted by others

And before anyone throws the charge at me that i may be anti-semite, it wont stick because semites were a tribe that never existed in Europe, unlike the European jews who now occupy palestine; although semites still exist, Arabic jews in small numbers, who are generally down trodden by their european same faith counterparts and live in poverty in that godforsaken place..yeah, god is great, is'nt he just..

The troubles in the Middle East began alot earlier than formation of any of the Western states.

So who do we blame now?

To keith granger post 22

yes i agree with you its all about people who want control over free people, hitler was a control freak that had to be stopped by free people thats war

muslim extremist have the same attitude thats why its war,

Israil was the land of the jews in the first place did the people in palistine take it off them drove them out a long time ago that was wrong where are the jews sopposed to live so they got back what they lost and naw the palistines hate the jews

To ronnie shakespeare # # 28 At 03:23 AM on 14 Jun 2007

"Israil was the land of the jews in the first place did the people in palistine take it off them drove them out a long time ago that was wrong where are the jews sopposed to live so they got back what they lost and naw the palistines hate the jews"

Palistinians hate the Jews almost as much as the Jews hate the Palestinians?

And i take it you are arguing that the Jews hate the Palestinians Today, for what happened to Jews a long time and many life times ago. And the Palestinians hate the Jews Today for what happened to Palestinians yesterday, last week, last month, this life time.

I do believe you are beginning to get the picture.

#18 Kieth Granger
You say 鈥淵ou have apparently failed to read and comprehend the charter you are quoting.鈥�

The single quote that you took exception to is part of the preamble to the charter and it sets the tone in much the same way that the following preamble sets the tone for the American constitution:

鈥淲e the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty 鈥︹��

I think the al-Banna quote perfectly encapsulates the tone and substance of the Hamas charter. Hassan al-Banna is actually (not 鈥減resumably鈥�) dead. He was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and arguable the father of the current worldwide Islamist movement.

You say 鈥淭herefore the charter does not assert what you claim it does鈥︹��

Sorry, but you haven鈥檛 shown any evidence or built an argument to back your assertion have you?

Leave aside arguments about who did what to whom in the past. Let鈥檚 even say, for the sake of argument, that Israel is a criminal state and the Jews are the architects of their own destruction. That aside, you can鈥檛 understand the dynamics of the current situation unless you understand that the fundamental goal of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel. If you don鈥檛 want to read the charter then here are a few more quotes that should clarify this point:

Article 11 鈥淭he Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day鈥︹�� 鈥淭his Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void.

A Waqf is an inalienable religious endowment. This means that all the land from the Jordan to the sea is Muslim land that can never be given up.

Article 13 鈥淚nitiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement..鈥� 鈥溾�here is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.鈥�

This means that negotiations with Israel are futile, war is the only solution

Article 15 鈥淭he day that enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.鈥�

When they talk mention Palestine they mean all the land, including that held by the current state of Israel.

Article 32 鈥淭he Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.鈥�

The Protocols is a literary forgery. It is an antisemitic pamphlet that describes a Jewish plot to achieve world domination. It has been used since the late 19 century to foster hatred of the Jewish people. It was made into a popular Syrian television series a couple of years ago and shown throughout the Middle East. It is apparently not enough for Hamas to foster hatred using perfectly legitimate Koranic scholarship, they must also use lies. This is allowed in Islam when fighting an enemy.

I rest my case

Mohammed Youssef, one of the people who has posted a message here blames the USA, UN and Isreal for the tensions between Hamas and Fatah. Although I agree that western funding of Fatah has brought about this situation, it is blind ignorance to ignore the role Iran is this conflict. If the west can be blamed for supporting Fatah, surely Iran can be blamed for funding AND arming Hamas. Although I believe domestic politics of a foriegn country should not be interfered with from the outside - it would be an injustice to allow Palestine to be essentially conquered by these cronnies of Iranian extremist ideology.

Alan C: Don't rest your case too soon. This has a long history, and truth is hard to ascertain in any of this history. One thing that is true is that blood is thicker than water and enclaves tend to have a hard time.

The Protocols may well have been shown to be a forgery (last century), and many will know how their origin goes back to earlier political battles not in Tsarist Russia but to Napoleonic times:

But I remind you that hostility towards (or 'persecution of') some of the Jews (as enclaves controversially living by their own rules) goes back much further than the C19th and C20th. It's basically all about groups or families and competition for resources and we should not be naive about this. One sees such behaviour when enclaves need to interact with or pass through their out-group. It illustrates how domestic and foreign policies are often at odds with each other.

