The grand delusion

Maximilian

Another revealing snippet from the same paper: Israel has had to close down a clinic for Palestinian civilians that it opened two weeks ago at the Erez Crossing. The reason: not enough patients. Evidently Hamas won't allow wounded or sick Palestinians to be treated by Israeli medics.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304655619&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Rachman Robert Mitchell

What is incredible is the multilogue conversation that has resulted from this article which shares a whole range of opinions from around the world. I wonder who else is reading them and particularly if any who have their hands on the levers of power and political decisions, has read them. However it does make me ask whether anyone ( including myself) can actually think and reason objectively so prone are we all to hubris and self delusion. However next best to “ thinking objectively” is using my “ common sense” and my common sense tells me to be sceptical about whether any actions we can take will effect our climate. It is arrogant nonsense to assume so. Leading a less wasteful life of energy and the the raw materials that we have ,does make “ sense” as is our instinct to respect our natural environment.

Augustus

The PLO, and the Palestinians they represent may be one of the greatest fabrications of our time. There are big lies, and there are little lies, but these Arab lies all add up to a very, very, very big lie. It may be perfectly understandable that a mix of people would want the deep and recorded history similar to those of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. But when that fabrication goes on to justify the killing and destruction of a truly ancient people, then it is time to call a halt to the fantasy. The truth is that the opportunistic immigration of poor peasant Arabs from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt etc., moved from their poverty-stricken nations to seek employment and better conditions from the Jews. The Arabs kept the Hebrew root of the original Israeli name within
the Arabized name of their new settlements. When one looks at the foundations of these claims one discovers the foundation of Hebrew houses from ancient times. But that does not stop the construction of a past that borrows the names of extinct Philistines who were the very adversaries of King Saul and King David. But say it, and
poof! It's a fact of history. And the West is supposed to honour it, no questions asked.

In 1964, three years before the Six days War when Israel retook occupied Judea, Samaria, Gaza, The old city of Jerusalem and Mount Sinai, the Egyptians backed the creation of the PLO terrorists in order to recover their lost pride. This was the kick-start to Yassir Arafat's fame and fortune. According to early 1990s intelligence sources, Arafat had a personal fortune of some US$8-10bn. with an annual income of US$1.5m. Yet none of this money, which was obtained from Arab nations (much by blackmail) was ever to be shared with the Palestinian people. Arafat, playing the poor rag-head, begging for alms for his people, never intended to share his wealth or the money from the donor countries with his own people. But his funds did build a terror organization with which to disrupt and export terror into America and Europe.

When agreements are made with Arabs; signed and then abrogated, stories always abound that it is always the other side which breaks them. This is a classic syndrome (first identified by Carl Jung) where the agressor blames the victim for what he intends to do, justifying the criminal's planned agression. When hundreds of millions of American and European donor monies disappeared into the pockets of Arafat and his cronies, they simply stated that it wasn't true, even ignoring the protests of their own Palestinian committees. And the donor countries finally accepted the idea that their money would simply not make it into the building of a Palestinian infrastructure. The money was just 'baksheesh', a bribe to buy the goodwill of surrounding Arab countries, not to mention the trouble-making capability of the PLO and its affiliates. And that will always be their way. A state of Palestine would be born out of lies, fantasies, and corruption and subjugation. And whoever were to lead it, it would always be thus.

Jason from AZ

Kaled is a fantastic journalist and his observations are frank, honest, and discomforting for Western appeasers. Most of the West refuses to accept the truth and rather bury their heads in the sand rather than confront Palestinian/Muslim extremism.

Yehuda

Decades ago the PLO declared its strategy of grabbing any territory that Israel might relinquish, and using it as a base from which to launch a coup de grace against Israel.
Since then they have been actively pursuing this plan by means of homicide bombings, indoctrination of their children, international propaganda, rocket and mortar attacks against civilian Israeli targets etc.
None are so blind as those who do not wish to see.

gary ashton

it's so obvious but why dosn't the message get through?
unfortunatley this is becoming obvious to, an old enemy of reason, anti semitism.

Roy

Strange that the west would fall in love with a mess like Arafat. Would note and believe his utterances as if he was the messiah himself. Taking his hugs and kisses despite the stubble and his ugly dribbling, mug. He looked the part he was acting out, resembling the devil himself. But this put nobody off in western circles, they seemed to love his patronizing visits and smiling threats. This could be the face of what we have to come in world leadership. The face that will rule us all when the west has relinquished its hold on any leadership and appeased its last quarter of western collateral.

Michael

Wonderful stuff. I recall reading a very balanced article a few years ago in the Atlantic that abounded with stories of Arafat's corruption - but was astonished at the silence in the mainstream media, supplemented by Barbara Flett's tears.

Original Tony

Israel needs to use the media a lot more to further its righful position in the world. It is a very, very powerful weapon and yet you hear little from Israel in the media.
Israel also needs to play the opposition at their own game. Why hasn't the state of israel started war crime proceedings against Hamas in the Hague, in the same manner that the latter has done against Israeli soldiers?
Perhaps the fact that Israel does not use more "tit-for-tat" methods in its national defence is because Israelis in general are decent, honest people.
However, they missed a big opportunity by not driving it home to Gazans that Hamas leaders deserted them in battle. Israel should have dropped leaflets saying "where where the brave Hamas fighetrs when israel struck you? Where were their leaders? Their arrogance caused the destruction of your property".
In that way, Hamas could possibly be removed by Palestinians themselves, rather than through an Israeli invasion.

