Blair: Delegitimization of Israel is affront to humanity

[Tashah]

Blair: Delegitimization of Israel is affront to humanity
By Herb Keinon 08/25/2010
Quartet envoy says relaunch of direct talks shows the world Netanyahu is ‘advocate of peace.’

To delegitimize Israel is an affront not only to Israelis, but to those “everywhere, in every part of humanity, who share the values of a free and independent human spirit,” Quartet envoy Tony Blair said on Tuesday, in an exceptionally warm speech at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya. Blair, the keynote speaker at a conference on the delegitimization of Israel, said the best answer to those who sought to delegitimize the Jewish state “lies in the character of Israel itself, in the openness, fairmindedness and creativity of the Israelis.” “My advice,” he said, “is to guide that spirit and keep it.”

The negotiations conducted under the Olmert government “played an immensely important part in showing the world that whatever else they might say, they have to accept that the government of Israel was genuinely trying to bring about peace,” Blair said. Likewise, he said, “the restart of direct negotiations to be launched next week is important. It is important in itself, and it is important in that it shows that Prime Minister [Binyamin] Netanyahu, on behalf of the new government of Israel, is an advocate of peace.”

“I know some are cynical about the process,” he said. “I know some say it is all for show. I reject that view. I think that if Israel can receive real and effective guarantees about its security, then it is willing and ready to conclude negotiations for a viable independent Palestinian state. This is a brave decision by the prime minister, and a right one to engage in the negotiations.”

There were two forms of the delegitimization of Israel, Blair said. The first was “traditional, obvious and, from certain quarters, expected,” and came from those who openly attacked Israel’s right to exist. Pointing to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as an example, he said that his form of delegitimization – calling for Israel to be wiped off the map – was easier to deal with “because it is so clear.”

The more pernicious form, however, was not as open, and came from those who were unwilling to recognize that Israel had a legitimate point of view, Blair said. “The issue of delegitimization is not simply about an overt denial of Israel’s right to exist. It is the advocating of prejudice in not allowing that Israel has a point of view that should be listened to,” he asserted. Blair said that “a consistent conversation I have with some, but by no means all, of my European colleagues, is to argue not to apply rules to the government of Israel that they would never dream of applying to their own governments or their own countries.”

Source: JPost.com

:applaud I thank you very kindly for articulating this Mr. Blair. It needed to be said.

 

[Andalublue]

Source: JPost.com

:applaud I thank you very kindly for articulating this Mr. Blair. It needed to be said.

I read this in the article...

"Blair said that “a consistent conversation I have with some, but by no means all, of my European colleagues, is to argue not to apply rules to the government of Israel that they would never dream of applying to their own governments or their own countries.”

I'm struggling to understand what he means. What rules are European leaders applying to Israel that they wouldn't apply to themselves? Any examples?

 

[PeteEU]

I read this in the article...

"Blair said that “a consistent conversation I have with some, but by no means all, of my European colleagues, is to argue not to apply rules to the government of Israel that they would never dream of applying to their own governments or their own countries.”

I'm struggling to understand what he means. What rules are European leaders applying to Israel that they wouldn't apply to themselves? Any examples?

Good question.

 

[Laila]

The simple fact that it is Blair talking makes me dismiss his opinion entirely .... damn, I dislike him so much.

 

[PeteEU]

The simple fact that it is Blair talking makes me dismiss his opinion entirely .... damn, I dislike him so much.

He is pretty fair and unbiased in most of his speech.. he even goes after the Israelis slightly.. (which means he is an anti-semite!), but when starts with his second version of delegitimization then he looses all credibility. Like delegitimization is even a major problem.. who cares what a few crack pots think, even the PLO accepts Israel's right to exist.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

--snip--

I'm struggling to understand what he means. What rules are European leaders applying to Israel that they wouldn't apply to themselves? Any examples?

The emboldened part (the whole article is pretty good) might help.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, now Envoy of the Quartet on the Middle East, was the keynote speaker of the August 24 symposium entitled “The De-legitimization of Israel: Threats, Challenges and Responses” organized by The Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy and Strategy at IDC Herziliya in cooperation with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition.

