The British decide that Israeli law is 'unacceptable'

Forlornehope

Melanie, you are quite right on this one. It seems that the Israelis concerned have legal title and that this must be respected. However, how would you respond to Arabs seeking to reclaim properties that are now inside Israel?

Jill

Thank you for writing about this Melanie.

it shows that the "road to peace" is not limited just to ostensible polical action or wars, but is impeded by political interference in what should be local issues, especially in that most beleaguered of civil states, Israel.

The entire world of 'peace" lovers decry the US invasion of Aghanistan, Iraq, and constantly decries the miltary movement of any country into any other country (significanlty, they do not decry the actions of Muslim military agents.)
how come, then , they give themselves a free pass to interfere and jeopardsie the internal workings of Israel, through miltary means(suicide bombing), political interference(example above) ideological and economic interference (boycotts, protests, ISm activity and the infamous Jeff Halper-type filth) and most of all, anti-Israel slander?
How come that is OK?

By the way, I wonder how many trees have died just so some anti-Israel meathead can feel good about himself/herself?
Hmmm

Lawrence Bentley

When has the truth ever been a factor in the Middle East? Only perceptions of an argument to fit one side or the other is permitted. When the Israeli courts rule in favour in regard to a dispute for the Arab side then the court is a fair and just court. When not then it is a Zionist organisation following the party line.

The only question that I ask is if someone can prove title to land in side Israel from before 1948 would they also be given the home or land back or given compensation at the market price?
With the court cases you sometimes get just law but not always justice.

John Smith

The ultimate decision was made by the Supreme Court. Who runs the Supreme Court?

And some of the ownership documents dated back to 1948... who could tell if they were faked or not after over half a century has passed? And would the Arabs living in these properties even be aware if the documents were genuine or illegal? If you were evicted from your property after your family had lived there for 50 years by a court biased against your rights, your reaction would be of confusion and anger.

Jon_Boy

It is ok I understand the logic. The fact is Jews living in Arab areas is unacceptable and therefore it is morally acceptable to evict persons who ethnically identify themselves as Jewish.

It is unacceptable however to evict anyone who identifies themselves as ethnically Arab.

Glad we got that one straight.

Anyone who has visited Israel will know that most settler activity is being undertaken by Arabs. In many major cities and towns within Israel many Arab residents continually seek to move into Jewsih neighbourhoods. This can be seen in places like Nazareth where the Arabs purposefully move into Jewish neighbourhoods in order to initimidate them to leave.

Similar to the exodus of Hasidic Jews in areas of North London being initimidated out by South Asian Muslims.

In Israel Arabs regularly ignore all planning regs that apply to all citizens and the authorities often feel it is too much hassle to enforce these against the Arabs but do enforce them against Jewish citizens.

The Arabs must be secretly splitting their sides with laughter they get the outside world to condemn any attempts by Israeli authorities to halt illegal settlement activity by Muslims within Israel as illegal and imoral. Yet at the same time label any attempts by Jews to live wherever they wish as illegal and imoral too.

This is simply the mentality of the school playground bully where everything you do justifies you getting a beating. If you mind your own business you get a kicking. If you fight back you get a kicking for fighting back and if you try to complain to the teacher who is scared of the large and bad tempreded bully your just advised not to antagonise the bully. And if things get too out of hand the teacher turns on you and drags you out of the class room by the ear because the teacher is too initimidated to do it to the bully.

The left and the Europeans may dress up their dislike of Israel and Jews in flowery language and circular logic but in the end the real reasons are just like a school bully 'they just don't like our face'

I sincerely hope that the Muslim residents of Western Europe and North america start making the lives of all their fellow citizens a living misery very soon and then I too will be splitting my side with laughter.

Miranda Rose Smith

I urge all Ms. Phillips' readers to email the British Consulate, at britain.jerusalem@fco.gov.uk, and tell them to mind their own business.

Hugh

I liked the Conservative Home's posting on the eviction of the Palestinians from their homes - very satisfying to see the British Right waking up to what Israel's all about.

tiki

Remember Pearl Harbour!Thousands of US-citizens of JAPANESE descent were rounded up, thrown out of their houses and put in concentration camps by the US governement.(only for being ex-japanese). Aussies pulled the same trick with their ex-German citizens.Let's NOT even start talking about the Brits with their "rule and devide" policies all over the world, from which the world never has healed and is suffering till this day! Shame on all those "accusers" with their crocodile tears. It's about time people learn some history, clean up their OWN old and dirty laundry, stop being so biased, then maybe we can build a better world. If not, this whole planet is doomed.

Bill M

Our State Department is pathetic. They are guilty of an embarrassing and willful ignorance of the facts.

just Louise

As usual the BBC gives the viewpoint of Israel's detractors first.
Shouldn't somebody be challenging the Beeb with the correct account of the matter, and demanding that they amend their reports forthwith?

Terry, Eilat - Israel

I don't mean to be sarcastic but you didn't really expect any other reaction, did you? Truth, legal right, justice - you're being naive if you expect anything of the kind from anyone re: Israel. Double-standards are par for the course. One-sided arguments have become normal political discourse.
In my opinion, this is all due to Israel being ''reasonable'' to seek accomodation, to opening the door to concessions since the Oslo fiasco.
And the more we try to be ''reasonable'' to talk about ''peace'' to be ''moderate'' - the more we will be vilified, maligned, our interests ignored, history re-written, until we are finally ''concessioned'' out of existence.

Nasser Barrazine

Having been initially outraged at what i perceived (and made to believe by the 'objective' media, et al.) as an Israeli annexation, i am humbled by this publication's efforts and journalistic research into the Sheikh Jarrah district. I genuinely find the public too easy to manipulated by the so-called 'objective' media; why is the media so slanted towards anti-Israel bias? Please continue your great work, it is greatly appreciated!

David

The odd point on this is that there are plenty of Palestinians displaced in 1948 who remain in possession of legal documentation involving proof of ownership of homes and land which is now part of Israel. Taking Mel's argument to its conclusion, she's arguing for the right of return for Palestinians. Unless the legalities don't apply to them, but that would just be bigoted, and Mel wouldn't dream of treating Palestnians worse than Israelis. Right?

Michael B

Oh, good grief. This makes zero sense on anything beyond an arch ideological/political basis. It's as if regressive and reactionary left wingnuts from the Guardian and the NYT have taken over the respective governments.

If the U.S. and British governments are condemning this then they either 1) know little or nothing of the legal history involved in this case, which seems highly improbable, or 2) they are being willfully ignorant and obtuse, also unlikely, though less so, or 3) they are effectively and jointly declaring war upon Israel's sovereignty, at least at some attenuated level. This case has gone through an incredibly protracted and meticulous legal process and review. The most basic principles relating to the rule of law are at issue, sovereignty as well, not to mention rational and responsible forms of discourse.

George

Forlornehope and Lawrence Bentley,

The answer to your question is that the Israeli courts will uphold the law. If those who prove title are unable to exercise their rights, I'm sure that the Israeli courts will order proper compensation.

blue_&_white_avenger

To Forlonehope. I think you have a good point. The obvious rejoinder is that, in any overall peace settlement (should we ever live to see the day), then a disinterested body (NOT the UN GA) should adjudicate on properties left by Arabs in 1947-8 & those left by Jews in Arab lands (1948 - 1956 and beyond). I know for a fact that Iraqi Jews who left under a British-brokered agreement in 1951 took only 1 suitcase & £10 each, leaving valuable industries & properties.