Pavlos Planoudakis

Melanie, thank you so much for pointing us towards this. I have just read through the complete transcript and am staggered and amazed at Abu Toameh! It is so good to read something like this from a Palestinian and to see that he is not afraid to speak out and tell it as it is rather than stifling the truth as the western appeasers do!
I just hope and pray that he remains safe as he certainly won't be popular in much of the Arab world. It's such a shame that anybody brave enough to speak out in truth puts their life at risk!

Alan

I believe most Palestinians voted, with hope for less corruption,not suicide bombers and rocketeers from Hamas.

Shy Guy

Alan
February 3rd, 2009 11:34am:

I believe most Palestinians voted, with hope for less corruption,not suicide bombers and rocketeers from Hamas.

Read the Hamas Charter and then please enlighten us as to why you believe as you do.

Pot Head

Does that make Khaled abu Toameh a Palestinian hating Palestinian?

Lynne T

Alan:

The Palestinians voted for guns not butter. Among Hamas's star candidates who were elected is Um Nidal, the mother of three "martyrs" who spoke very comfortably and at length of how Hamas would eradicate the "Zionist Project" over a 10 year period, and pledged more of her sons for the cause. Check out Hamas's leadership, inside and outside of the country and what they have said and done for decades.

No doubt Ariel Sharon based his decision in removing all Israelis from Gaza was his certain knowledge that dealing with the fanatics would be a lot less difficult without having to worry about the them being used as human shields right along with the Palestinian inhabitants.

Ian C

Shy Guy,
You need to read the words of Khaled abu Toameh through the link for a crystal clear answer to your un-informed question. The charter was not the cause they were voting for and is explained very well if you read the linked article. I might have given the same answer but for reading it.

The transcript of the talk should be emailed to every newspaper editor in the Middle East and the west.

Rex

Thanks for a great article to read, it was realistic, and insightful. I agree with Pot Head though, by the standard applied in a pervious blog, he'd be accused of being a Palestinian hating Palestinian. And frankly, Israel's democratic elections have made them nearly as prone to multiple personality disorder as the Palestinians. Netanyahu is hardly going to look for a path to peace, on the other hand, who expected Ariel Sharon to start being so pragmatic. So I have to disagree with Kaled that Hamas will never change. If Ariel Sharon and Yitzak Rabin and for all his faults Arafat could change, they could.. but then again, they all died...

RUTH

Is he a 'splendid' journalist because you agree with him, or because he agrees with you?

wonderer

Sharon is still alive. At least he was according to a Guardian article on 22 Dec 2007. Now wouldn't it be marvellous if he could recover?

Ruth too

Ruth : Is an apple and apple because it is not a pear, or is a pear a pear because it is not an apple? You think you're being cleverly sarcastic; in fact you're being plain silly.

Ed

Agree with comments here - why is he a splendid journalist???

Also, remind me, why are there elections in Israel shortly - corruption? Oh yes??

Also why did people in NI vote Sinn Fein - did they support IRA

Alan

Shy Guy & Lynne T,
I for one hold no brief or apology for Hamas quite the contrary. I fully understand the vile, hateful attitude of Hamas. But I wonder whether it was sold as directly as that to the general population of Palestine? who had hitherto benefitted very little from Arafat and his cronies who allegedly lined their pockets with millions if not billions of US Dollars intended as aid.
In any such event as it has since been proved Hamas controlled the ground. I doubt if every citizen freely voted for them, to challenge them or demonstrate otherwise would have been suicidal (they object to Israel killing Palastinians because they see it as their sole right to do so)
Neverthless, if we are not gracious enough to consider that some, misguided or otherwise voted for more assistance from the governing body, but in doing so allowed Hamas into power (which they went on to take completely killing many of the Fatha movement and any voices of moderation)
We make the classic mistake of having no balance in our arguement and are subsequently left with no-one to appeal to on the other side.
If anyone thinks it's hard to believe, didn't many in the UK vote for one manifesto only to find...........

Ruth too

Ed - you make silly points too. First, he's a splendid journalist because he's honest and truthful and fair and balanced - and doesn't have a perverted agenda to sell. (Or if he does, it's not implicit in his journalism.)

As to your next point, let the record show that when corruption in high places is discovered in Israel, there is an election. I'm not sure you can say the same about any of Israel's neighbours (your heroes, huh?) - there, corruption simply leads to a longer term of leadership!

So now we have seen your "logic" is twisted, go spew your hatred elsewhere: whereever you can find people who are easily bamboozled.

La Cumparsita

I have met Khaled Abu Toameh and he has great integrity & courage.

Adam B.

Ed your comment is laughable - " why are there elections in Israel shortly - corruption? Oh yes??"

Ed, your comment displays two things which never happen amongst Israel's enemies - free and fair elections, and a politician being booted out for corruption. Your anti-Israel diatribe is in fact a compliment. You're just too blinded by hatred to see it.