Speaking to an auditorium packed with press, students, and security, Blair, calling himself a proud friend of Israel, distinguished between the obvious Israel deniers (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) and the more “insidious” critics who say they accept a two-state solution but don’t sincerely try to understand Israel’s position.

“It’s not about an overt denial of Israel’s right to exist,“ Blair said. “It’s an application of prejudice in not acknowledging that Israel has a legitimate point of view.”

For example, those who de-legitimize Israel would take issue with Israel’s desire to inspect incoming vessels into Gaza but wouldn’t acknowledge Israel’s legitimate concern over the transport of weapons in the Gaza.

He sympathizes with critics of the Occupation, “but there has to be security once they lift the Occupation….Hamas, with an unchanged position in Israel running the West Bank, Israel would have a legitimate right to be concerned about its security.”

He tells those who condemns Israel defensive actions: “Don’t apply rules to the government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own government or country,” a statement which elicited fierce applause form the audience.
He proposed five steps to combating the de-legitimization Israel.

First: “The aim is not to make people agree with Israel’s point of view but to insist that they listen to it and persuade them at least to a point of understanding.”

Second: “Israel has to be staunch and unremitting actor for peace.“ The restart of negotiations next month is a positive step and “shows there is a simple and sincere yearning on part of people of Israel to live an enduring and honorable peace with their neighbors.”

He acknowledged cynicism about the peace process, but believes “if Israel can receive real and effective guarantees about its security, it’s willing and ready to conclude negotiations for a Palestinian state.”

Third: Negotiations must include discussions of final stages. “Proposals on this issue will be a litmus test to seriousness.”

Fourth: While taking into account legitimate security concerns, Israel must do what it can to improve quickly the daily life of the Palestinians.

“No top down negotiations will work without it.”

Fifth: “It is our collective duty, yours and mine to argue vigorously against the de-legitimization of Israel. It is also our collective duty to arm ourselves with an argument and narrative we can defend and with which we can answer the case made against Israel with pride and confidence.”

Having spent more time in Israel since his premiership, he has come to admire the democratic nature of Israel: its vibrant parliament, freedom of the press, and enforcement of individual rights. The creativity of the Jewish state, he said, stems Jewish spirit of achievement in the arts and sciences.

“The best answer to the de-legitimization of Israel lies in the character of Israel itself and the openness, fair-mindedness and creativity of all Israelis. That’s character is what built the state of Israel.”

He received a standing ovation when he concluded with: “What you’ve created is remarkable for you, but what you’ve created is remarkable for the rest of us.”
Jewish Journal

To me, that says to those who argue the blockade of Gaza that Israel has a right to consider issues that do with its defence. He's not an apologist (IMO) for the whole blockade of Gaza - he would be on weak ground to argue that the blockade does not include elements of collective punishment, nor does he argue that Gaza is (*as I've seen claimed - even in this forum) a holiday camp with a few bad bits which the western press concentrate on.

I may be reading too much into it - but the argument is not for dropping the blockade (the principle of Israel's blockade is correct) but recognising Israel's reasons and needs to blockade Gaza. That we should engage with Israel (including recognising Israel's security concerns) rather than simply castigate it.

That I can agree with - dealing with certain individuals on this forum regarding Israel is sometimes another matter.

 

[Winston Smith]

The emboldened part (the whole article is pretty good) might help.



To me, that says to those who argue the blockade of Gaza that Israel has a right to consider issues that do with its defence. He's not an apologist (IMO) for the whole blockade of Gaza - he would be on weak ground to argue that the blockade does not include elements of collective punishment, nor does he argue that Gaza is (*as I've seen claimed - even in this forum) a holiday camp with a few bad bits which the western press concentrate on.

I may be reading too much into it - but the argument is not for dropping the blockade (the principle of Israel's blockade is correct) but recognising Israel's reasons and needs to blockade Gaza. That we should engage with Israel (including recognising Israel's security concerns) rather than simply castigate it.

That I can agree with - dealing with certain individuals on this forum regarding Israel is sometimes another matter.

I agree with that, but I'm not sure he's saying much with his admonishment not to "apply rules to the government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own government or country." In my experience most Westerners would never dream of applying reasonable rules to their own governments, so that's not a very meaningful standard.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I agree with that, but I'm not sure he's saying much with his admonishment not to "apply rules to the government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own government or country."