Raymond Joseph Douglas

I watched this item on BBC news 24 . I was struck by how quick the newsreader rattled through her script , leaving me confused about what was really happening here . But, the BBC cameraman was quick to focus on the obligatory crying child to give us the message loud and clear about what the BEEB wanted us to take away from their story ! Namely, horrible Israelis, victimised Palestinians !

Joshua

"The only question that I ask is if someone can prove title to land in side Israel from before 1948 would they also be given the home or land back or given compensation at the market price?"

And what of the many hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries who were ethnically cleansed? Do you imagine they have any chance of getting back even a small fraction of their property which was stolen?

And what of the Jews murdered in the Holocaust by the Nazis and their innumerable allies? Do you imagine that anyone is rushing to give back the many hundreds of billions of dollars of private property that was stolen from those Jews by the citizens of countless nations in Europe?

I have absolutely no problem with Israel giving compensation to those Arabs who lost property so long as it is part of a comprehensive settlement that includes property taken from European Jews and Jews originally from the Arab nations.

Michael

But Melanie, what about the Palestinians who held property within what is now Israel before 1948? Much of this property has since been taken over by Israeli citizens. it smacks of double standards to see the courts enforcing the legal claims of Jews against Arabs, but ignoring equally valid historical titles to land when it is the other way round.

I consider myself a firm supporter of Israel. I have frequently taken unpopular positions arguing in favour of Operation Cast Lead and other Israeli actions. In this case however, Israel does seem to be acting unreasonably, since it's courts do not recognise the claims of Arabs to land abandoned during the 1948 war and the consequent refugee situation.

Original Tony

I support the Jews in this instance but Forlornhope's question is very good and needs to be answered

Ian C

JOHN SMITH AND JON_BOY

Did you actually read the content above?!

boxermk

David, by your argument, the well over 800,000 Jews driven out of Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Algeria, which is well documented as this took place since 1940, should be able to return to all of their lands colonized by Arab imperialists that have systematically cleansed that entire region of Jews. But that's not what Mel is arguing at all.

It's funny how the press is not at all concerned about the Christian family in Pakistan that was attacked by a mob and torched to death, as just reported by the New York Times.

Jason from AZ

Melanie, it is great that you and few others, like the Jerusalem Post, take the time to set the record straight. Of course, the MSM won't do it.

But what is appalling is that the Israel government, including Bibi, is not shouting from the rooftops decrying this duplicitious treatment by world governments, and giving the true history and facts.

When is Israel going to grow some balls like the Israel of old and fight back, not just militarily, but against all the vicious propaganda against it. The problem with Israel right now is that it has weak leaders and no strong spokesman to present its case. It cannot just rely on a few bloggers and columnists to get the truth out.

Joe Strummer

The same old, same old biased reporting from the MSM.

Augustus

Why is Britain and the West so ready to distort Jewish interests when it comes to disputes with its Arab neighbours? Why should a thriving Jewish population mean that good neighbourliness is so difficult? Why is it inimical to
peaceful relations? Why is a Jewish presence always so diplomatically and legally obnoxious? Why is a Jewish presence always depicted as heightening mistrust and suffering? And whose fault is it
if this mistrust and suffering occurs? What is this magical compromise that Israel needs to make to have what every other state has a right to expect? Must only Israel among nations lose sovereignty and territorial integrity, and even its capacity to defend itself, in order to buy peace?

There are plenty of Islamic states, but none are as advanced
in democratic terms as Israel. Indeed, Israel was not only established as a national homeland for Jews, it brought also a much needed and improved democratic infrastructure to a benighted region. Is it so difficult to understand that the
Arab citizens of Israel are not objects of racist demagoguery, but simply a minority in a Jewish community? In many European countries today it is questionable whether minorities are totally loyal to the state they choose to make their home. So it would be best for them to
put their own houses in order before so high-handedly interfering in the settlement rights of the Jews. And let nobody forget that when Jordan shattered the peace and stability in the region in 1948,
it was their British trained armed forces which invaded the remaining quarter of Palestine not already under its sovereign control, comprising the West Bank and the old city of Jerusalem, and then proceeded to occupy it for 19 years and forcing all the Jews to leave in the process.

Lyn

It may interest those who have raised the matter of property lost by Jews in Arab countries that the new Iraqi government has refused to consider any claims from 1950 - 51, when over 90 percent ofIraqi Jews left. Of those whose property was confiscated under Saddam, only one woman has had her house restituted. No Jews from Egypt now living in Israel have to my knowledge have been compensated for their property. I agree that there has to be a comprehensive agreement for both Jews and Arabs who have claims. At the moment Jewish losses far outweigh Arab.

Si, N

Straight forward ethnic cleansing - a vile business - almost as vile are the terrible apologetics on here.

Barbarians

Maurice, MD

Some posters have raised questions about land and property that had belonged to Arabs who left Israel in 1947048. That is, the ones who obeyed the orders of the Arab high command to leave their home for a couple of weeks until the Jews had been thrown into the sea.

The property left behind is looked after by Israel's "Custodian of Abandoned Property."
It has always been Israeli policy to include compensation for abandoned property in a peace settlement.

Private parties and organizations argue that claims of this kind be balanced against the massive confiscation of Jewish property in Arab countries. As far as I know, this has not become an official doctrime -- though it should be.

Raymond in DC

How remarkable - and disheartening - that the same State Department that for weeks offered only saccharine comments regarding the Iranian regime's crackdown on peaceful protesters was so quick to involve itself in a *legally* binding decision of Israel's Supreme Court. It's almost as if they've assembled a "fast response" team focused exclusively on Israel.

Then again, this is the same State Department that rejected the *legal* decision by Honduras' legislative and judicial branches who then acted against the country's putative dictator.

It's clear that the BBC and British government, like the US' State Department, have no truck with the legal decisions of democratic governments when they run contrary to political expediency or the reigning ideological mindset.

Maurice, MD

It has become very obvious that the nations that are in the most steep decline, whose society is increasingly degenerate and corrupt, are those most likely to hate Israel.
Sorry to say, this has long been the case with Britain, as with the EU. Sad that it is starting to infect the US as well -- though in the US at least it is still reversible.

Stephen

One of the more interesting asides in this piece is the recognition that anti-Israel feeling is not just the preserve of the left. The Times, we are told, distorted this story and even Conservative Home’s Centre Right blog has generated some very hostile comments.

So now we know because Melanie has told us: ant-Israel polemic comes from both the right and the left. It is the preserve of neither. And we will never again accuse anyone who expresses an opionion that disagrees with an action or policy of the Israeli government of being leftist.

George

No Sin, it's a straight forward decision of evicting squatters. As usual, you get it wrong.

yours,
A vile, apologetic barbarian

solemnman

Six thousand Jewish families had their homes and businesses destroyed when they were ethnically cleansed by the Israeli army and the world applauded.An Israeli court, which ,on innumerable other occasions ruled in favour of Arab compainants ,rules finallly -after long and meticulous adjudication-in favour of a Jewish complainant and the world's opprobrium pours down like lava from a volcano.

badile

UN Security Council Resolution 799 explicitly:

-- Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention;

Consequently, the guiding law for East Jerusalem is the Fourth Geneva Convention not Israeli law. The transfer of Israeli immigrants into these Palestinian's houses is therefore not merely ‘illegal’ Jewish ‘settlement,’ as Melanie Phillips asserts it is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a WAR CRIME.

The United Nations, the US and the UK are absolutely correct to condemn the Israeli handling of this matter.

wonderer

Those British and American officials feel that the Israeli government should be able to interfere in the judicial process. After all, the British government did so when it closed down Scotland Yard's investigation into allegations of bribery of Saudi notables by BAe.