Ed

To ruth and Adam
My point is i never see the corruption in the west (including Israel) mentioned on this blog - we have it UK with ermingate affair but not on here. We have the story of the peer claiming to get 10K people protesting to Parliament but nothing about taking money for tabling amendments to legislation.
this blog is one sided and the opposite of the journalist referred to in this specific article.
I am not spewing harted as mentioned by Ruth - i find this comment insulting - you have no idea of my family background and my wider thoughts - i dont HATE people- i disagree with them.
HAMAS are not my Heroes either, nor ar Fatah, Syria, Iran, Egypt - so please dont say stupid comments like that either - it shows you up!
Does the fact that in Israel that elections follow corruption make the corruption somehow better? Of course it doesnt!
To my point on the quality of reporting - Andrew Roberts apparently wrote a fantastic piece - I think a quote from this blog - but he agreed with Melanie and you.
If a journalists says something different, the quality of their work is called into question on this blog.
Adam - why is my comment laughable - is it not true??
Perhaps a better system would be the PM leaves immediately- not hangs on for an election?
As to being blinded by hatred. I fully support israels right to exist- i have frieds who live there. As said to Ruth I dont hate anyone.
The two of you are the ones with real anger who need to take of the blinkers and maybe just maybe try and understand how other people live, or indeed understand their views/ comments.
The two of you are pathetic

Wm. Hazlitt

It is widely known that Fatah is corrupt and run like the Mafia. It is widely known that Hamas resorts to terror. It has not done Hamas much good (although others in the past have found terror advance their cause). It is also known that Israel has acquired enough of the West Bank to make a Palestinian state impossible. My question is this. There are millions of Palestinians. They are, I believe, human beings like the rest of us. What is proposed to be done with them? Are they to be kept in a ghetto, or what?

ahad ha'amoratsim

To those who think they are clever by asking if Toameh is a Palestinian hating Palestinian, please remember that "self hating Jew" is a term applied to Jews who perpetuate lies about Israel, Judaism or the Jewish people, lies that invariably falsify Israel's history and actions, or that incorporate anti-Semitic canards. Toameh, by contrast, is telling the truth about Palestinian society, not spreading canards about it. Sadly, the same people who enjoy spreading canards about Israel or Jews refuse to listen to the truth even when it comes from an Arab journalist, if that truth conflicts with the myths they have embraced.

And more sadly, Israel swallowed the same delusions when it signed onto Oslo and allowed the mass murderer Arafat to set up shop in the administered territories.

Harrice

Wm Hazlitt - what do YOU propose? Since the word "ghetto" was chosen by you for a very specific purpose, let's hear what you have to say.

Maximilian

What exactly is new here? "UNWRA finally screws up the courage to tell the truth about Hamas"? Otherwise, what's new? Hamas stealing donors' supplies intend to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Gazans -- that's not news any more, is it?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/04/mideast/mideast.4-423162.php

Wm. Hazlitt

In answer to Harrice: It would be presumptuous of me to propose anything. But I think that those who are in a position to be making proposals in earnest should work on the premiss that the Israeli and Palestinian people are equally deserving of a decent life. I would suggest that the best hope, then, is the diplomatic solution agreed in principle for several decades by every party except successive US and Israeli governments (and, as I understand it, formed the basis for negotiations at Taba at the end of Ehud Barak's term as Prime Minister), that is, some form of the two-state solution. It would involve exceedingly painful sacrifice by both peoples and any number of messy compromises. I don't doubt that successive Israeli governments have had their reasons not to compromise but to seek the maximum they can get (and I can think of several good reasons). But the Israeli government seeking the most it can get for the Israeli people returns me to my original question: what is proposed to be done with the several million Palestinian people?

Adam B.

Wm Hazlitt, I'm sorry, but most of what you write is simply incorrect. Successive Israeli governments HAVE accepted the two state solution. You say it would involve painful sacrifices by both sides - what would the Arabs be sacrificing? Please be specific.

Adam B.

ed, in case you didn't realize, the intention of Melanie's blog is not to report the news in an all encompassing fashion, it is to comment on specific matters that interest her, one of which is the jihadist war against the West. If you want the news, I suggest that a blog is not the principal place to look. Western corruption is not endangering our very lives and way of life, Islamic radicalism is.

Yehuda

Wm Hazlitt, where have you been since the mid-1990's?
Israel's concessions to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians have bordered on the suicidal.
Of these, the one that you surely must have heard about is Israel's abandonment of the Gaza strip, leaving there agricultural infrastructure which could have served the Arabs well.
What consequences followed? The Arabs destroyed the infrastructure because, having been constructed by Jews, it was therefore an abomination.
Then the Arabs set about constructing their own, untainted infrastructure, namely:
1. tunnels through which to bring in rockets, mortars and other war materials.
2. reinforcement of their education system to ensure that no Arab resident of Gaza would forget that the Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys.
3. fabrication of homicide bomber belts for their children and adult martyrs.
4. construction of bunkers and weapons caches in, under and around hospitals, schools, the university.
This part of the infrastructure was dual-purpose in that it was to serve as hiding places for the leaders when the long-delayed Israeli shooting commenced.
I could go on, but I doubt if you are interested.

Wm. Hazlitt

In answer to Adam B. and Yehuda: This conversation began with comments by a journalist from the Jerusalem Post. You will recall that he stated that Israel has acquired enough of the West Bank to make a Palestinian state impossible. The Israeli government has indeed accepted a two-state solution but has ensured that facts on the ground make it infeasible. As for Palestinian sacrifices, I have to admit to being somewhat nonplussed. Would you consider villages, fertile land, olive groves, aquifers a sacrifice? I would. And my question remains, and it is a genuine question, What is proposed to be done with the several million Palestinians left in what are acknowledged to be unviable enclaves? Is it not a question humane people should consider, whatever their position on the conflict?

Adam B.