The Jewish people (some not all, it is unfair to tar all with the same brush) have been 'cosmopolitans' or 'internationalists' for a couple of millennia, and they've born the brunt of the consequences of the above dynamic more than most. But unlike Romanies and other Travellers, it should not be forgotten that as a group they have also reaped some great benefits along the way (look at their proportional over-representation), and that some (obviously not all) are at least sometimes not averse to using 'anti-semitism' to advance their interests at the expense of real or imagined opposition (see the ADL and Jewish Lobby in the USA, second only to senior citizens as a lobby it is said).

That's party politics folks ;-0

Was this below just propaganda, also a forgery? We have been told not, but some have suggested they were ghost written for Churchill. Does it matter? Jewish historians have documented many Jews' role in Anarcho-Capitalism, and most will defend their peoples' interests. Sometimes, despite their bold assertions, they're often as bad as the spin doctors who manage the media (another topical issue and Newsnight thread).

For balance:

Although, it has to be said, as some point out, Martin Gilbert is a Jewish historian, and apart from being Churchill's biographer ;-)also writes many pro-Jewish books (some with powerful but 'interpretable' emotional imagery - see his 'Never Again' and 'From The Ends of The Earth' coffee table books). Whilst it's clear that he supports his people (as one would naturally expect). is the 1976 Race Relations Act fair here? Additionally, one must remember that the humanities are not sciences. Historians record as well as interpret history.

So by all means br critical, it isn't anti-semitic to be rational, though sometimes one might be forgiven for thinking so. They Jewish people make good psychologists (as do women it's an 80:20 ratio). They're not so good as behaviourists mind ;-)

In the final analysis, the Israelis want more of Palestine, and perhaps more than that. Obviously that must be at some other groups' expense.

That, surely, is indisputable?

I have to complain about your totally biased take on the confict in Gaza and the West bank.Tamini(who is a well known anti US and Israel muppet)and it seems as tho the interviewer agreed with him ,next we had the Palestinian lady who was airing her grievancies and the the poor chap from the US trying to make his point,yet Emily let the both the palestinians say the west was arming Fatah and no mention was made about Iran arming Hamas.Noone can watch newsnight these days without seeing the obvious bias against Israel and the US, its about time Peter Barron(the producer) was fully investigated for his political leanings and the licence withdrawn.Yours Colin

#32 Adrienne

Some truths are not hard to ascertain. That Hamas is explicitly committed to the destruction of Israel is one such truth. The Hamas charter makes this clear. Hamas officials have made this clear, time and again in speeches and interviews. They do not try to keep this objective secret. If you understand and acknowledge this truth, regardless of all the other points that you make, then you have to concede that Hamas cannot be a 鈥榩artner for peace鈥� with Israel. I suppose you could argue that when Hamas conquers Israel that Jews will live in peace under the protection of a Muslim Sharia state (as a pretty young Hamas lawyer explained to Paxo in an interview last year). I think this argument would be difficult to support though.

So I do indeed rest my case on this particular point because neither you, not the other contributors to this blog, have offered any evidence to indicate that Hamas does not have an explicit objective to destroy the state of Israel.

As a thought experiment you might ask yourself which group would have the best chance of living productive, free and happy lives: Jews living under Sharia law in a Muslim state or Muslims living as citizens in a Jewish democratic state.

I think that your last point is not only disputable, but is also thinly veiled anti-Semitism. I mean, what is the 鈥渕ore than that鈥� that you are referring to?

Mark: No hatred of the USA here. I submit that this has less to do with personal preferences and more with explication of, for want of a better term, 'demographic competition', or population management (government) in the best interests of the indigenous majority (last night's piece on rural England, 'the countryside' and the plight of our agricultural industry was timely).

What I've tried to spell out here and elsewhere draws on a dispassionate trend analysis of demographics (elsewhere it covers our education and Criminal justice systems). Anyone can check the figures, they are available from government websites.

