A strategy of political genius

Occasional Ostrich

If, in 1945, the British had unilaterally abrogated the 1919 League of Nations mandate and handed Palestine over to the then incumbents, what do you think would have happened over the next 60 years?
Would it have been better than the present situation? Or worse?

Sheila

Occasional Ostrich, before you stick your head back in the ground I suggest you have a look at the evidence that proves you wrong.

It demonstrably would have been worse for Jews and the rest of the world, as this Palestinian MP testifies:

"Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world.

"Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesised by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.

"I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instil these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and The Koran books, and the history of our prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand."

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qbKrOF64w

Don't do a Dershowitz and run away from the evidence Ostrich. Just tell us where we are wrong.

Ruairidh

Shelia I think that may have been Ostrich's point. Ms Philips frequently attacks the British administration of the area and all to readily sees in it the shadows of a jew hating conspiracy. Truth is things would have been much worse had we just left the area after defeating the Turks in WW1.

logdon

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/an_unraveling_presidency.html

"When Iranian people revolt against a truly revolting government, one that lies to its own Moslem voters about election results and shoots women protesters in the streets, what can a man like Obama do? Americans expect leadership, but Obama is in no sense of the word a leader. When a police force that is probably as politically correct and racially sensitive as any in the nation arrests a black professor, Obama makes a sincere, and profoundly silly and dangerous, comment. Inviting the policeman and the professor to the White House for a beer stops the bleeding but does not hide the scar. The more helpless and hopeless Obama appears, the more unhappy Americans will be with him as a leader (his personal popularity, though, will probably remain high much longer.)

Third, as I have noted often in the past, Americans are conservative. The Battleground Poll has put the percentage of Americans who are conservative at around sixty percent. Pointedly, when Ed Goeas after the last Battleground Poll, last November, broke the numbers down even more precisely --What percentage are social conservatives? What percentage are "fiscal conservatives? What percentages of Republicans or independents or Democrats were conservative? -- nothing changed. However the data are examined, Americans are, overwhelmingly, conservative: not moderate, not liberal, not unsure, but conservative. See page 12 and page 13 of the post-election survey.

Fourth, Barack Obama is simply not very knowledgeable, and it increasingly shows. This is not a rap on his intelligence or his efforts in school. Prestigious schools have become, in areas like law and social sciences, little more than re-education camps. His gaffes were ignored by the Leftist media during the campaign. If Dan Quayle had talked about our fifty-seven states, it would have been fodder for late night jokes forever. But the more Obama talks, the more obvious it becomes that he simply knows very little. As an example, he recently said that winning the war on terrorism would not be like World War Two, when Emperor Hirohito signed articles of surrender. Yet as even an amateur student of history knows, Hirohito did not sign the articles of surrender. The famous event on the Battleship Missouri was watched by the whole world. It was recorded on film. The Emperor was conspicuous by his absence. It was rather like last year when Obama talked about "the bomb" that fell on Pearl Harbor or his May 2009 comment about his uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz.

The more Americans see of Obama as president, the more they see a plastic ideologue who is utterly out of step with their vision of America and who lacks the basic knowledge to govern a nation. Republicans have won nothing yet (they must first decide to stand for something and then articulate that position clearly.) It is encouraging that a number of Republican senators have announced they will vote against Judge Sotomayor, taking a principled stand in a losing battle.

It is vital to keep the lines between the parties bright and clear. Our champion, our leader, will come if conservatives show gumption. Few, if any, presidents have been as truly vulnerable as the man in the White House now."

And that's without his gaffe on Israel being a European child of the Holocaust. Or splitting Jerusalem into an apartheidt city.

He's a jumped up community organiser, nothing more, nothing less.

He retains all the small minded bigotry and bias learned at the feet of Alinsky and Wright and his true colours and ignorance are now showing.

As they say, read it all.

James Murphy

if it looks like a pin-head, struts like a pin-head, and issues policy directives like a pin-head, then it's safe to assume it IS a pin-head. A one-term pin-head!

Augustus

logdon- Good post!

flabslab

Well, Barry did promise to be a uniter.

Who knew though that his intention was to unite the whole world in dumbfounded derision, disgust and disbelief at his inantile policies, his clear racism and his non-stop narcisistic all-obama-all-the-time grand standing?