Well, he was speaking to a primarily Jewish audience.

In my experience most Westerners would never dream of applying reasonable rules to their own governments, so that's not a very meaningful standard.

I take the point but on the other hand, no other Western nation is surrounded by hostile neighbours, no other Western nation has to face down calls that it should not exist. We all make different unreasonable demands of our own govts or hold them to different unreasonable standard at times - but few have to operate in such a hostile neighbourhood on a daily / hourly basis. I think that's what sets making unreasonable demands on Israel apart from any unreasonable demands made of our own Govts.

Not that I'm making any kind of case for allowing Israel a free ride on events in Gaza or the settlements that are roundly condemned by the UN and other agencies.

 

[Andalublue]

I take the point but on the other hand, no other Western nation is surrounded by hostile neighbours, no other Western nation has to face down calls that it should not exist.

No, true, but those questioning Israel's right to exist are not European governments. I think one of the big problems is the difficulty in distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable demands on Israel. The dividing line is placed in very different positions by whoever is discussing the matter.

 

[Apocalypse]

Kudos to Blair, finally someone standing against this campaign of hatred.

 

[alexa]

The emboldened part (the whole article is pretty good) might help.



To me, that says to those who argue the blockade of Gaza that Israel has a right to consider issues that do with its defence. He's not an apologist (IMO) for the whole blockade of Gaza - he would be on weak ground to argue that the blockade does not include elements of collective punishment, nor does he argue that Gaza is (*as I've seen claimed - even in this forum) a holiday camp with a few bad bits which the western press concentrate on.

and yet, the Israel/Palestine Journal when asked by the EU to come up with a possible solution to Gaza does believe that the blockade does need to end. The Eu have offered to take care of necessary security on the ports and asked Israel to be explicit on what it believes it's needs are but Israel will not move on this. Simalirly with movement, it seems difficult for those wanting to achieve change to get Israel to declare what her exact needs are.

It may be that humanitarian food is not the most important thing which is needed. Getting the economy going again is surely part of a great need and yet, certainly in the original range in items let in after the Turkish flotilla, these did not include quantities needed for commercial enterprise. I don't think this has changed.

I think that one of the highest needs is for people to be able to move and come in contact with others, particularly the west bank but Israel as well so that they can discover they are not martians. Hamas can of course move freely through the tunnels into Egypt but for the ordinary person of Gaza they are stuck in Gaza. A Canadian flotilla is going to try to take care of one of these issues. It hopes also to be able to take items out of Gaza for export.

My guess is that how things are going at the moment Gaza will just be left on it's own cut of for ever if a solution is found with the West Bank and I get the impression that is what some Israelis want. I think that would be a crime against humanity and my hair stands on end that Tony Blair acting as this Middle East Envoy for about 4 years now has not come up with any understanding or plan to find a way through this.

I may be reading too much into it - but the argument is not for dropping the blockade (the principle of Israel's blockade is correct) but recognising Israel's reasons and needs to blockade Gaza. That we should engage with Israel (including recognising Israel's security concerns) rather than simply castigate it.

I think something that people have been really trying unsuccessfully till now to find out what Israel's concern are, I will certainly be sad if I end my life part of a world who sat by. Let's give them chocolate. 9 lives lost but worth it they got their chocolate.

 

[washunut]

and yet, the Israel/Palestine Journal when asked by the EU to come up with a possible solution to Gaza does believe that the blockade does need to end. The Eu have offered to take care of necessary security on the ports and asked Israel to be explicit on what it believes it's needs are but Israel will not move on this. Simalirly with movement, it seems difficult for those wanting to achieve change to get Israel to declare what her exact needs are.

It may be that humanitarian food is not the most important thing which is needed. Getting the economy going again is surely part of a great need and yet, certainly in the original range in items let in after the Turkish flotilla, these did not include quantities needed for commercial enterprise. I don't think this has changed.

I think that one of the highest needs is for people to be able to move and come in contact with others, particularly the west bank but Israel as well so that they can discover they are not martians. Hamas can of course move freely through the tunnels into Egypt but for the ordinary person of Gaza they are stuck in Gaza. A Canadian flotilla is going to try to take care of one of these issues. It hopes also to be able to take items out of Gaza for export.