Nannette

How typical of the antisemites to condemn the first eviction of Arabs in Israel. Jews have been evicted from their homes in Israel for decades now, and no-one utters even a squeak.

However, true to antisemitic form, the British government strongly condemn this expulsion, BECAUSE they're Muslim Arabs.

Someone should remind the British how they applauded and incited the Mufti of Jerusalem and his Muslim henchmen to massacre Jews by the dozens in Hebron, Haifa, Jerusalem, etc., but did absolutely NOTHING to stop the killings.

It's time the British government stood up and apologised for their part in the massacres of Jews by Arabs when Israel was under the British mandate, and also for their part in the killings of tens of thousands of Jews REFUSED entry to Palestine and sent back to certain death in Nazi occupied Europe!

Henry Sidgwick

We must rejoice if in this case the prejudices of the judiciary have indeed coincided with the dictates of justice. But it would be good also to read, for example, Hussein Abu Hussein on how the "law" has been used in the territories occupied in 1948, and Rajah Shehadeh on the territories occupied in 1967, to deprive Palestinian Arabs of their property, - and then reflect on the meaning of the word "hypocrisy".

Linda Smith

The Palestinian Authority Basic Law states that Sharia Law is their legal framework.

The Arabs estimate that the 1948 refugees and their descendants number several million people. If all those people were to be given "the right to return" Israel would become a Muslim majority country, Muslims outnumbering and outvoting the Jews. That is the objective of the Arabs and always has been. That is why they demand the "right to return" and maintain the "refugee" camps.

Would you want Sharia Law voted in where you live. I think not. Neither do the Jews of Israe.

Only a dummy wants to be a dhimmi.

Do you want Sharia Law

Ian Miller

I realise that Melanie Phillips and many posters here disagree, but the official British position, in common with most countries of the world, is that East Jerusalem is not part Israel, rather that it is occupied territory. If it is occupied territory then Israeli Supreme Court does not have the authority to authorise moving Israeli citizens into that territory; it is simply beyond the court's jurisdiction.

In this context the rights or wrongs of the ownership dispute are really not relevant. It really was very ill-advised of the court to hear the case at all, in the absence of an internationally accepted settlement of the territorial issues. A few individuals have profited at the entirely predictable cost of immense damage to Israel's international standing.

Yehuda

I am appalled by the irrational and mendacious antisemitic outbursts of the British and American authorities. They are inconsistent with British and American pretensions to leadership of the democratic world, and violate their supposed code of values.
This episode should demonstrate to the world that, unfortunately, it is not only the material power of the West that is in recession, but, more importantly, its moral power.

Yehuda

The State of Israel appointed a Custodian of Properties that were abandoned by Arabs who left Israel when the Arab "Palestinians" and the Arab states' armies initiated the 1947-48 war and invaded Israel.

Israel has a longstanding policy that it will compensate the owners as part of an overall peace settlement.

On the other hand, Jordan, which murdered many of the Jews who had been living in Judea / Samaria / the west bank prior to the war, and expelled others, stole the property of these Jews, and misappropriated it. Egypt did the same when it conquered the Gaza Strip.
(The other Arab states did the same.)

These territories, in any case, should have been part of Israel under longstanding international law, namely the 1922 League of Nations binding Resolution regarding the reconstitution of the Jewish State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, including, obviously, Jerusalem.

For too long has Israel tolerated illegal "Palestinian " squatters and encroachers on Jewish land. It's time to reassert Israeli sovereignty. The cause of peace will be advanced only if Israel asserts its legal rights. This is a case study of "the world" becoming accustomed to a status quo where "Palestinians" squat and encroach, Israel is passive, and the former "establish facts", and are then supported by antisemitic outbursts when Israel finally implements the law.

I hope that Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry gives the antisemites the dressing-down which they deserve.

Paul Freeman

badile:

Sorry, eviction is not deportation, and no "Jewish immigrants" have been "transfer(red)".

Yehuda

The State of Israel appointed a Custodian of Properties that were abandoned by Arabs who left Israel when the Arab "Palestinians" and the Arab states' armies initiated the 1947-48 war and invaded Israel.

Israel has a longstanding policy that it will compensate the owners as part of an overall peace settlement.

On the other hand, Jordan, which murdered many of the Jews who had been living in Judea / Samaria / the west bank prior to the war, and expelled others, stole the property of these Jews, and misappropriated it. Egypt did the same when it conquered the Gaza Strip.
(The other Arab states did the same.)

These territories, in any case, should have been part of Israel under longstanding international law, namely the 1922 League of Nations binding Resolution regarding the reconstitution of the Jewish State from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, including, obviously, Jerusalem.

For too long has Israel tolerated illegal "Palestinian " squatters and encroachers on Jewish land. It's time to reassert Israeli sovereignty. The cause of peace will be advanced only if Israel asserts its legal rights. This is a case study of "the world" becoming accustomed to a status quo where "Palestinians" squat and encroach, Israel is passive, and the former "establish facts", and are then supported by antisemitic outbursts when Israel finally implements the law.

I hope that Israel's Foreign Affairs Ministry gives the antisemites the dressing-down which they deserve.

Ian G

It's still the propaganda build-up to war, even if you don't have the guts to post it. Israel will win

Sam Armstrong

Jon_Boy
August 4th, 2009 10:59am

"I sincerely hope that the Muslim residents of Western Europe and North america start making the lives of all their fellow citizens a living misery very soon and then I too will be splitting my side with laughter."

How kind of you to wish harm on those Britons (like Melanie and most commenters on this board) who actually support Israel. Well get ready to crease up in fits of giggles, because what you hope will happen has already happened.

Not sure if you heard about the soldier's homecoming parade. A very patriotic and emotional street festival descended into chaos following cruel and sadistic taunts by Muslims in veils and keffiyehs. That is one example.

You must understand that there are many millions of Westerners who are suffering beacuse of huge levels of Muslim immigration into Britain. And hard Jihad has taken place on our streets and claimed our fellow citizens lives. We are all living the same nightmare now.

Ben Alofs

Phillips has omitted to mention that earlier this year the lawyer of the Palestinian party was given access to the Ottoman archives in Ankara. This was a surprising development, because until now the Turkish government did not want to spoil its relations with Israel. But following the very public row between president Peres and Turkish PM Erdogan at the Economic Forum in Davos about Israel actions in Gaza in January everything changed.
The Ottoman Archives in Ankara yielded several documents, one proving that the Council of Sephardic Jewry did NOT own the disputed land around the Tomb of Simon the Righteous, but only rented it and a second one offering proof that the document put forward by the Council of Sephardic Jewry was not authentic. It confirms what the Palestinian inhabitants have always claimed: that the documentation forwarded by the Jewish party was fraudulent.
Over the years the Palestinian party has amassed a body of evidence, like certificates of property tax paid by Palestinian owners going back to 1927. None of this evidence has been accepted by the Israeli courts.
In July last year the al-Kurd family, under threat of eviction, received a letter from the Nachlat Shimon Corporation, which is financed by Irving Moscowitz, an American Jewish millionaire, who is the premier financier of ideological ultra rightwing Jewish settler organizations, that are active in East Jerusalem. The letter said that the Sephardic Council had sold the title deed to Nachlat Shimon, i.e. Moscowitz. Moscowitz also acquired the Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah from the Custodian of Absentee Property in order to build housing for Jews only.
It is very clear that this is not an innocent landlord/tenant dispute. Not when Moscowitz is involved.
The Palestinian families who have been evicted so far, the al-Kurds, Hanouns and Gawis are all refugees from 1948. They hail from Jaffa, Haifa and West Jerusalem (Katamon and Talbieh).
This is the second time that these people have been dispossessed, a cruel and heartless act. And who moved into the evacuated properties within hours: not the purported original Jewish owners, but hardline colonists!
But could this case not create legal precedence and make it possible for Palestinians to regain the properties they lost in West Jerusalem, Jaffa and Haifa in 1948? In a normal legal system it would. But that is not the case in the Zionist legal system with orwellian legal categories like 'present absentees' (Palestinians who live in Israel, but cannot claim their properties), where the Jewish party is at a structural advantage, because the right of return only applies to Jews and not to the native Palestinians.

