Eretz Israel is our unforgettable historic homeland...The Jews who will it shall achieve their State...And whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind. (Theodor Herzl, DerJudenstaat, 1896)

We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East.
(From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

With a liberal democratic political system operating under the rule of law, a flourishing market economy producing technological innovation to the benefit of the wider world, and a population as educated and cultured as anywhere in Europe or North America, Israel is a normal Western country with a right to be treated as such in the community of nations.... For the global jihad, Israel may be the first objective. But it will not be the last. (Friends of Israel Initiative)

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Discussion On The Israel-Palestinian Arab Conflict (videos)

Here's something to listen to while doing the ironing.  In these videos (sound only, since they're from a radio programme in the United States) host Anton Batey and pro-Israel lawyer and journalist Paul Kujawsky politely go head to head:


  1. There are some points where Kujawksy could have improved his argument.

    1. In April 1967 Syrian forces had attacked Israel. Several MiGs were shot down over the Kinneret. Also, as pointed out in Tom Segev's book and elsewhere, fedayeen had infiltrated into Israel from Syria and through Jordan bombing sections of the National Water Carrier. Along with Egypt's dismissal of UN forces in Sinai and cutting off access to Israeli shipping (and oil supplied from Iran) through the Suez Canal, these were constructive acts of war.

    Israel did complain to the UN - which dithered and did nothing. And Batey gets article 51 of the UN charter backwards. A nation is not required to ask permission of the UN to go to war. A nation under attack may respond until s "until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." The article goes on to say that "Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council" - it does not say that prior permission has to be granted.

    2. Egypt's earlier proposal for settlement was different than the final arrangement of 1978. IMV the key difference was the terms regarding the demiliterization of Sinai to a lightly armed police force of 4000. (Carter's bribe to both Egypt and Israel also contributed, but was likely not as critical as might be supposed, but was important to establishing.)

    3. The IJC also stated that the conflict was outside their jurisdiction and that all they could do is offer an opinion, not a ruling.

  2. Very useful indeed - many thanks for posting!

  3. Sorry - I should have made it clear that Anon is L.King - sorry, I lobbed your name off the bottom in error.

  4. Dear Mr King,
    Many thanks for taking the trouble to post - in nswer to the rest of your comment, in which you asked me whether I know how to do so, I am afraid I don't know how to contact Paul Kujawsky. I think he's based in California but can't be sure.
    I tried e-mailing you with this but got an error message repeatedly.