I heard the news today, oh boy..

[DaveR]

H, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but have you read much recent Middle Eastern history? The Arab-Israeli conflict is hardly theological in origin.

"A wish to obliterate Israel is no more outrageous than the conviction that you have the right to create your own homeland in someone else's backyard."

Do you really believe this? One the one hand genocide, on the other, a dispute about land rights created at least in part, and some would say the major part, by British indecision/deception over Palestine in the '40s?

I'm not taking sides - I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest.

[mockney piers]

"I'm pointing out that the default position in this country is ludicrously biased. And there are many words for people who wear kefiyehs to "show their solidarity" whilst never having opened a book on the subject in question, and "w@nker" is probably the politest."

I actually completely agree with you on this one, much in the same way that Celtic shirt wearing arseholes bleating on about ETA tend to wind me up also.

I actually know quite a few Israelis, and apart from one of them who's something of a hardliner, most of them have a strange ambivalence towards their country which are equal parts pride and shame. And most that I know personally, are of the opinion that a state based upon permanent occupation is unworkable in the long term and resolution through negotiation is something which will happen sooner or later. Interestingly the debate there is much healthier than it is here.

[Brendan]

Sorry Piers, I?m sure you have a point but after just seeing Sean Mac?s last post I will never be able to take anything you say seriously again.

[mockney piers]

Ah, yes, *hangs stunning head of hair in shame*

[Huguenot]

Maybe I'm misinformed DaveR, but the opening text of the Israeli proclamation of independence reads as follows:

"Eretz Israel [Hebrew: The Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world.

"Exiled from their land, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and for the restoration in it of their national freedom.

"Impelled by this historic association, Jews strove in every successive generation to to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland.[...] Loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, they brought the blessing of progress to all inhabitants of the country.

"In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country."

That pretty clearly suggests to me that it was the first Zionist congress who decided that having gone walkabout, the Jewish people faniced their own state, that they were having it where God said they could, and that they were up for a fight.

Given that it's unreasonable for a non-Jewish local to wish to be ruled by Jewish laws, you can see how this can be interpreted as a pretty exsclusive arrangement. You might note that the date is well before any British agreements, and that they make pretty clear that it was their own idea.

[DaveR]

Obviously this debate could go on and on

Suffice to say that Herzl himself was neither particularly observant nor motivated by religion, that Zionism almost since day one has been primarily a secular political/nationalist movement (just as the Arab League et al have never been Islamic movements) and that Israel is and always has been essentially a secular state.

The date of the declaration was either on the day or the day after the end of the British mandate - I can't be bothered to check - and was pretty clearly intended as an inspiration/call to arms rather than a practical political statement

[mockney piers]

Just read this:

"An adviser to the [McCain] campaign told The New York Sun that, in a speech to be

delivered in Albuquerque, N.M., the senator will call for an increase in combat

troops and the creation of a special Afghanistan tsar to coordinate policy

toward the country. "There will be a surge for Afghanistan. It will be moving

combat troops in and applying the lessons from Iraq and the strategy that was

successful in Iraq and taking that to Afghanistan," this official said."

Funny on two levels. 1, appointing a tsar to a country that lost a million people trying to get rid of the Russians is very poor use of language, and 2. The success of the surge has nowt to do with the extra troops and much more to do with talking with the enemy and paying them to stop them killing you. Frankly a very pragmatic policy which could very well be successful in Afghanistan. It's just I'm not convinced McCain seems to understand this point and seems to be advocating killing more, not fewer people. Let's hope somebody sets him right.

[Huguenot]

Perhaps it's a surge in under-the-counter payments?

[david_carnell]

I hear you with the whole "tsar" thing, MP. I've got a feeling it's a meedja term though. The guys real title will be something rather dull like "Administrative Oversight Controller" but that never looks good on paper does it. "TSAR!!" on the other hand reeks of imperial presence. But, yes, the semantic implications of that one haven't really been thought through....

On a lighter note in the American campaign, the Colbert Report (like a funnier version of the Daily Show) has been running a thematic where you have to make McCain more exciting. He gave a speech behind a green background the other week and it's allowed the photoshop nerds out there to play havoc with it; with hilarious results.

Link

[mockney piers]

Indeed, the whole Tsar this and Tsar that (have we had a spoon Tsar announced yet?) is getting overused, I just thought this is the one instance they really should have avoided it in a press release ;)

[Brendan]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> talking with the enemy and paying them to stop

> them killing you.

Isn't that just the basis of a successful welfare state?

[mockney piers]

Unlikely person to agree with mee about jaw jaw being better than war war.

Oh, and that's exactly right Brendan ;)

[Huguenot]

Judge, jury and executioner

[Strawbs]

Only in Australia.... Kangaroo line up!

[SeanMacGabhann]

Interesting to see what exactly genocidal maniacs decide to do for a living when they need to go into hiding

Please don't let ALL water have memories

[Brendan]

Look a monkey.

[Ant]

Ook!

I love how they got him down in the end.

[Brendan]

Yeah especially the dejected way the guy just threw the banana down. It?s like they knew all along that the banana would work but really wanted to pull off an impressive tranquiliser gun capture to impress the cameras.

Eek!

[Brendan]

Look a monkey.

[citizenED]

someone get a tranquiliser gun, or a banana.;-)

But anyone you know with a "fashionable" name?

Talula loses her name

[Brendan]

Strange bloody Australians!

Now if only they could have helped out my friend Jenny?

Jenny Tailier.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Quite right in my opinion, there should have been an 'h' at the end of Talula.

[mightyroar]

Very funny letter to the subs from Giles Coren in the Times. Not exactly news, but very funny all the same:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey

[SeanMacGabhann]

Wonderful, mightyroar... just wonderful

[david_carnell]

And all over a definite article!

To be fair, I'm kinda with Giles on this one.