Linda Smith

"The issue of land ownership in Jerusalem is far more complex than the Obama administration and the EU would have us believe. Mount Scopus - the original site of the Hebrew university campus and the Hadassah hospital - remained a Jewish enclave in Jordanian-controlled territory. It is also a little known fact that hundreds of thousands of Arab squatters in 'Arab east Jerusalem' live on land still owned by the Jewish National Fund. The JNF purchased hundreds of individual parcels of land in and around Jerusalem during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s. Some ended up under Jordanian control. In 1948, on one of these parcels the UN built the Kalandia refugee camp, seizing the land without permission from the owners, the JNF. As Gil Zohar explained in his 2007 Jerusalem Post piece other parcels of land in 'Arab' east Jerusalem were cut off from their Iraqi and Iranian Jewish owners after they came under Jordanian rule. In total 145,976 dunams* of Jewish land is said to have come under Jordanian control."
(Jewish property claims against Arab countries by Michael Fischbach, p 85).

Norm

Let's NOT even start talking about the Brits with their "rule and devide" policies all over the world, from which the world never has healed and is suffering till this day!

The world has never healed? The only ex British colony that is suffering today is Rhodesia and that is selfinflicted by Mugabe.

Jim F

As several of the above bloggers have pointed out, what is the precedent now as far as Jewish settlers on what is Plestinian land in the occupied territories?
Oh of course? It was - all is - Jewish land dating back 3000 years - so!

Brian Metcalf

For decades now the UN has entertained the Palestinian attempts to fabricate a virtual reality. An alternate world in which there is but one victim and one villain, in which there are Palestinian rights but no Palestinian responsibilities, in which there are Israeli responsibilities but no Israeli rights. This persistent campaign has detracted from the credibility of the UN and has served only to push the parties further apart. With each successive partisan initiative - these evictions being the latest - fair minded people around The World are left to wonder how the UN can contribute to the welfare of both peoples, if it consistently recognises the suffering of only one. The scale of condemnation heaped on Israel is so overwhelming as to end up being counter productive. How could one small nation be so wrong EVERY time? Is it that The West is becoming increasingly nervous of Islam's growing influence and is trying to appease the Arabs at every turn OR is this sense of uncertainty being exacerbated by deeply embedded myths which constantly emerge as 'truths'. The ancient hatred that it fuels is palpable and sinister. And completely senseless.

joeblough

The British ... sigh.

Never were friends of the Jews.

At this point Britain is just circling the drain anyway. The Pakistanis and Arabs will be running the place altogether pretty soon.

Ultimately, who wants a friend that can't even defend their OWN culture. What use would they be?

Laura

Hugh, I think its karma that England is now being overrun by muslims, who they have sided with against Israel for decades and continue to do so. Being anti-Israel has not exactly kept you safe from the wrath of islamic jihadists, has it. How is it living under sharia law Hugh? A pox on labor and the torries as well as the rest of the british establishment for their maliciousness and cowardice. But after all what else should we expect from the same country who barred Jews during the holocaust from entering Palestine.

Michael B

"But following the very public row between president Peres and Turkish PM Erdogan at the Economic Forum in Davos about Israel actions in Gaza in January everything changed." Ben Alofs

In fact, Ben, that "very public row" reflected a superior performance by Peres and an abject performance by Erdogan. Following is a summary of what occurred:

Ban Ki-Moon, Sec-Gen of the U.N., began by presenting a one-sided summary of what had occurred in Gaza, noting only briefly and in a token manner that Hamas - which fired rockets, mortars and other munitions into Israeli civilian centers since 2001/2002 - should refrain from firing those rockets into Israel, but largely focusing on Israel's actions, taken to actually thwart those rocket and missile and mortar attacks.

Then, Erdogan presented his own summary of what has been transpiring in Gaza/Israel, with a still more biased account, while promoting himself as being disinterested, excepting for his humanitarian concerns (sic).

Amre Moussa, Sec-Gen of the Arab League, continued in essentially the same vein as Erdogan. The one-sided quality evidenced by both these speakers was, to be over-kind, pronounced; to be less kind, they indulged a rank duplicity in their telling of events.

Finally, Shimon Peres was allowed to speak and he spoke forthrightly, at one point reading simply and directly from Hamas's founding charter, then reviewing the effects of the rocket, mortar and other attacks over the last seven (7) years, then recalling the 2005 pullout from Gaza, rendering all of Gaza Judenrein. Peres took note of other, similar facts and if he can be faulted in anyway whatsoever it might be in the fact he raised his voice more than needed at times, though beyond that he was quite eloquent, speaking to the history forcefully, which is precisely what was needed at that point, in that environment.

Peres should be roundly applauded, he was the sole, truly honest and forthright speaker among the four panelists.

As to your other facts, Ben, relevant to the legalities, more later.

Yehuda

Reading some of the anti-Zionist, anti-Israel, antisemitic posts reinforces my understanding of how the nazis managed to galvanise into horrendous action some of Europe's (not just Germany's) best minds; how some of the cream of European intelligentsia degenerated into a miasma of baseless hatred and genocidal psychosis, while all the time succeeding in deceiving some Jews into the belief that all would be well.

The lumpenproletarian anti-Zionists haven't bothered to check the facts, but the educated ones are overflowing with malice.

mcmrjp

This is happening in Zimbabwe, South Africa, Cyprus and even in the USA but where is the international condemnation? This is only happening because it's Israel and for no other reason.

Salomon Benzimra

This is the best report and analysis I have read on this issue. Thank you, Melanie!

Now, the so-called "British Consulate in Jerusalem" (which deals only with Palestinian Arab issues and does not even acknowledge any Jewish presence around) is also located in Sheikh Jarrah Quarter, the same area where the evictions took place. What will it take now to finally evict this consulate which is located in the Israeli capital but only deals with Palestinian concerns?

Bob

There's no reason why Israeli law should apply in East Jerusalem: East Jerusalem lies OUTSIDE Israel's borders. Ian Miller's post is the most sensible here

Mr Melrose

Well, this really is getting pretty racist now. Moderator, at which point do you step in?

Steve bronfman

besides the fact that most land within Palestine was state owned and not private and arguments about Jewish property in Arab lands, eg downtown Tunis, stolen from Jews etc I love the smugness of those saying " but even if this is right what about Arabs who lost land in Israel post 48" these same people would never argue with a pro-Palestinian ruling with counter argument like " but what about Jews rights in Jordan etc". For them moral equivalence only applied to Jews.

Henry Sidgwick

Ben Alofs has at the very least made a number of very telling points. What is the response? There is none. The regular contributors simply resume their litany of insults and claims of victimhood. This is a very odd way to conduct a rational debate.

Jez

joeblough, August 5th, 2009 5:01am:

"The British ... sigh.

Never were friends of the Jews.

At this point Britain is just circling the drain anyway. The Pakistanis and Arabs will be running the place altogether pretty soon.

Ultimately, who wants a friend that can't even defend their OWN culture. What use would they be?"