Wm Hazlitt, I think you have misunderstood Khaled abu Toameh. The point he is making is that there is no credible partner for peace on the Palestinian side. Consequently, it is clear that further Israeli territorial concessions will simply result in new Gazas, Israel leaves and the Islamists move in. You then list several things you believe the palestinians would be sacrificing, without saying what you mean. Exactly what sacrifices are the Arabs making? It seems to me that the "peace process" means Israel gives up land to either the corrupt, racist Fatah, or the nihilistic, racist Hamas. Precisely what are the Arabs giving for peace?

Adam B.

One futher point Hazlitt, what was offered to Arafat at Camp David in 2000 was not "unviable enclaves". And just look at what Hamas has done to Gaza, plenty of money for guns and rockets, not one new road or hospital built. The Palestinians have had more aid thrown at them than any, frankly more impoverished, sub-Saharan African country.

Wm. Hazlitt

In answer to Adam B. A few brief points and then I'll close, otherwise we will be talking past each other for the rest of time. First, you are right - I did misunderstand Khaled abu Toameh (although it is not a consequence of his assertion that Israeli concessions will necessarily only "result in new Gazas" - talk to Ian Paisley on that one). Secondly, if you want to know the reasons for Israel's disengagement from Gaza, read the comments of Ariel Sharon's advisor Dov Weisglass. If you want to understand something of Israel's part in Gaza's destitution, read Sara Roy. To understand Camp David, look at the map of what the Palestinians were offered - not a state, but scattered cantons, and those viable only if fully integrated into the Israeli economy. When you talk of Israel "giving up" land, I assume you just mean giving up land they occupied, not giving up land that is theirs to give. On sacrifices for peace, you still leave me bemused. Compare maps old and new. Study the fine detail of the history of how the old was made to give way to the new, for example, old villages to give way to new settlements. Are you saying nothing was sacrificed? If the villagers of old (and not so old) now have to accept that the land will continue to be farmed by others, they may nevertheless think it worthwhile to accept their loss if it makes possible a lasting peace. Is this not a sacrifice in the common usage of the word? Finally, I still have not had an answer. Those who insist that Gaza must remain under blockade, who insist that the expansion of Israeli settlement of the West Bank must continue - what do they propose should be done with the several million Palestinians, who cannot all be corrupt or nihilistic terrorists? And so, farewell. It has been an education talking to you.

Yehuda

Wm Hazlitt, your "unviable enclaves" assertion is Arab propaganda, which is amplified by those in the West who pressure Israel into making appeasement concessions.
Singapore and Hong Kong are tiny fragments, but look and be in awe of their constructive achievements...without constant self-pitying blaming of others.
It's not the lack of territory (though they have plenty of it, but waste it) that is the Arabs' problem; it's lack of will, motivation, energy and drive to do anything constructive, but rather to use these forces for destruction.
A good example is their destruction of the agricultural infrastructure which Israelis had conceived, designed and built in Gaza. No sooner had Arabs got their hands on them than they became junk.
"Cut off my nose to spite my face" seems to be their guiding life principle.

And don't forget that Israel is a tiny country; you can traverse it in a day by land (less if you're going west to east). Despite that, its GDP, its medical, scientific, technological, cultural achievements have been mind-boggling.

Ask yourself: why can Singapore, Hong Kong and Israel do it, but not the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.
Why can the former societies invest their human and material capital in creation, while the latter invests them in destruction? And don't tell me that it's because of their fabricated grievamces. Israel has grievances, too, and they're genuine and justifiable.

Adam B.

Wm Hazlitt, at Camp David, the Palestinians were not offered mere cantons, but a contiguous state, about 95% of Judea and Samaria and the whole of Gaza. Even if they disagreed with what was offered, they could have come up with counter offers, or kept the dialogue going. Instead, Arafat launched the second terror intifada. That didn't bring peace closer, did it?

It seems ridiculous to me to ask where should they go when the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly rejected statehood in order to continue its war against Israel, and then complain of the consequences. Can you name me one other situation in the world where the aggressor, who started several wars with the intention of annihilating the other, loses said wars, then demands a return to how things were before, even whilst still denying the right of the other party to exist? You also say that the land isn't Israel's to give - well, it certainly isn't the Palestinians' to receive either. What makes Judea and Samaria exclusively Palestinian? It was never theirs to start with. Can you tell me at what point in history this land became part of a "Palestinian" nation? As for sacrifices for peace, you seem to be suggesting that any Arab acceptance of the Jewish state is a "sacrifice." You haven't made clear the context of which you speak. If this is indeed the case, what is your view about the sacrifices made by Jewish refugees from Arab nations, who lost everything?

You are of course right that not all Palestinian Arabs are terrorists, and I never suggested they are. But peace and co-existence will only come when the Islamic world accepts a non-Islamic nation in the Middle East. And we are very far from that happening.

barackobama

Do you agree with everything Abu Toamah says?
1 He supports the twin state solution: "I told you before that I'm one of those people who support a two-state solution. I think it's a wonderful solution."
2 He wants most settlements in the West Bank removed: "There's a majority of Jews today who want to disband most of the settlements and take only two percent of the West Bank."
3 He denounces Fatah's leadership: "What we have in the West Bank is the secular, corrupt, powerless regime of the PLO. Abu Mazen, Abu Shmazen, all these Abus. The Arafat cronies who failed their people over the past fifteen years. Who lost the election in January 2006 because of the corruption. Who were kicked out of Gaza because they failed."
4 He blames the US: "(Rice) bears responsibility for the fact that Hamas is in power."
5 He calls for Israeli withdrawal from areas with Palestinian populations. "The only solution now is total separation between these two communities. Israel should not be involved in the internal affairs of the Palestinians"
6 He condemns violence and attacks: ".. let's first of all try to stop the violence, reduce the level of bloodshed, and maybe that will pave the way for future peace."
7 You should deal with Hamas: "Talking to Hamas does not mean that you recognize Hamas or that they become your buddies."

stanley Jerusalem

Adam B.
"But peace and co-existence will only come when the Islamic world accepts a non-Islamic nation in the Middle East. And we are very far from that happening."