The link below shows the USA's plight. ETS is the largest educational testing organisation in the world. Relate this to what's posted in other threads on our own dysgenic trend and particularly its main driver, which I say is our Sex Equality legislation. The downside to this has been exacerbated by New Labour's policies as well as those of their predecessors over the past few decades. Things go wrong by omission as well as commission and in the end, intention doesn't much matter. It may just that the unpleasantness of it all and our natural avoidance
suffices to gives it all an air of a conspiracy of silence (the evidence is there if one looks for it mind you, but then, who wants to look?)

Anyway, watch the video below at least, and take on board that ETS
picked up on all of this from elsewhere ;-) They only came out with their concerns publicly in February and they acknowledge that others have been highlighting this for much longer, it's one of those below radar issues that keeps popping up, and people prefer not to talk about.

Most of us (understandably) don't want to know as it's too distressing
and they can't see what can be done about it. That's key to all of this
I suggest, people don't *want* it to be true.

However, it's also very hard to believe that governments on each side of the pond were not briefed long ago on this, as it goes back at least as far as Herrnstein's Atlantic article in 1989, and became very heated in the mid 1990s. It was also of great concern to Darwin, Galton in the late C19th, and certainly to Fisher, Spearman, Pearson, founders of quantitative genetics and research statistics. I have raised the paradox before that it is fundamental to all trained in science to assume random distributions of variables and test for departure from that model. People should look at base rates. People neglect base rates. Base rate neglect demands one analyses extensionally, not intuitively.

Nothing much has changed, except for one pronatlist response to the driving factor in the 1930s. That was savagely pubished and the aftermath has made the entire subject a taboo in the West. People have also forgotten it because of the post war 'baby boom'. But that was a blip. The problem is now back. I suggest we're seeing the fallout.

Alan C: How is a tacit reference to 'The Greater Israel' Zionist policy 'veiled anti-semitism?'. You must question your premises more to see how your reasoning flows. Failure to do so is why you think some truths are not hard to ascertain perhaps.

Some of what you say is precisely what I've said amounts to chutzpah or a scotoma. No, Hamas doesn't recognise the *state* of Israel. Why should it? They see it as a Zionist land-grabber.

What you are doing is naively assuming the truth of a highly disputed premise or antecedent. Namely that Israel does or must or should exist (a counterfactual) and that there should therefore be a Two State Solution. But Hamas and Iran etc clearly do not accept the premise and so do not accept the viability of a Two State solution.

May they be right? Looking at the history and 'swiss cheesing' of the
West Bank by Israel, or Sharon's recent provocation of uprising, it
often appears that Israel doesn't want a solution either.

These blind spots infuriate the Palestinians and solicit sympathy for their attacks on Israel, the calls for academic boycotts etc. May this be precisely what Israel and the USA want thereby ensuring that there is no peace in the region?

At the end of your comment you have stooped to verbally heckling. It's
as if a Liberal-Democrat was harassed at the polling station for being anti-Conservative.

Israel is buying up Palestinian land (with foreign money which causes
factional conflict within Palestine - the Palestinians kill Palestinians
who sell), waging demographic and psychological warfare against the
Palestinians. Israel and the West foment conflict between the
Palestinian factions. We know that happens. They admit they supply aid
to Fateh and that they press for sanctions against democratically
elected Hamas. When Hamas tries to restore order by force, we see USA
advisers saying they are attempting a coup. It's absurd and it's
deceitful. There is no conspiracy - it's chutzpah.

Given what you see on the West Bank and Gaza, do you really think the
Knesset has given up on "The Greater Israel" just because Sharon is out
of the game?

Do you really think the Knesset wants a Two State solution?

The Hamas Charter/Covenant states that Israel should never have existed. So does Iran (Russia and China seem to take their side more than the West's). They do not mean the people should be killed. They say the state of Israel should not exist. If N Ireland one day is absorbed into the Eire, that does not mean that all the people in Belfast would be 'destroyed'. Arguing that it would might fool some, but in the end it is just egregious political rhetoric.

Given this, why does anyone expect Hamas to negotiate for a Two State
solution?

It doesn't matter what I personally think is right or wrong about the
conflict. I'm not privy to the internal or international politics. But the logic of the above is clear, even if Hamas turned out to be some
diabolical creation of the Mossad ;-)

Finally, in the final analysis, this is so complicated that I freely admit that what I understand of the politics is bound to be full of errors. I suggest you try to think along similar lines.

a caravan park birthday? was there cake? I'll have a slice with no wasp in it please.

