A credulous illiterate know-nothing attempts to give lessons on Israeli history to a Jew with decades of first-hand knowledge of it
In this post, Uncle Jimmy links to a crazionist video by the renowned fraudster and fake ex-terrorist Walid Shoebat. Not only is Jimmy himself (unlike, one should point out, the Israeli government and press) totally duped by this buffoon and dazzled by his supposed expertise on Palestinian history, he suggests in all seriousness that the Guardian's Jonathan Freedland should watch it. Freedland has been writing articles in support of Israel for more years than I can count, but because one of his recent pieces failed to toe the Likud party line on Palestine's bid for statehood at the UN, clearly he requires re-education at the hands of Jimmy and his "experts".
If all there was to this post was Jimmy's utter gullibility when it comes to Zionist claims to vast amounts of non-Israeli territory in the region, or even his readiness to give credibility to anyone claiming to be an ex-Muslim (because WE ALL KNOW that Muslims are liars, so ex-Muslims must tell the truth, obviously) I wouldn't have bothered. No surprises there. But there are a couple of priceless Jimmyisms that would be a shame to leave unattended.
First of all, on Moonbat's fantasy video, he remarks
Opening with the November 1947 resolution at the UN General Assembly, it starts with the vote on Resolution 181 which paved the way for the rebirth of the state of Israel in 1948.
However, did this give Israel legitimacy?
The answer is no. Generally speaking in international law general assembly resolutions are not binding.
An interesting point in itself if one considers the weight that was given to resolutions and non-existing resolutions over Iraq.
Do you think we should wait for Jimmy to show some evidence of any interest whatsoever being shown in General Assembly resolutions over Iraq? The resolutions on which the US and UK based the supposed legitimacy of their invasion, and the resolution which it was felt was necessary in order to provide any kind of authorisation of military action: these were Security Council resolutions, which are binding. As incidentally were the ones of which Saddam was considered to be in breach. So Jimmy, who has the gall to lecture the rest of us on Middle Eastern affairs, us unable to tell the difference between the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. What a dork. Perhaps he should read this list of UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine, helpfully divided into the General Assembly ones which Israel can ignore if it likes, and the binding Security Council ones, of which it is in breach of far more than Saddam ever was.
Then when Jimmy attempts to discuss the Jonathan Freedland article, we have this wonderful non-sequitur:
And why do I suggest Mr Freedland should watch this video?
Because of his article – ‘Britain should say yes to Palestinian statehood – and so should Israel’
Its sub-heading reads – ‘A no vote at the UN will boost Netanyahu, wound Fatah and discredit the Europeans as useless hypocrites’
Really, Mr Freedland? Quite how a “no” vote would discredit Netanyahu evades me completely.
And obviously it evades the rest of us as well, as that is the precise opposite of what Freedland - just quoted by Jimmy - says in his article. But to Jimmy, never too bright when it comes to understanding what he reads, the word "boost" clearly means "discredit".
Well, Jimmy, I would say that post gives a massive boost (as you would say) to any credibility you might imagine you had as a political blogger.
Let us leave the final words to Jonathan Freedland, in a post reviewing In The Land Of Israel by Amos Oz.
Two decades of travel across Israel-Palestine, and years of intense reporting and debate on the conflict, have not shaken my belief in the view set out by Oz in that chapter. He declares that the Jews are a nation; that theirs is a living culture not a museum piece; that they have, therefore, the right to self-determination; that the Palestinians have the same right and therefore the only just solution is to share the land, creating two states side by side. Since then I have read a thousand contrary opinions, from both sides - but none has ever succeeded in refuting Oz's fundamental logic.