Sorry Mate, there is already one there, pop.7,500.000. It's called..............
Israel.

Adam B.

stanley my point is that the Islamic world needs to become more tolerant.

Henry Sidgwick

Can I suggest to Yehuda a course in economics? And to Adam B. perhaps a course in history, one that covers use of sources, archives, etc. to encourage him to learn the essential skill of arriving at a balanced judgement. The same skills would help improve his accuracy in recent history as well. It would also be of interest to hear Adam B. expound his theory of when a community can lay claim to some territory and when not. For both Adam and Yehuda, can I recommend an excellent book, The Invasion of America. Its sub-title has a certain ring to it: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest.

Adam B.

Henry, may I suggest a course in constructing an an argument with some substance, rather than condescendingly referring to your favourite reads which correspond to your world view?

Yehuda

Henry Sidgwick: I presume that the book which you recommended illuminates the nature and extent of Arab imperialism and its theft of Jewish and other territory.
Well,to reciprocate, let me recommend to you Professor Efraim Karsh's most recent book on Arab imperialism.

Henry Sidwick

Adam B: When applying your newfound historical toolkit to Palestine/Israel, can I suggest, before reading anything more critical of the views you are comfortable with, read the self-avowed ardent Zionist, and former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo ben-Ami, a man of great learning and honesty. I hope this will prove helpful.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda, I suggested a book on economics, to explain why it might be that Hong Kong is prosperous while the West Bank might find it more difficult. Paul Krugman, the recent Nobel laureate, might be the place to start: he has a textbook on international economics. (And could you give me the title of Prof. Karsh's book. Thank you.)
And, Adam, I would like your views on when a community can lay claim to territory and when not.
The book on America I recommend because it illustrates some of the common themes in all European imperialism and colonialism.
Best wishes,
Henry.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
It's okay,I've found the book and our local library has a copy. Thanks.

Yehuda

Henry,why would any one bother to act on the suggestion of a man who doesn't even know how to spell his own surname, writing "Sidgwick" on one occasion and "Sidwick" on another?

Henry SidGwick

Okay, okay, so I can't type! But Shlomo ben-Ami is still an interesting man.

Adam B.

Henry, why will it prove helpful? Why do you speak so cryptically - just say what you mean.

Yehuda

Henry, the Jews (aka the People of Israel, one of their Patriarchs) are the indigenous people of The Land of Israel.
Their predecessors in the Land, the Canaanites, have melded with other folk and have not constituted an identifiable ethnic identity for millennia.
The Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land until overpowered by a stronger military force.
They have never, however, renounced their title to the Land. Any expert on international law will tell you that this is crucial.
A large proportion of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are settlers and descendants of settlers, who chose to immigrate into the Land of Israel when the Zionist Jews had begun to transform it from a backwater into a nascent modern community. These Arab settlers came from as far as Egypt (hence the Palestinian Arab surname, "Masri", i.e., "Egyptian"), and even Sudan. They have never exercised sovereignty over the Land. And even those Arab Palestinians who had previously settled in the Land were imperialist invaders from the Arabian Peninsula.
The Zionists were prepared to share the Land with the Arab Palestinians. The latter, however, under the influence of such leaders as Hitler's adviser on Jewish Affairs, Haj Amin el Husseini, demanded exclusivity and resorted to murder when it was not conceded.
Britain, having underwritten the internationally sponsored recognition of Jewish rights in the Land, changed its mind and sided with the Arabs.
Also, Britain, in 1922, established the precursor of the Palestinian Arab state which is called Jordan on 80% of the territory of the Land.

Henry, it's not necessary for anti-imperialist people in the West to prove their progressive credentials by defaming the Jewish political self-determination movement as imperialist or colonialist. When they do this, they besmirch only themselves.

Yehuda

Henry, the Jews (aka the People of Israel, one of their Patriarchs) are the indigenous people of The Land of Israel.
Their predecessors in the Land, the Canaanites, have melded with other folk and have not constituted an identifiable ethnic identity for millennia.
The Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land until overpowered by a stronger military force.
They have never, however, renounced their title to the Land. Any expert on international law will tell you that this is crucial.
A large proportion of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians are settlers and descendants of settlers, who chose to immigrate into the Land of Israel when the Zionist Jews had begun to transform it from a backwater into a nascent modern community. These Arab settlers came from as far as Egypt (hence the Palestinian Arab surname, "Masri", i.e., "Egyptian"), and even Sudan. They have never exercised sovereignty over the Land. And even those Arab Palestinians who had previously settled in the Land were imperialist invaders from the Arabian Peninsula.
The Zionists were prepared to share the Land with the Arab Palestinians. The latter, however, under the influence of such leaders as Hitler's adviser on Jewish Affairs, Haj Amin el Husseini, demanded exclusivity and resorted to murder when it was not conceded.
Britain, having underwritten the internationally sponsored recognition of Jewish rights in the Land, changed its mind and sided with the Arabs.
Also, Britain, in 1922, established the precursor of the Palestinian Arab state which is called Jordan on 80% of the territory of the Land.