Caravanning and canal boating are booming. They might be a euphemism for being homeless but it sounds so nice.

Did Jeremy notice that if you have 600 acres you get Government benefits and if you have 拢6000 savings you lose them?

#36 Adrienne

You say 鈥淔inally, in the final analysis, this is so complicated that I freely admit that what I understand of the politics is bound to be full of errors. I suggest you try to think along similar lines.鈥�

At last we can agree, I too believe that what you understand about the politics is full of errors. In fact, anyone who uses the phrase Anarcho-Capitalist is bound to suffering all manner of delusions, in my book.

You say 鈥淕iven this, why does anyone expect Hamas to negotiate for a Two State solution?鈥�

Well it took you long enough! That was my point exactly! In fact this is the only point I have been trying to make. I not only don鈥檛 expect Hamas to negotiate a two-state solution but I expect them to do everything in their power to achieve a one-state solution. And if they succeed in creating a single Mulsim Sharia state in all of Palestine, how do you think the Jews will fare? How do you think the secular Palestinians who want nothing to do with Sharia law, will fare?

Once you shed the delusion that Israel and Hamas can be 鈥榩artners for peace鈥� you can frame the debate in a more realistic context.

Your Northern Ireland analogy is just fatuous.

I鈥檓 done now.

Cheers.

Alan C: Your grounds for accepting or rejecting what I've explained to you appear to be irrational, but so be it. Neoconservative ideology *is* anarcho-capitalist. It's just been sugar coated.

Once you understand this a lot of recent history from the 60s onwards falls into place, as does the assault on our welfare state and Civil Service and plight of Old (Stalinist) Labour.

For another perspective, try this:

Alan C: Your grounds for accepting or rejecting what I've explained to you appear to be irrational, but so be it. Neoconservative ideology *is* anarcho-capitalist.

It's just been sugar coated through good PR. It's effectively Trostskyism (the far left) which explains Stalin's otherwise arcane language when he purged the party in the 1930s:

Once you understand this a lot of recent history from the 60s onwards falls into place, including the Stalinist nature of Hamas, Hezbollah and 'Islamic Fundamentalism'. It also explains the assault on our welfare state and Civil Service and the plight of Old (Stalinist) Labour.

For another perspective, try this:

Just remember, the Muslim Brotherhood, like Baathists can be seen as National Socialists or Stalinists. Socialists in one country, i.e not internationalists. Stalinists do not look kindly on 'Jewish Bolsheviks', e.g. Trotskyists like 'Plato_n E_lenin' who tend to have home in the UK and Israel ;-)

Each & every time I've watched Jon Cruddas I am even more impressed by his relaxed presentation, candour & integrity.....a rarity in today's Politicians. The other wannabe's generally come across as hypocritical & selfish sycophants.... A Tory's view!
Tonight they have a beauty parade on "Question Time"...should be interesting

Alan C: "if they succeed in creating a single Mulsim Sharia state in all of Palestine, how do you think the Jews will fare?"

Probably like they fare in Iran? What these countries don't like is Zionism and all that's associated with it (anarcho-capitalism) as it undermines lawful, welfare states and economies. if you look at what it is doing to vulnerable people in the West (or Iraq) you might start to see why.

You might like to start at the beginning and work your way through to today:-https://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict.asp

We could also argue that the Italians have a Claim in the region.

"Probably like they fare in Iran.What these countries don't like is Zionism and all that's associated with it"

Are those links meant to support the argument that Jews would do OK in a Muslim Sharia state?

The following taken from

"The Islamic Revolution of 1979, made Shariat the legal code and therefore gender and religious discriminations are an integral part of the system. Bahai's once again are not recognized at all, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians each have one representative in the Parliament and are not legally forbidden from employment in the government sector. But since the authorities only employ Muslims and a 鈥楽hariat test鈥� is required, in reality these people are once again barred from working for the government. Like Bahai's it was very difficult for them to leave Iran for a decade after the revolution and restrictions still apply. They are accepted into Universities, but are not given access to post graduate studies, though no law prohibits them. Their monetary transactions are monitored closely to make sure no money is sent out. There were 85000 Iranian Jews before 1979, almost three-quarter have immigrated mainly to USA. The largest exodus since Darius鈥� time when 30,000 left joyfully to rebuild their temple. Their departure this time has not been a happy one!"