You've hit the nail on the head there mate (to a certain extent anyway).

I'd like to come in here.

Israel has nothing to do with me.

The Palestinians have nothing to do with me.

The situation there *does* have a knock on effect to our lives, as we live next to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe here in Yorkshire. It kicks off there and it may/does kick off here…. as it did in January with the anti-Israel demos in London and Lancashire.

Could I just ask this Melanie, as a constructive question;

Are you British?

I think you are and (seriously) there is respect how you stand to the last with the British/Israeli Jewish community that you are part of but it’s not ‘The’ British, it is ‘Us’ British- if you feel you are in fact that.

The Palestinian cause is (as an opinion) being manipulated to further the positions of many organizations and governments…. in the same way a cynical injury claims solicitor would by perpetuating their client’s situation to justify their positions.

On the other hand, the far/far right fringes of Israeli society could have the potential to spark a unifying wild-fire of popular Muslim anger- as an opinion.

Back to joeblough;

“At this point Britain is just circling the drain anyway. The Pakistanis and Arabs will be running the place altogether pretty soon.”

Just the Pakistanis won’t be running the place (again as an opinion) as the Muslim settlers in the UK are not a single entity- but they as a total (Somali, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian Muslim, Nigerian Muslim) may be controlling large tracts of the old Mill Towns and cities in North Major parts of East/Central London, Stoke, Luton Bristol and Birmingham in the next 5 to 10 years.

There is minimal/no assimilation.

“Ultimately, who wants a friend that can't even defend their OWN culture. What use would they be?"

Please don’t tar us with the same brush.

It’s the UK governments that have done this- not the working/middle class British that have had this dropped on them.

NuLab/Con have watched this happen here for the last 30 years.

Nannette

Jez, as one of the browbeaten majority in the UK, you're also aware, as most of us are, that Israel is being used as a scapegoat while Europe allows unlimited immigration by Muslims, most of whom want to live on benefits and come over to force us to change our way of life to satisfy their Islamic laws.

Nowhere in the Muslim world would any country change their laws or way of life to adapt to ours, and I personally think that all Muslims should accept our way of life or live in a country which operates shariah law.

In the meantime, Jews are still being made scapegoats, and I believe the majority of attacks on Jews are from Muslims, or from converts to Islam.

If the silent majority of the UK don't act soon, the country will be completely taken over, and in 15-20 years the UK will be just another Islamic state...

Original Tony

Norm...Britian betrayed Rhodesia. Mugabe was Britain's gift to the people there.

Britian has betrayed many of its allies over the centuries; hence the colonial saying, 'never trust a Brit'.

Groovy Times

Anyone know how to contact the moderator?

Conprihensiveboy

Israel will ally with India and/or China. It'll all change. That incident in western China is Pearl Harbour.

David Blackburn

Groovy Times,

You can contact me at dblackburn @ spectator.co.uk

Cameron

The comments posters on this site are just funny - Is this the weak brigade who haven't got the guts to post on the Guardian?

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, You quote Michael Fischbach, I assume with approval. I am intrigued. You deploy LEGAL arguments. And you expect your opponenets to accept their force (otherwise why make the arguments).

Augustus

It's hard to believe, but there really is a sizeable crowd of anti-Semitic people throughout the world who persist in calling the state of Israel an
'Apartheid' regime. Now in the days of Apartheid in South Africa the votes of the coloured population were not counted together with the white votes. Coloureds were not allowed to use the same toilets, train carriages etc., and every form of sexual relationship was strictly forbidden. But in Israel no distinction is made between Arab or Jewish votes for the Knesset. In trains and buses Jews and Arabs sit together. In hospitals they lie in the same wards. Sexual relations between both Jewish males and Arab females, and vice versa, are not forbidden. So where does the charge of 'Apartheid' come from? It comes, quite simply from so-called anti-imperialists
who are the kind of people who believed President Bush was worse, and more of a dictator than Saddam Hussein. They back organizations like Hamas and Fatah to the hilt. To them, Palestinians can do no wrong in their fight against Israel.
Israel makes a very great contribution in the field of medicine and communications to people all over the world, including the Palestinians. But there is one infectious disease which it doesn't seem able to cure, and that is the one which seventy years ago led to the wholesale slaughter of six million European Jews, after which many people thought that anti-Semitism would never again exist. They were wrong.

logdon

Nannette
August 5th, 2009 11:40am

Yes, yes, Nannete. I agree totally.

Where are the Jews of Yathrib, now Medina? Answer,there are none.

Where are the Jews in Mecca? Answer,there are none.

Where are the Jews in the whole of Saudi? Answer,there are none.

Previously thriving Jewish centres now judenrein.

Could it be a clue as to what would happen in Jerusalem if the 'right to return' of five million arabs was enacted?

And why do Arabs get a free pass in world opinion when all of this is a known, yet one family is evicted in Jerusalem and it's all hell let loose?

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

The British, who are historically the root cause of most of the mess that is the Middle East, should just bug off and concentrate on their participation in the conversion of the UK into a province of the coming Caliphate. Put an end to the traditional duplicity and just get on with it !

Nannette

logdon, most Arab countries are now Judenrein, and if the UN, US and EU had their way, Israel would also be Judenrein.

Why is there no outcry when Jewish visitors to Jordan have their prayer books confiscated, and jewellery, such as Stars of David confiscated?

Jordan expelled its Jews, took their homes and businesses and there's no squeak from the international community... nor is there any international protest on behalf of Jews from Arab countries who had everything stolen when they were expelled from their homes, even though many of them had lived in their countries (such as Iraq) for thousands of years.

And as for the pro-Palestinians, they surely CANNOT be ignorant of the fact that the Mufti of Jerusalem was an active Nazi who led the Hansar SS division in Bosnia, and was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews! And according to Eichmann's secretary in the Nuremberg transcripts, was planning to build huge gas chambers in Egypt and other middle eastern countries to get rid of their "Jewish problem".

The pro-Palestinians must also know that the present day Palestinians still have the Nazi ideology of killing every Jew on the planet (even those "friendly" to their cause). Because like the Nazis, they will be the last ones to the death camps.

Now, how many of those opposing Israeli laws and actually Israel's existence are in tune with Hitler's Nazi ideology and the "Final Solution"?

Linda Smith

Henry Sidwick, as you approve of LEGAL arguments, then I expect you to accept Michael Fischbach's argument, otherwise you are just an arab apologist hypocrite.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, Nimble footwork, but surely disingeuous. Are you (thro' Mr. Fischbach) putting forward for our assent a legal argument or are you not?

(P.S. I know you insist you use the term purely descriptively, but "just an arab apologist hypocrite" sounds very like an attempt to belittle or insult - in any event it adds nothing to the debate.)

Michael B

Ian Miller,

The "international community" would warrant more respect if they were ever to evidence even a modicum of similar concern for rights abuses in Arab and Persian Muslim lands, not only against Jewish communities (which are nearly non-existent now, in all Arab League states), or, for example, the Coptic community in Egypt, but against the Sunni Arab polity known as "Palestinians" itself!

For example, Jordan has recently embarked upon a policy wherein even extant Palestinian Jordanians are having their citizenship revoked, for no reason other than the fact they are "Palestinians". And yet, not a peep about this policy from the "international community". Likewise, this is a policy that has been in effect in all twenty-plus Arab League states, Jordan is merely the most recent state to adopt this proscriptive policy. Where's the "international community," where are the Carters and Mary Robinsons of the world, when it comes to these abuses?