Henry, it's not necessary for anti-imperialist people in the West to prove their progressive credentials by defaming the Jewish political self-determination movement as imperialist or colonialist. When they do this, they besmirch only themselves.

Henry SidGwick

Yehuda,
I replied a few days ago but the editor "filed" it. I just wanted to remark on the oddity of your first statement: "The Jews are the indigenous people of the land of Israel...their predecessors in the Land, the Canaanites..." The predecessors of the indigenous population? (Some mistake, surely?) I take it the Canaanites formally renounced their claim to the land before melding. Talking of populations and melding: I am sure you are aware of the academic debate about the origins of the Jewish people, with some arguing that they are Canaanite (I do not presume to take sides in this debate). I am sure you are also aware of the notion that the majority population of Palestine under the Mandate (the Arabs) were the descendants of the ancient Jews. I was surprised to discover that Ben Gurion entertained this notion in the 1920s and thought to convert them to Judaism, until the Arab revolts changed his mind. And I am sure you are also aware of the consequence of the laws of Israel that if a Peruvian tribe convert to Judaism they then have a right to become Israeli citizens and live in Israel. The notion of an indigenous population is ambiguous and can clearly be stretched.
Your summary of more recent history sounds very like Joan Peters.
And, Yehuda, do try to dispense with the habit of crying Foul! All this "defaming" and "besmirching" and goodness knows what else you have in your armoury, does not advance the discussion. I hope I am aware of the justifiable sensitivities, and I say only what has been said already by Jewish, Zionist, and Israeli scholars (which of course does not ensure that they are right).
I have read through the other contributors. Like one of them, I think we should maybe stop talking past each other now. I have enjoyed our conversation and have learned from it.
Best wishes,
Henry.

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.
Don't be so twitchy! "Helpful" "Useful" "Of interest" "Worth a read" "Recommended" "Instructive"
Best wishes,
Henry.

Yehuda

Henry, it's really quite straightforward: since no trace of a Canaanite identity has existed for millennia, the Jews, being next in line of seniority with respect to domicile in and sovereignty over the Land, are the only surviving indigenous people of the Land of Israel.
There is evidence,too, that there was indeed some intermarriage between the Israelites and the Canaanites, and this would only confirm the Jews' position.
Perhaps you could enlighten me about the following:
1. on what grounds did the Anglo-Saxons base their claim to Britain?
2. on what grounds did the British base their claim to sovereignty over Australia, Canada, America?
Do you think that, at least in the realm of theoretical justice and equity the Anglo-Saxon and the British claims were / are morally superior?

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
Okay, I can't stop myself (in large part because I genuinely find your responses helpful).
The history of who's who in Britain is complicated. A great deal of work has been done on the genetic analysis of the population (indeed of the population of Europe as a whole) and the results are fascinating. A similar study in Israel and the rest of the Middle East would be eqully so. But that is an aside. I take it you are saying that the Anglo-Saxons, or the Scots, the Vikings, the Normans, and the British can only lay claim to the land by "right" of conquest, which is no right at all. I agree. Indeed, that was why I recommended a book called "The Invasion of America". In every corner of the world you will find "indigenous" populations who turn out to be conquerors, or a mixture of conquerors and the population they conquered (and also a more or less complex mix of later immigrants). The permutations are endless. Laying claim to a territory now on the basis of the putative ancient rights of a people who are very distant ancestors of some of the people now making the claim is a recipe for war. There is no such thing as a "right to exist" for any given state. Yet obviously states exist. They exist as a result of a history of conquest and migration, and more recently of fragile and tenuous international law. The Mexicans accept that the USA exists. The American Indians accept that the USA exists (to their infinite sorrow). They no doubt do not accept that it has a "Right" to exist, a right to take their land, but they deal with it. Similarly the Palestinian Arabs, or whatever you want to call them, do not necessarily have to admit that the state of Israel has a "right" to exist based on ancient history (or that the diverse people who now follow the Jewish faith have a greater right to the land based on the rights of the ancient Israelites than they do based on the rights of residence in some instances over hundreds of years), but they are willing to deal with it. Ordinary people throughout history have just wanted a decent life. So do the Palestinians, just like their Israeli neighbours. There are two ways for Israel to go: the barbaric way the European colonists in America went, or the infinitely more civilised, and perfectly feasible, way of compromise and coexistence.
I hope I have said nothing to offend.
Best wishes,
Henry.

Yehuda

Henry, your strictures regarding civilised behaviour, decency, compromise and coexistence should be directed against those who have not demonstrated these virtues, namely the bulk of the Arab elites and the bulk of the Arab rank and file. Just consider how they treat one another, let alone how they treat "the sons of pigs and apes." Hardly a day passes without reports of scores of Arabs and other Moslems having been murdered by fellow Arabs or other Moslems.

It is Israel which has demonstrated these virtues abundantly. When I think about the ceaseless attempts by the Arab world(and its collaborators )to destroy the state and carry out the threatened genocide, I marvel at Israel's restraint. It is nothing short of saintly.
Progressive, liberal people the world over seem to think that because Israel has been strong enough to ward off all Arab attacks, then axiomatically it must be the villain.
Well, Henry, would you rather be a dead or dhimmi "saint" or a living "villain"?
Israel is not Utopia, but it is a light unto the nations; the Arab world is neither.