For more evidence of a 'benign' Sharia state..

I think Israeli's can be forgiven for not buying into the 'one state' solution.

Part 2:

A week or so ago I made an effort to set out the logic of why conflict arises when people use natural language. Natural language just isn't truth functional, that is why sciences create their own predicates. Natural language is a poor medium for pursuing truth (science) for well understood technical reasons of logic. In some of my CIF comments I pointed out how existential (SOME, or AT LEAST ONE) and universal (ALL) quantification is related (SOME=NOT(ALL) and ALL=NOT(SOME) and how this fails subtly in *intenSional contexts* (basically, contexts which use the psychological verbs like belives that or said that or modal operators. If one substitutes coextensive terms in such contexts reasoning often fails - 'said that', (basic to reporting), and even 'saw that' are good examples. This results in 'Chinese Whispers', (i.e. classic errors of Serial Reproduction) where things are literally made up often unwittingly through not appreciating that one can not substitute 'salva veritate' coextensives in intensional contexts, it renders what is said literally false, or results in false inferences which were they in extensional contexts would remain true.

This is well known in logic and science, but sadly poorly practiced, and is rife in the humantities and social sciences (it even goes awry in courtroom forensics).

These verbs are, paradoxically, eschewed in behavioural science, which strives to replace folk psychological idioms like 'thinking' and 'believing' etc with extensional terms and functional relations (rather than properties) in effect recording and analysing facts of physical behaviour.

Sadly, intensional terms are used by lawyers and debate participants to persuade the unwary, often under a veil of this being 'democratic' or 'free'. But truth is never established democratically, nor by convention/consensus,it is established pragmatically on the basis of improving our efficiacy of predicting or managing our own sensory surface stimulation. In the end, my pointing out that many opponents were senselessly and even egregiously or nefariously abusing language with self-serving agendas, and that this invaqriably elicits hostility and attack when spotted, just elicited, well, attacks, as charges of anti-semitism and racism, which subsequently led the Guardian editor(s) to delete all of *my* comments to that particular CIF and 20 odd to a closed earlier CIF "Not In My Name" along with 7 of 18 from another "A Fading Rainbow". Rather draconian, and there was not explanation. Meanwhile, the egregious verbal behaviour I was highlighting as irrational continues. One must ask why. Is it because it's very good for business I ask? If it was thwarted would it put many in the media out of a job?

I suggest this is an illustration of how selective censorship operates, and there's far too much of that in our so called free press. I assume it's justified by editors along te lines that they have to protect their papers from threats of litigation (whether well grounded or not). One can see, above and below, that heated *argument* is not limited solely to the Palestinians vs Israelis. Finkelstein and Dershowitz can argue about these matters because they are both Jewish. But whilst they argue, some of the more thorny questions go conveniently untouched. Finkelstein does not deny the Holocaust but asserts that it's been abused to further Jewish hegemony. If anyone else asserts this, or dares to go further and offer alternative explanations consistent with the recorded historical facts (e.g. to suggest that as the Soviets liberated Auschwitz (it was later an NKVD prison allegedly), they *could* have taken the inmates into the USSR and just blamed their disappearance on the Germans as they blamed the Germans for Katyn at the IMT (the latter was acknowledged by Gorbachev in 1989 to be the work of the NKVD), they will be charged with anti-semitism or, in some European countries (Austria, Germany, France etc) prosecuted under various pieces of quite arcane legislation derivative of the post war denazifaction programme. At the Tehran Conference, Stalin said he wanted 100,000 German officers executed after the war at the Tehran Conference (Tripartite Dinner Meeting November 29, 1943 Soviet Embassy, 8:30 PM):

Given what was said there, and given what was admitted by Gorbachev in the late 80s, why is it not conceivable that what we have been told about Auschwitz and the holocaust was a propaganda campaign agreed between the allies in lieu of Stalin's more draconian demand for mass executions when Churchill, he and Roosevelt met at the Tehran Conference? It was Potsdam which set out the final plans for Germany. This alternative would have shifted Western politics to the left would it not, ensuring a weakened Germany, and perhaps the fact that the Jews would unfairly benefit, was considered at the time, perhaps a small price to pay as it would lead to the home for them in Palestine rather that as problematic enclaves throughout Europe and the USA.