My guess is that how things are going at the moment Gaza will just be left on it's own cut of for ever if a solution is found with the West Bank and I get the impression that is what some Israelis want. I think that would be a crime against humanity and my hair stands on end that Tony Blair acting as this Middle East Envoy for about 4 years now has not come up with any understanding or plan to find a way through this.




I think something that people have been really trying unsuccessfully till now to find out what Israel's concern are, I will certainly be sad if I end my life part of a world who sat by. Let's give them chocolate. 9 lives lost but worth it they got their chocolate.

Reading the above I try to wonder what type of person actually thinks such thoughts. To say that Israelies should allow Gazans to travel through Israel one might expect that from a naive person. You do not sound like that. But you think it is a good idea for Israel to open its borders to people whose key mission to to destroy their state.

It is interesting that you point to the inability for Gazans to travel becuase the border with israel is closed. Wouldn't you have a better case asking the people of Egypt to open their border to their Muslim brothers. Why you spend so much time focusing on the Israeli blockade rather than the Egyptian one may make one wonder just how serious you are as an advocate for peace. My sense is that is a rouse and the real goal in your post would be for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. You have every right to have that view. It might help in a debate forum if people made their positions clearer. Perhaps people here think that a debate is a game of word smithing and gotya. For me that is a waste of time, but I have to admit I often enjoy reading the nonsense that is special to this section.

 

[Orion]

What a bunch of platitude garbage. If I want to hear a sermon I'll go to church and listen to a priest. Jesus.

The west's foreign policy in the middle east as it pertains to Israel is entirely hypocritical. I don't think it's "hatred" to point that out, and I am tired of being accused of being anti-semitic because I disagree with policy decisions.

Blair has been a shill for Israel and the entire "war on nations holding oil that we want" for a long time. His opinion now has nothing to do with his diplomatic office, but his own self-serving career motives. I agree with Laila... there is nothing about this man that I find dignifying, or trustworthy. If he's talking, then we should be doing the opposite of what he's saying. He's a two-faced liar just like Bush was when they were in cahoots.

 

[washunut]

What a bunch of platitude garbage. If I want to hear a sermon I'll go to church and listen to a priest. Jesus.

The west's foreign policy in the middle east as it pertains to Israel is entirely hypocritical. I don't think it's "hatred" to point that out, and I am tired of being accused of being anti-semitic because I disagree with policy decisions.

Blair has been a shill for Israel and the entire "war on nations holding oil that we want" for a long time. His opinion now has nothing to do with his diplomatic office, but his own self-serving career motives. I agree with Laila... there is nothing about this man that I find dignifying, or trustworthy. If he's talking, then we should be doing the opposite of what he's saying. He's a two-faced liar just like Bush was when they were in cahoots.

Not sure why you complain about being called anti-semitic. Perhaps you should yourself why you put that on yourself.

Calling Blair a shill for Israel for wanting war on nations holding oil again shows some sort of unreal experience. Does Hamas or Hezbellah have oil?

Maybe you should go to church or whereever people like you go to find some understanding of human interaction.

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

General warning. Let's end all the sniping and resume civil discussion.

 

[Laila]

What a bunch of platitude garbage. If I want to hear a sermon I'll go to church and listen to a priest. Jesus.

The west's foreign policy in the middle east as it pertains to Israel is entirely hypocritical. I don't think it's "hatred" to point that out, and I am tired of being accused of being anti-semitic because I disagree with policy decisions.

Blair has been a shill for Israel and the entire "war on nations holding oil that we want" for a long time. His opinion now has nothing to do with his diplomatic office, but his own self-serving career motives. I agree with Laila... there is nothing about this man that I find dignifying, or trustworthy. If he's talking, then we should be doing the opposite of what he's saying. He's a two-faced liar just like Bush was when they were in cahoots.

At least the preaching started after he left office rather than before.
He is a two faced liar with I doubt one moral bone in his frail physique.
I hope the guilt of what he has done with his lies including tearing apart two countries haunts him at night personally but I suppose to have guilt, one must have a conscience.