Yehuda

Henry,in perfect accordance with the Zionist choice of political methods,it was an act of international sanction and law that confirmed / acknowledged the Jewish People's inalienable right to self-determination in and sovereignty over The Land of Israel. This is embodied in the 1922 League of Nations Council Mandate.
Arab imperialism, on the other hand, never had, nor does it have today any regard whatsoever for the norms of civilised behaviour, decency, fairness or compromise.

Wonderer

Yehuda, you're right of course, especially in your assessment of Israel's restraint. Will the same be displayed in Europe against the Jihadist tide? I suspect not, but if the Jihadis prevail they will write the history books and there will be no recognition of any restraint. The Jews, the Europeans and the British will get the same write-up as the Romans did for the Carthaginians.
Judaeo-Christian concern for human rights will have to be its own reward.

Yehuda

Henry, the Jews' status as the only surviving indigenous ethnic body of The land of Israel is only one of a whole panoply of grounds for asserting their right. Others are:
* the Divine Promise
* Justice and equity
* Need
* Pragmatism- the nations don't want the Jews in their midst? Fine, they'll live in their own state. The nations, however, don't want them to live there either.
Maybe the nations just want to see them curling their way out of smoke stacks.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
I will let you have the last word, I promise. However, I will just say this first of all. The Palestinian Arabs, or whatever you wish to call them, would willingly accept a peace agreement based on what the UN gave Israel in 1947-48. Indeed they have long since accepted that a realistic agreement will have to allow Israel the 1967 border (with some recognition of refugees' rights). This would leave them with 22% of Mandate Palestine. Ehud Barak at Camp David offered them 14% bisected by Israeli settlements out of an East Jerusalem reduced to pockets surrounded by areas annexed by Israel. The West Bank was also to be crisscrossed by corridors linking Israeli settlements and bound by a "security zone" the length of the Jordan valley, enclosing much of the West Bank's most fertile agricultural land. And the corridor between the West Bank and Gaza was to be entirely under the control of Israel. Israel would also control land borders, sea and air. If Arafat refused this offer, Barak had a plan for unilateral separation along the same lines, which is even now being implemented in more extreme form.
I don't think the League of Nations or the UN ever acknowledged the "inalienable right" of the Jewish people to the "Land of Israel", but I may be wrong. And I would like to know why Israel and the US alone amongst the nations of the world continue to deny the Palestinain Arabs a right to self-determination. This returns us to a question one of the previous writers raised: if they have no right to self-determination and are offered only pockets of land, or enclaves, which I maintain are not economically viable if cut off from the Israeli economy, and which you maintain can become the new Singapore, what is intended for the millions of Palestinians? Are they to be left to rot, just because their self-appointed rulers, whether Fatah or Hamas, are so corrupt and incompetent (by the way, who helped corrupt Fatah, and who foolishly nurtured Hamas as a way of weakening Fatah? - Israel).
In passing, you do know that the Arab states have long since accepted the UN resolutions for a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, and the Arab League has produced several peace proposals?
I agree that Israel has been a great deal more restrained than Europeans ever were in centuries past (right up to the 20th century, and no doubt beyond). Israel has only intermittently resorted to violence, and has in addition employed a web of legalistic ploys and strategems and illegal land grabs to get what it wants.
Go and study in detail the history of Israel's wars with the Arabs or, if you wish, the Arabs' wars with Israel. Read only historians who are Jewish if you wish, and read what the Israeli elite said amongst themselves in planning and prosecuting these wars. Go and study in detail the history of Israeli military law applied to the Arabs of Israel in the first decades of the state's existence. Study who was allowed to do what and who was allowed to own what. Trace how land became "State Land". Study the history of the West Bank settlements. If you are feeling particularly open-minded, read the reports of Palestinian lawyers working in Israel. If not, read Israeli official documents. The public record is there for you to read. When the consequences are so serious, there is a duty to do the utmost to ensure that your beliefs are soundly based (Israelis and their supporters). To be blunt, reliance on Zionist propaganda does not meet that requirement.

Finally, if anyone spoke of Jews as you speak of Arabs you would accuse them of racism.
Best wishes,
Henry.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
Just to be clear: as I understand it the League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to establish "a national home for the Jewish people", who at that time constituted 10% of the population, many of them orthodox Jews opposed to Zionism. The mandate talked of the Palestinians only as "a section of the population", "natives", or "peoples and communities". But we are agreed, are we not, on Britain's right to its empire, namely, no right at all.
Henry.

Yehuda

The League of Nations mandate that was given to Britain was not intended to make The Land of Israel part of the British Empire, obviously. Britain was simply entrusted with the temporary stewardship of the Land until conditions became ripe for the emerging Jewish nation-state's independence.
At the time the prevailing aspiration among the Arab leadership was for "an Arab state", not a multiplicity of them.
So, the Arabs would have what amounted to an empire, but in a tiny corner of the Middle East there would be a state where the Jews would be the majority.
Progressive people nowadays, like their Arab patrons, want a situation where Arabs all over the Middle East have national self-determination, but Jews don't have it anywhere.
Sorry, guys, but the Jews have it and won't give it up without a hell of a fight.