Then, as alluded to above, there's the entire question of Jewish refugees from Arab and Persian Muslim lands. Nary a peep about this issue either, not from the "international community," not from commentators such as yourself.

As well, there's the general programmatic interest, overtly expressed by both Hamas and Fatah, to eliminate Israel as a whole, to eliminate Israel as a nation/state from the face of the planet, very recently affirmed by both Hamas and Fatah, btw. The "international community"? Token acknowledgements of that fact, if even that.

Further and more importantly still, East Jerusalem and Jerusalem as a whole is Israel's domain, as has been affirmed by experts in the field of international law, as has been affirmed by Israel itself, as has been affirmed by others of note.

Iow, the only thing you've effectively noted is that there is an on-going political/ideological power struggle, and a war in effect, against Israel's sovereignty and against the rule of law, and against equity in more general and more principled terms as well. Purported legal rationales, absent equity and a responsibly conceived moral warrant, are hollow. Via such rationales Germany had warrant over the Rhineland, over the Sudetenland, over Czechoslovakia as a whole, over the passage to Poland, ...

And yes, that analogy is entirely applicable, for example, to serve as broad context and as noted in an earlier thread:

Yemen, 1944: 55,000; 2004: 100
Iraq, 1944: 150,000; 2004: 160
Egypt, 1944: 80,000; 2004: 400
Libya, 1944: 38,000; 2004: zero
Tunisia, 1944: 106,000; 2004: 1,500
Syria, 1944: 27,700; 2004: 26

charles soper

Forelorn[e]hope, what about the Egyptian, Moroccan, Syrian, Iraqi, Yemeni, Jordanian, Kuwaiti and Lebanese home forcibly vacated by Jews? What hope of proper reciprocity when there has been so much injustice since 1948?
Well written Melanie, I'm ashamed to be British when I read idiotic condemnations like this (and for clarity's sake I'm not Jewish).

Michael B

Oops, those numbers, in Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, etc., reflect the number of Jews in those respective countries, first in 1944, then in the year 2004.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, I put forward Mr Fishbach document as fodder for those who wish to fiddle while Rome burns.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, " I put forward Mr Fishbach document as fodder for those who wish to fiddle while Rome burns." Full marks for the silliest mixed metaphor of the day. No marks on any other count. I can't decide whether "intellectually dishonest" or "fatuous" is more appropriate - probably both. Woeful, and so smug with it.

jose garcia

David

the jews have been ethnically cleansed from the whole arab world, there are half a million arabs in israel alone,but dont let your antiisrael attitude get in the way of the facts

Ian Miller

Michael B,

I don't understand why your last post is addressed to me. It does not seem to be relevant to the point I made.

Your post begins by quoting "international community" which is not a phrase I used (or ever use), [although it appears both in MP's original article and a post by Nannette].

Michael B

Ian Miller,

I used the succinct term "international community" in lieu of your more expansive language. It seems reasonable enough, and you don't further clarify your intent. You employed terms such as "Israel's international standing," such as "internationally accepted settlement of the territorial issues," such as "the official British position, in common with most countries of the world." I intended merely to more succinctly reflect what seemed to be your intent. Likewise, no mere quibble was intended. For example you employ that language to therefore suggest, to posit, that the legal action and decision was "simply beyond the court's jurisdiction" together with noting how "ill-advised" the Supreme Court was in even hearing the case.

It would seem I represented your comments responsibly and reasonably well, though I'm certainly open to clarification and I most certainly intended no falsification in the least.

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick and Ben Alofs:

Ben Alofs has made no point that has not been answered by the Israeli High Court. Refer to Melanie's article concerning the Ottoman documents.

And as for nefarious international businessmen, please read the following link which describes the race for purchase of property in Jerusalem. Note the passing mention of the role of Turkish land deeds officials and their promotion of the Arab effort. Note also, the fact that the Israeli state is not involved in the land purchases.
Link:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3510968,00.html

The evictions were the usual piece of choreographed street theatre, with many international and British human rights extras (equipped with wheel chairs) on hand to complain of brutality to waiting journalists.

As for the rights of Palestinians to return to their pre-1948 properties, why is it so difficult to understand that wars create intervening legal dispensations.
Jordan took East Jerusalem in an aggressive war, evicted Jews and asserted ownership over Jewish property. It accepted as refugees Arabs fleeing the war who abandoned their property within Israel. Israel took back Jerusalem in a defensive war and some of the Jewish property was restored - under the property laws of Israel (which respected Ottoman records). Merely because the habitations of the refugees of 1948 are located within the physical boundaries of 1967 land now under Israeli control, does not ipso fact restore their right to their former properties in Israel. Their land and citizenship were forfeited. Lucky for them, unlike Jordan with respect to Jews, Israel's property law allows Arabs to assert their legal claims to property in post-1967 territory, and it permits Arabs and Jews to purchase or rent property in Jerusalem. The evicted families will no doubt be housed, when they get fed up with being used as propaganda.

Derek

The Foreign & Commonwealth Office is notorious for its Arabist leanings. The government for which it devises policy, however, is the most despised of the modern era, elected long ago by a minority of the electorate and now abandoned by most of those. Consequently,the British Consulate in Israel's capital cannot be said to speak for Great Britain save in the narrowest technical sense and the national interest which its position should be representing is hard to determine except in its most cowardly and mercenary form. I would urge the Israeli government and all its supporters to engage in the propaganda war with renewed energy. We love a gallant underdog who is unfairly treated and Islamofascism is educating people as to who the enemy is and to the justice of Israel's position. I sense in short that there is a great opportunity here to reverse the victories of Islamic ideology; but I would respectfully suggest that, if only for tactical reasons in the propaganda war, expressions of bitterness at the injustice of past British government policies are minimized.On the other hand, I realize that this is a difficult path to tread when there are units operating in the propaganda war whose position is that the British government is dominated by "crypto-nazi" Zionists!

Percy

Melanie,
Thankyou for continually providing some balance to the rabid Left on this issue. people are quick to immediately blame Israel and take the Palestinian side, without first checking the facts. Many of the people I work with who have an illogical and ideological hatred of Israel know nothing of Middle East history and don't see the need to. For them, whatever happens it is the evil Israelis against the poor victimised Palestinians. Instead the reality, which is Israel defending itself against Islamic fanatics.

http://statingthebobvious.blogspot.com/

Terry from Oz

I watched a TV report on this here in Australia. There was no mention of a court case in the main body of the report. Mark Regev was interviewed and in the part shown of this Israeli spokesman's explanation he referred to the court having found against the arabs in this instance, although in many others it had found for the arabs and against Jewish Israelis. The report never mentioned why these evictions occurred and the impression was, apart from a short explanation in which Regev referred to 'the Israei court's decision', one would have thought that a whole load of heavies just turned up out of the blue and evicted families for being arab.

As always with reporting on Israel, the truth comes a distant last.

But we know who our friends are now and any effort by the current British and US governments to influence peace efforts must be regarded as aggressive acts towards the Jewish People and ignored by Israel.

If the rest of the west wants to bend over for islamofascist terrorists, so be it and let Israel be the honourable exception.

Polly Gamma

To: Henry Sidgewick 5/8/09 @ 10.23am

Do keep up dear - see 5/8/09 @7.31am

In general you and the other trolls don't pass muster - if you're gonna keep trying - at least scan the posts properly!

Henry Sidgwick

Linda SMith, Your previous comment containeda false dichotomy: " I expect you to accept Michael Fischbach's argument, otherwise you are just an arab apologist hypocrite."

Your latest contains a mixed metaphor: "I put forward Mr Fishbach document as fodder for those who wish to fiddle while Rome burns."