I swear that if he tells one more whopping great porkie, prefaced as always by the phrase "let me make myself clear" (actually invisible would be better.) the entire planet will collectively throw up, then join hands and sing Kumbaya round an enormous bonfire made from Michelle's shoe and handbag collection.

What is so sad is that the first African-American President should turn out to be more like a typical African President (think Mugabe or Gadafi) than an American one. How will the bruddas ever live it down? They'll have to blame the jooooooish conspiracy.

Rev Wright's chickens sure are a comin' home to roost, only to find that the hen house has been repossessed by the government run bank and turned into a rehabilitation centre for dissident foxes.

field

A number of points arise from this.

1. Melanie is completely correct that the moral and legal basis for the existence of Israel has nothing to do with the Holocaust. Maybe though Israel should take some blame for having confused the rest of the world on this point.

2. The legal basis for the existence of Israel is its sanctioned creation by the UN. That basis is much firmer than that of most countries. As a sovereign UN member it cannot, legally, be attacked or destroyed. I know that does not make Israel immune to genocidal attack on the ground but these things are important.

3. The Israeli legal claim to all of Jerusalem is shaky to say the least and must rely entirely on the right of conquest. The UN had previously decreed that Jerusalem should be an international city. Given its historical associations and the ethnic divide, I think that is the only way to go: to create an international entity for much of Jerusalem but to allow both Israel and Palestine to use the city as their capital.

4. Whether the Zionist project of creating a Jewish homeland in Palestine was ever a sensible one is difficult to say. Clearly surviving Jews in post war Eastern Europe had nowhere to go - they were still being murdered, robbed of their homes, made unwelcome while their countries of birth were given over to Communist dictatorships which had a strong anti-semitic streak. For many of them Israel (or Palestine as it was in 45/46) was the only hope. However, I remain of the view - given the implacable nature of Islamic ideology - that it would have been better for a Jewish state to have been carved out of somewhere in Germany like Bavaria. The Germans and others would have accepted this was an ethical thing to do and by now a Jewish state in central Europe would be a leading and contented member of the EU. But, things happened as they did for understandable reasons. From an ethical point of view Israel's foundation was a whole lot better than that of New Zealand, Australia, the US and Russia - to name a few.

Original Tony

Logdon..2;50 pm...a brilliant post my friend!

Groovy Times

Field, I agree with your first three points, but not entirely with point four. Jewish identity comprises of three inter-dependent strands: God, Moses, Israel - religion, law, nation. To remove one of these principles from it's historic origins and place it in the heart of Europe would deligitimise the Jewish right to self determination and national sovereignty in the long run and make your last point about the Jewish nation having more legitimacy than New Zealand etc obsolete.

Linda Smith

Field: you completely overlook the fact, as many people do, that nearly half the Jewish population of Israel is of Middle Eastern origin. Why should they have transferred to Bavaria?

The Middle Eastern Jews suffered for centuries under the Muslim yoke of dhimmitude, alleviated only by the happy circumstance of European imperialism. Pity the Jews of Yemen who suffered cruel dhimmitude until they were whisked away to Israel by the new Israelis on Operation Magic Carpet in 1948.

It's about time the Muslim/Arab version of history was debunked. Loudly

field

Linda Smith - I think you'll find Bavaria is closer to Morocco than Israel.

Anyway, I'm not trying to rewrite history. I just put that in as I think it is false to say that Israel was the only viable option for a Jewish state. The Morgentau plan did envisage the break up of Germany - so it's not that far fetched an idea.

Anyway, the important issue now is really that the Arab side should commit to peace based on - among other principles - the principle that Israel should survive and prosper as a separate state with a Jewish character. Only when they do will any real progress be made.

Linda Smith

My dear Field, if you had any knowledge of Islam, then you would understand that "the Arab side " cannot "commit to peace based on - among other principles - the principle that Israel should survive and prosper as a separate state with a Jewish character" without abandoning its own Islamic principles. A Jewish state with a Jewish flag flying over land previously conquered in holy jihad for Islam is anathema to the Muslims. That is the crux of the Muslim/Jewish conflict which Western observers fail to include in their prognostications,.

Ian C

Sheila, logdon, field and Linda Smith - a reaaly good series of contributions.

The whole matter is at a real crossroads and the man in the White House, once more, does not appear to have a clue.

Israel mus be its own decision maker and thankfully Obama has made that easier when he was trying to make it more difficult.