After looking at all the evidence, I fear that there may be far more to all of this than we know, and I'm deeply concerned that there is now a clear case of the odds having been tilted in favour of Jews through affirmative action and threats of legal sanctions for challenging this convention. This, I suggest, needs to be looked at impartially given exchanges like this, and assertion by the Iranian President (who is clearly backed by Russia today). If things continue the way that they are, Israeli and NYC (2/3 white population is Jewish by my calculations) Jewish lobby arrogance may work against the Jews' best interests, and everyone else's.

Russia could confirm or refute the above conjecture.

I offer this up for serious discussion in the context of the volatile situation in the Middle East.

Incidentally, as an aside, why do some of the Hamas militia (as shown on Newsnight) look so fair skinned? Is it just the lighting? How true is it that Israel and their backers have been supporting Hamas since the 1970s as a way of weakening the secular Palestinian parties? See the recent declassified material on our government's views on the Israeli complicity in the Entebbe hostage incident in 1976, allegedly to discredit the PLO. Given this, and the USS Liberty controversy, why do so many people think that governments don't run false flag operations?

Part 1:

Phil #45 - You're making a fair point but it's one which will backfire, it always has it always will. It is the classic problem of enclaves.

This has been the problem for two thousand years (see timeline in #32)If a group forms an enclave (ghetto) and establishes its own laws, those laws almost by definition will be at odds with their host (surrounding) nation. There will be conflict to the extent that there must be interaction between members of the enclave and the host. This has been the Jews' plight (and their scotoma) for centuries.

Their behaviour is seen by the host group (which abides by different laws) as opportunistic, hypocritical and duplicitous, as the laws conflict. Trade, economics, defence, and justice becomes fraught for what should be obvious reasons, and it leads to conflicts if not wars. It's domestic vs foreign policy writ small.

One of the links below from the evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers shows how competition for resources and strategic deception almost always leads to physical conflict across many species.

There's so much going on in this Great Game in the Middle East and beyond that I thoght I'd throw this into the pot too.

To begin with something minor, has everyone noticed how many 'alternative comedians' over the years have been Jewish? Their targets tend to be elements of the non-Jewish status quo (i.e the British establishment) as it is not-self, so it is easier. They very rarely make fun of Jewish culture. How does Ali-G get away with caricaturing Blacks, Muslims and gentiles? Where have you seen him caricature Jews? The same can be said for Little Britain.

It may all be 'funny', but it's also political and selectively subversive. Think of 'Yes Minister', one of Thatcher's favourite programmes. How can a government run a country without a stable Civil Service? So why attack it? That's what Thatcher and Major did throughout the 80s and 90s, but to what end? They flooded it with 'Press Officers' and chipped away at secrecy and formality etc. Now, most of it doesn't work, and it's being farmed out to the Private and Third Sectors. Anarcho-Capitalism is very like Trotskyism.

Moving on to the more topical and perhaps more distasteful, look at the venom in these exchanges, and decide for yourself who the anarchists are. I see female behaviours within males as the prime driver of conflict here, and I've provided a hypothesis as to the root cause of that is, namely differnet prevalences of Non-Classic (or Late Onset) Adrenal Hyperplasia between ethnic groups sustained by endogamy (a gene barrier). Please see my other Newsnight comments on this if interested. It's a very common polymorphism in the Jews. It is the most common autosomal recessive disorder known to man. It slightly feminises males, and slightly masculinises females. It slightly disrupts a key enzyme 21-OHD which subtly changes the sex and stress steroid hormones in utero and may affect developmement in a non clinical way which nevertheless drives behavioural differences at the group level.

That aside, look at the venom here:

Who are the bad 'guys' here? Is there a hint of feminine style interpersonal conflit here? Tinges of deceit?

The responses to the Guardian CIF piece by Dershowitz on Finkelstein (think O J Simpson Trial) was such yesterday that the Guardian CIFclosed it for comments within 24 hours instead of the normal 3 days. How did readers respond?

Why did such an accomplished lawyer write something which many would have predicted would have elicted such hostility (note, you can see some comments were deleted). It is as if he can not see how it comes across. Some of his supporters are much the same. It is a scotoma is it not?