Yehuda

Henry, you haven't been listening to the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Read their lips: they want no sovereign Jewish presence in "their" Middle East, and, if they had their way, no Jewish physical presence at all. Well, they'll have to get used to it.

My extensive and continuing study of primary and secondary sources (from all sides of the polemic) over many years has continually fortified my conviction that Zionism is a noble, humanitarian, just cause, and that among its opponents are some of the most benighted, barbaric and retrograde people of this planet.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
You say the Arabs wished to have a single state. I take it you agree with the Western imperialists' decision not to grant their wish. What happened to self-determination? Or is that not for Arabs?

Your description of your opponents as "the most benighted, barbaric and retrograde people of this planet" reminds me powerfully of the old British imperialists who could still be heard in the 1930s encyclopedias in my grandparents' library banging on about the white man's sacred duty to raise the benighted denizens of Africa or India from their bestial existence.

Zionism, the ambition of a purely Jewish state, is racist. And racism is not noble. Zionists' treatment of the indigenous population, sorry, the melded population, is not humanitarian. And under no universal code of law could its cause be called just.

And stop listening to rabid minorities among your opponents, who threaten all sorts of mayhem they can't deliver, just long enough to listen instead to the majority who ask for a negotiated settlement. Or does it feed the maximalist cause of Zionism to listen only to the rabid and exasperated, and say in sorrow and anger that there is no-one to negotiate with?

I suggest you extend your study beyond polemics (even if it is the polemics of both sides) and read what the protagonists actually said and did. The Zionists and successive Israeli governments have made little secret of what they are about.

One final curio. Are you an advocate of Israel's "Biblical borders"? Were you aware of the most extreme range some Rabbis have laid down as Biblical (I certainly wasn't)? It encompasses the Sinai and part of northern Egypt to the outskirts of Cairo; all of Jordan and a chunk of Saudi Arabia; all of Kuwait and part of Iraq south of the Euphrates; all of Lebanon, and of Syria, and a chunk of Turkey up to lake Van; and Cyprus. Obviously most Rabbinical geographers are less ambitious, but should the non-indigenous populations who currently reside in these areas be told to go and meld somewhere else, just in case the Rabbinate arrives at a consensus?

Finally, I have to say that reading through your contributions conveys the impression of bigotry (and believe me, we here in Scotland are experts on bigotry). Why, you are even scathing about progressives, whatever they are!This is not constructive. It never leads to peace.
Henry.

Yehuda

Henry, spare me the nonsense. The Arabs exercise self-determination in more than 20 independent states. People like you don't want the Jews to have self-determination in any state because your cultural / religious / social conditioning has programmed you to view them as inferior and /or evil. By any and every criterion of justice, equity, humanity and common sense Israel's case is water-tight. The sophistry of anti-Zionist people who call themselves "leftists" or "progressives" is hypocrisy, malevolence, bigotry.
Go and fight for the self-determination of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, the Corsicans, the Chechens and countless other suppressed peoples, then you can preen yourself.

Henry Sidgwick

Yehuda,
Oh, dear!
I take it you agree the Tibetans, Kurds, Basques, Corsicans, Chechens and countless other suppressed peoples should be allowed self-determination...or don't you? I'm just not sure where people who are not Israeli stand with you: are they to have self-determination or are they to be considered melded?
I have a feeling that you are accusing, not just any anti-zionists who call themselves leftists or progressives, you are accusing me, aren't you (although I don't call myself either)? And what you are accusing me of is hypocrisy and malevolence, as well as throwing back the charge of bigotry.
A "bigot" is, in its most common usage, a person obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a creed or opinion (OED). It is good to be obstinate for truth. I suppose we might both claim that. But Zionism is a creed that only the unreasonable or the interested can now remain wedded to.
To be clear, whatever I think of the Zionist justification for creating a state of Israel, I have not once questioned the right of the Israeli people now to live in peace and prosperity. If that is what you mean by "Israel's case" then it is indeed watertight. But I'm afraid you mean something more, which requires that the Israelis' neighbours cannot live in peace and prosperity. Justice, equity, humanity and common sense then cry out against Israel's case.
It is not malevolence to repeat the universal rule of any system of ethics worthy the name: do to others as you would be done by. It is not malevolence to point out that Israel can live in peace with its neighbours by compromise.
And hypocrisy - I suppose it just dripped off your pen because it sounded good, without having to mean anything much.
But then, alas, you sink from waffle to poison. "People like" me "don't want the Jews to have self-determination in any state." That is simply false. Either you have not been paying attention, or you are deliberately peddling falsehoods. (Why is it that you insist on using "Jewish people" and "state of Israel" as co-extensive terms?) And what is it with this "People like you"? Now we come to it: the state of Israel cannot negotiate because it cannot see anyone it can negotiate with. And apologists for the state of Israel cannot argue their case with anyone, because anyone who argues with them is an anti-semite. Thus can the state of Israel march on in righteousness!
I have said nothing to warrant your slur.
You have however managed to "poison the wells", which has ever been the gambit of the disputant who has neither reason nor decency on his side.
Henry.

Yehuda

Henry, reading your posts fortifies my conviction that the Jews must have their nation-state, and that Israel has right on its side.

Helen

The only one of you with any idea of the history of Israel is Henry Sidgwick. Yehuda in particular need to learn the difference between history and wishful thinking. Read some Israeli historians. I recommend for starters Tom Segev: One Palestine Complete; Avi Shlaim: the Iron Wall and Shlomo Ben Ami: Scars of War
Wounds of peace