There is a curious change in tone and avowed intention between the two. In the first, I must accept the legal arguments. In the second (perhaps because it was pointed out you are breaking your own stipulations on relativism and the law) you pretend you were not serious.

Again you fail to play by the rules of rational discourse.

wonderer

I copied Ben Alofs August 5th, 2009 12:24am to someone who has studied Ottoman land law and asked whether he thought it likely that rental agreements would have been registered. His reply was:-
"HIGHLY UNLIKELY
THE OTTOMAN REGISTER WOULD HAVE NOTED THE FIVE MAIN TYPES OF LAND HOLDING. I DON'T THINK URBAN RENTAL WOULD HAVE BEEN REGISTERABLE. IT WAS TOO FLEETING AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE- JUST AS IT IS TODAY. OF COURSE IF THE LEASE WERE FOR 50 YEARS??? THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT BUT SOMEHOW, I DON'T THINK EVEN LONG LEASES WERE CONSIDERED IN THE OTTOMAN LAND LAWS AND EVEN IF THEY WERE, REGISTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN MOST UNUSUAL- ESPECIALLY IN A SITUATION WHERE THE MAJOR TYPES OF LAND HOLDINGS WERE VERY OFTEN UNRECORDED DESPITE THE FACT THAT TRANSACTIONS AND OWNERSHIP COULD HAVE BEEN REGISTERED."
Sorry about the block capitals. I don't use them so much myself but great minds don't always type alike.

Stephen

Percy:
'Thankyou for continually providing some balance to the rabid Left on this issue'

Does the 'rabid Left' include The Times and Conservative Home’s Centre Right blog?

Nicole S

Just Louise: 'Shouldn't somebody be challenging the Beeb with the correct account of the matter, and demanding that they amend their reports forthwith?' Why not you? Write to the BBC on their complaints form (home page of web site) and tick the box requesting a reply. It won't do much good, but it helps to show not everyone is happy with their coverage.

Nicole S

John Smith: 'The ultimate decision was made by the Supreme Court. Who runs the Supreme Court?' Martians I expect. But there is no reason to doubt that its deliberations were thorough and fair, and the fact that the evicted families were upset does not invalidate its verdict.

Augustus

The US administration understands only too well what it is asking Israel to do. It insists that Jerusalem is just another 'settlement', never mind that Jerusalem has been the
centre of Jewish national life for about 3,000 years. They think that they can dictate to Israel what policies to adopt in Jerusalem, and when and where
to build there.

It may not always be wise for Israel to build in areas that might at a future date be subject to negotiations, but it is certainly understandable that
Israel will enforce Israeli law,
backed by a supreme court decision, in an area that is declared by Israel to be under its sovereignty. the problem here is not that the US wants Israel to negotiate, but rather that the US is telling Israel and the world that there is nothing to negotiate about in Jerusalem, since according to them, the city does not belong to Israel, but to a hypothetical international administration or Palestinian state. This is, in effect, a hostile act against Israel.

In the whole of the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of East Jerusalem, the United States did not once protest any Jordanian action whatsoever, including the building of
King Hussein's summer house. Or even the wrecking of the last remnants of the Jewish quarter
and the Jewish cemetary in the Mount of Olives. The website of the US consulate in Jerusalem is all about Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. Not a word about Jews, although Jerusalem has a Jewish majority.

The US, in order to placate Arab
opinion, continues to pretend that the internationalization of
Jerusalem mandated by the UN in 1947 is a reality, even though West Jerusalem has been part of Israel since its founding in 1948. In fact, the whole policy of the US government concerning Jerusalem is bizarre and hypocritical, and Israel should protest loudly against the hostile policy of the United States.

Henry Sidgwick

Polly Gamma
"August 6th, 2009 9:53am
To: Henry Sidgewick 5/8/09 @ 10.23am

Do keep up dear - see 5/8/09 @7.31am

In general you and the other trolls don't pass muster - if you're gonna keep trying - at least scan the posts properly!"

I take it your snotty little contribution refers to Michael B's comments. We are still waiting for his promised comments on the legal questions, which are after all the substantive point of what Ben Alofs had to say.

As it happens Wonderer has now begun the discussion I was hoping for.

Mackay

There seems to be a campaign over at the Guardian's comment is free against Israel's long-term interests: where else would you see the Shepherd Hotel described as part of the Palestinians' historic legacy?

One should not be surprised that it is a court Jew, Richard Silverstein, writing such nonsense, and shame on the Guardian for providing a platform for such bigots.

David Lindsay

Now, let me see if I have this right. The Jews who have been moved into the homes of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem are not the heirs of anyone who owned or inhabited those homes a hundred years ago.

Rather, documents from that time establish (decidedly improbably, since we are talking about the Ottoman Period) that the properties belong to Jews. Any Jews, simply as such, who happen to want them.

If you are the wrong ethnicity, then, even if your family has lived there for generations and you have done so all your life, tough. Imagine…

The perhaps the British Consulate has learned "extreme malice" from those who blew up hotels full of British (including Jewish) civil servants, and photographed the hanging of our teenage conscripts with barbed wire?

As for this:

"they appear to think they are still administering the Palestine Mandate – where they exhibited similar partisanship in the interests of injustice, illegality and the Arab cause against Jewish rights",

it really is time that you took out Israeli citizenship and went to live there, so that those of us who want to be British can get on with being British.

Adam B.

Just Louise and Nicole S, you are quite right to complain about our beloved publicly funded state broadcaster. However, when you complain and get the customary generalised nonsense about "commitment to impartiality" etc, you should escalate the complaint to the next level. It is only at these higher levels of the complaints process that any notice is taken.

Canada10

I guess by your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable for Palestinians to sue Jews living in illegally owned Palestinian homes on the other side? Oh wait, they have been trying to do that for half a decade to no avail. What a pitty shame people like you can so shamelessly twist the victim into victimizer and vice verca. Wake up, smell the coffee. No nation has ever become a target of international criticism to the level Israel feels today simply because the world 'misunderstands' every illegal action it undertakes. A colonizer will always find a way to justify illegal actions - legally, religiously, ethicaly, racialy, etc... - but the end result is the same: you intimidate, you make yourself believe in your version and disregard the victim's position, and you try to face the consequences as best you can.

Wm. Hazlitt

It helps understanding to get an alternative view. Ms. Phillips has given one version. Here is another, by an Israeli/American journalist writing for ElectronicIntifada's "Live from Palestine". (Whoah, he must be a self-hating Jew.) The article is long (too long to reproduce here) - but look it up on the internet, those of you who have an open mind: "Sheikh Jarrah residents refuse to be displaced" by Marcey Gayer.

Ian Miller

Michael B,

You have still not explained how your post was relevant to mine. Nothing in my post expressed my view on the status of matters you discussed. I was observing that the court was exercising jurisdiction, that most of the world's key decision makers believe it does not have. As such it was inevitably going to produce a furore, which would damage Israel's diplomatic position.

You make clear that you believe East Jerusalem is "Israel's domain". For the sake of argument, I agree. However we have to live in the world as it is, not as we believe it should be. Exercising those rights when so many people dispute them is not at all good for Israel.

For example, this could have serious adverse consequences for EU/Israeli trade relations. That could be very bad for Israel and out of all proportion to the gain to a few of its citizens, which is why I think the decision was unwise.

Michael B

Henry Sidgwick,

When I made the one specific comment you're referring to, regarding the legal details, I thought I had access to the case at the Israeli Supreme Court site. As it turns out, I don't, so I need to admit to a "mea culpa" as pertains to that one specific comment. Otoh, Ben Alof was wrong when he indicated Melanie did not address the issue, though she addressed it in a summary fashion only, admittedly. Or, as another commenter put it, "Ben Alofs has made no point that has not been answered by the Israeli High Court." I see another commenter is weighing in as well.