But I agree.
If Blair says something, do the opposite or ignore.
If he says UK/Europe is being unfair to Israel. Pretty sure that means, we're on the right track.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Blair has been a shill for Israel --

Strange that Shimon Peres and some on this forum believe the same establishment that Blair operated and led also stands accused of "systematic hatred" as part of a long history of systematic hatred of Israel.

At least the preaching started after he left office rather than before.
He is a two faced liar with I doubt one moral bone in his frail physique.
I hope the guilt of what he has done with his lies including tearing apart two countries haunts him at night personally but I suppose to have guilt, one must have a conscience --

On the contrary - whatever your politics are, I think he absolutely believes he was right. That's the scary thing about him - and he still (whatever your politics) is a hell of a speechmaker - orator.

 

[Laila]

On the contrary - whatever your politics are, I think he absolutely believes he was right. That's the scary thing about him - and he still (whatever your politics) is a hell of a speechmaker - orator.

The bastard fooled himself into believing he was right. Probably the only way one can deal with the fact his actions has directly lead to deaths, civil war and destruction of countries.

 

[Gardener]

This thread sure is predictable. Blair is quoted as criticizing those whose agenda it is to delegitimize Israel, and reacting just like Pavlov's pup, all those who share this same hateful agenda are yapping away attacking him.

 

[Andalublue]

This thread sure is predictable. Blair is quoted as criticizing those whose agenda it is to delegitimize Israel, and reacting just like Pavlov's pup, all those who share this same hateful agenda are yapping away attacking him.

You'll notice the most vehement anti-Blairites are British. That's because their opinions are based on a wider experience of Blair than merely his (IMO shameful) behaviour during the Iraq war. He's a fairly reviled figure for a number of reasons other than the ME. Because of all this, his role in the ME peace process seems ridiculous.

I understand his public image in the US is very different from the image that Europeans and Brits have of him. I'd suggest that this is because you haven't experienced him at close quarters, as we have.

 

[Laila]

This thread sure is predictable. Blair is quoted as criticizing those whose agenda it is to delegitimize Israel, and reacting just like Pavlov's pup, all those who share this same hateful agenda are yapping away attacking him.

Lul wut?
:roll:

 

[Gardener]

You'll notice the most vehement anti-Blairites are British. That's because their opinions are based on a wider experience of Blair than merely his (IMO shameful) behaviour during the Iraq war. He's a fairly reviled figure for a number of reasons other than the ME. Because of all this, his role in the ME peace process seems ridiculous.

I understand his public image in the US is very different from the image that Europeans and Brits have of him. I'd suggest that this is because you haven't experienced him at close quarters, as we have.

I do not doubt what you say, as we also have people who are mindlessly partisan on this side of the pond as well. I think more of ours are right wing instead of left wing, but there are certainly legions of those who simply react to who it is saying something or the political label they associate with it rather than what is being said.

That this reactionary tendency creates a situation where people end up advocating the same agenda as Hamas or Hizb'allah -- namely, the destruction of a small minority -- is also duly noted. If people did not want Israel destroyed, they wouldn't attack those who reject this agenda.

 

[Apocalypse]

This thread sure is predictable. Blair is quoted as criticizing those whose agenda it is to delegitimize Israel, and reacting just like Pavlov's pup, all those who share this same hateful agenda are yapping away attacking him.

I also found it hilarious how they allow themselves to openly bash a person for standing against the delegitimization of Israel, as if saying so is an untold crime.

 

[Laila]

I also found it hilarious how they allow themselves to openly bash a person for standing against the delegitimization of Israel, as if saying so is an untold crime.

I'm just bashing him. Not his message.

I wonder how much $ he was paid ....

 

[justabubba]

I do not doubt what you say, as we also have people who are mindlessly partisan on this side of the pond as well. I think more of ours are right wing instead of left wing, but there are certainly legions of those who simply react to who it is saying something or the political label they associate with it rather than what is being said.

That this reactionary tendency creates a situation where people end up advocating the same agenda as Hamas or Hizb'allah -- namely, the destruction of a small minority -- is also duly noted. If people did not want Israel destroyed, they wouldn't attack those who reject this agenda.

this is utter foolishness
you equate those who disagree with israeli government actions with those who advocate the destruction of israel