Afer going thro Adrienne,s mail I wonder how she manages to get thro the day in her paranoid state? Although I,m sure she would find welcoming arms at the 大象传媒 if she ever applied for a job,or does she or he or it anyway?.I can see why Alan C gave up on her you can,t reason with paranoia.Yours Colin M.

Colin M. #48. Is it paranoia, or are those who benefit from expansion of
free-market anrcho-capitalism really out to get you?

We're in a dysgenic phase demographically so we've been dumbing down for quite a while with low TFRs and differential fertility (sending so many bright females into education and the workplace). So there are not enough bright people about to see and report what's really going on (and even less interested readers able to see it). On the other hand, there are lots of nice-but-dim consumers eager to buy subversive toot like 'Education, Education, Education', 'No Child Left Behind', 'equality', 'choice' and 'power to the people', just because it looks/sounds nice (like all the other disposable consumer toot).

Dysgenesis inflates the population in the lower half of the IQ distribution whilst thinning it in the upper, guaranteeing a) an ever growing market of ever less critical consumers/willing electorate and b) ever fewer critics at the other end of the distribution to compete for power with running the show. Most people don't seem to care about tomorrow, i.e don't care about their children, odd given the place of Every Child Matters' here, and 'No Child Left Behind' across the pond.

Now there's a 'paranoid' thought to mull over, and here are a few more.

Incidentally, the 'warring' Hitchens brothers recently 'discovered' that
they are half Jewish. May I recommend the Trivers links?

Of course, this is rather arcane and many don't like what's explained to
them because they're frightened of what they don't know and hate
uncertainty (that's innate neophobia at work - the sine qua non for learning but root of xenophobia too). People often fail to see it at work, it's a self-protective scotoma, and it's closely tried to species specific defensive reactions.

Still, you could be right (although I suspect that's highly unlikely).
Perhaps these people below are 'paranoid' too? Perhaps all the people who see things that you don't are just 'paranoid'?

The video is worth a look, it''s just a few minutes long.

And for something closer to home, which highlights the effects, see my comments here:

/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/broken_society_hackneys_kids.html
/blogs/newsnight/2007/06/the_cult_of_the_amateur_by_andrew_keen_1.html

But you're right about one thing - there's little to be gained from reasoning with those who aren't rational, we know this from years of research (although much of it was done long before Kahneman got in on the act):

and more poetically/dramatically:

They're both Jewish of course.

The pattern of hysterical emotional responses one sees in such exchanges seems a) remarkably female and b) possibly CYP21 related. For examples of this sex difference in behaviour, see the current Big Brother.

Now who *can* one take at face value?

Still, perhaps you're right. Perhaps it's all 'paranoia'. How do the Palestinians make it through the day?

Most people who present themselves as experts are required to submit details of their credentials. It's quite rational to be wary of accepting wholesale the obsessive reiteration of any belief that is presented in a vacuum as an incontrovertible 'truth'.

You'd think that anyone who ostensibly sought to recruit people to a cause would take the precaution of exerting their social skills so as not to patronise and belittle them, thereby shooting themselves in the foot. Happily, this is often not the case.

Ah, but that's to say that such people are actually trying to recruit other people to a cause. But with posts so, as you say, obsessively reiterative, as well as turgid and opaque, can that really be the aim?

Let me advance a yet deeper level to the conspiracy... Adrienne is 'one of them' - herself a false-flag anarcho-trotyskist-dysgenic-TFL player...

Oooh, the conspiracy goes sooooooo deep, I suspect she doesn't even know that she is the unwitting pawn of the Jewish-anarcho-fertiltiy plot, and her own scotoma is so advanced she thinks she is on 'the other side'...

#51

Your perspicacity quite unwomans me. I bow to your superior analysis.

#50, #51, #52 (and possibly under other xxxx.Y aliases too?) instead of 'reiterating' (and corresponding) with yourself, why not try marshaling a little independent evidence.

'Paranoiacs' talk to themselves, disregarding empirical evidence. Reality is just too complicated, turgid and opaque for them, so they just make it all up.

On the other hand, there's no point reasoning with people who talk to themselves and disregard empirical reality. They live in a dream world and attack anyone who try to wake them up.

'International Community' backed coup in the Middle East?

Robert Fisk (Independent) on 'the evil dooers':

#53

The concept of 'dialogue' is perhaps rather arcane, but may I asseverate: as far 'as I know' there is only one of me and I was talking to 'somebody else'.