Ian Miller,

I disagree with your most basic premises and frame of reference and that is what I was addressing and re-framing. I was addressing the larger, organic whole, the entirety of what needs to be addressed and view your own focus as far too narrowly conceived. If you cannot or will not see that larger, organic whole as being viable, as in fact reflecting a more responsible pov, then perhaps we're simply talking past one another. I acknowledge your concerns on one level, I simply and much more basically disagree that those concerns are sufficiently probative.

Or, put differently, you have failed to explain how I don't address the issues you raise, within that larger scope and within that larger, organic whole. (You don't even acknowledge, or otherwise explain via disagreement, that the more succinct term "international community" reasonably reflects the more elaborate language you employed. So we can't carry on a coherent/cogent exchange if you fail to address even such basic suppositions.)

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, in your usual devious manner, you chose to misrepresent my earlier comments in your post of 6Aug 10.00am.

In my post of 5 Aug 2:14pm I made it clear that, as YOU approve of LEGAL arguments, then I expect YOU to accept Michael Fischback's argument, otherwise YOU are just an arab apologist hypocrite.

My own views are neither here nor there. I just provided a titbit for the children to squabble over.

Got it now?

Ian Miller

Michael B,

I regret I still haven't got a clue what you are talking about. I have no idea what you think are my "premises and frame of reference" that you disagree with. I haven't the first idea what you mean by "a larger, organic whole".

I didn't mention the "international community" point again, as I thought it an irrelevant aside. However I find the phrase problematic as it has often been used as code for "the USA and its allies", which is a meaning that is entirely inappropriate in the circumstances. That aside the word "community" has implications of common understanding that I think is almost entirely absent. So I regret I cannot accept that the phrase reasonably reflects the more precise language that I used.

Whereas it might be interesting to continue this discussion, I am going to be off-line for a few days, so this will be my last contribution to the thread.

C. Gee

David Lindsay,

You are truly confused. If a document - Ottoman or otherwise - put ownership in "Jews" - I think any court might discard it as a forgery, after a hearty laugh. Even property in Jewish ghettos was not recorded by mere ethnicity alone. Ownership is established in individuals or organizations, who are free to alienate the property according to law.

Renters who do not pay rent are evicted. Tough.

You recommend that Melanie emigrate to Israel, leaving "those of us who want to be British to get on with being British."

It appears that Melanie brings out the best of British in you, by jingo !

solemnman

In Britain , America and much of Europe- thousands of homes have been repossessed by banks , building societies and by landlords who have not been paid their rent.The evicted leave voluntarily or they are forcibly dumped, along with their worldly goods,onto the pavement.The hypocracy,in this matter,IS BREATHTAKING!!!

solemnman

ATT: JOSE GARCIA,
There are 1,500,000 Arabs in Israel-a full 20% of the population-not half a million.

Polly Gamma

To: Henry Sidgwick

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

If Dicken’s can acknowledge the limitations of law then so can the best of us.

Free your mind, get the drain cleaner going where indoctrination has filled gaps in your own psychology and find the right measure of your OWN sense of reason.

Law is a tool not a God. Tools can be badly mis-used.

Henry Sidgwick

Michael B., Fair enough. I only made the point because of Polly Gamma's comments, and because I had been hoping to read a proper debate on the question. As it happens Wonderer has cited an anonymous expert on Ottoman documents in support of Ms. Phillips and Wm. Hazlitt has cited an Israeli journalist in support of the Palestinian Arabs. There may yet be a proper debate.

Henry Sidgwick

Polly Gamma, Are you saying that the Israeli Supreme Court is badly misusing the law?

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, As far as I can see all my previous comments still apply: a false dichotomy and then an attempted sleight of hand. In other words, in error and then disingenuous.

I can see no point in quoting Mr. Fischbach in this context unless you agree with him. The attempt at smug superiority in "letting the children squabble" won't do.

Polly Gamma

Henry Sidgwick

Stay safely stuck in your loop of counter-arguments.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, your comments indicate that you have not benefited from a robust university education.

Henry Sidgwick

Polly Gamma, No,seriously, what was your point about the law?

Herny Sidgwick

Linda Smith, I assume you consider yourself to have benefited from a robust university education? It appears not to have saved you from your false dichotomy and mixed metaphor. Tell me how my comments evince a lack of such an education (perhaps in the absence of false dichotomies and mixed metaphors?).

I am curious why you insist your contributions are not simply facetious or fatuous but utterly pointless, especially as you certainly appear to support one side in the continuing debate on this blog and should have the courage to state the arguments you feel justify that support, without the disingenuous sleight of hand whenever you are challenged to stand up for what you appear to support.

Polly Gamma

To Henry Sidgwick:-

Okay Henry let me try and explain….

There is a counter-argument for everything. In between is the balance – the truth. Think Yin and Yang.

Law and media are two of society's most powerful forces and they are now more conjoined and empowered by the technological revolution. We can only wrestle back balance if we reclaim more of our innate survival instincts to sift through what is REALLY right and wrong by encouraging EVERYONE in the proper use of our own organic under-used complex super-computer our OWN brain. As our own master of our own tools in our own environments we can more effectively sift and survive. If we don’t we fall prey to the indoctrination of unwise superior and maybe some not so superior intellects abusing herd instinct to wield power under the guise of a quest for justice and manipulation of “good causes”. The technological revolution has given an array of legal and media manipulators an unbalanced influence and it is therefore imperative for everyone to get more underwhelmed. By harnessing confidence in core instincts we are less likely to fall prey to the plethora of obfuscators who are too displaced in corralling a power base of foot soldiers trained to rush off and grab the most pertinent set of legal counter-arguments or proffer crafted media “evidence” to close down an argument rather than exploring and drawing out some of the painful abstract for examination in a healthy open truthful productive discussion.

I respectfully take a quote from the late Robert Cover:-

“We constantly create and maintain a world of right and wrong, of lawful and unlawful, of valid and void. The student of law may come to identify the normative world with the professional paraphernalia of social control. The rules and principles of justice, the formal institutions of the law, and the conventions of a social order are, indeed, important to that world; they are, however, but a small part of the normative universe that ought to claim our attention. No set of legal institutions or prescriptions exists apart from the narratives that locate it and give it meaning. For every constitution there is an epic, for each decalogue a scripture. Once understood in the context of the narratives that give it meaning, law becomes not merely a system of rules to be observed, but a world in which we live.”

Is that clearer now Henry?

On this blog we are independent free thinkers who enjoy robust and realistic comment. I’m sure most of us are not dissemblers with a need (under a guise of spreading enlightenment) to search out zones with contradictory views to ours because we wish to impose our beliefs. Therefore I don’t believe trolls deserve responses, and I don’t have the admirable patience of other posters on here who support this forum who are tied up too often in countermanding your sly misguided process. So that’s your lot.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, ah but mixed metaphors are so much fun! Creative and meaningful for the intellectually endowed.

I do not see any point in examining the Jewish Israeli/Muslim Arab conflict in narrow "legalistic" terms. I leave those discussions to those afflicted with tunnel vision and lawyers' tricks.

Discussing the legality of the operation was of no use on the way to the gas chamber.

Plus ca change.

anindependentfreethinker

That's your lot Henry, so there!

Now, if you are sensible, you will support both the right of both sides in the Israeli/
Palestinian conflict to exist in peace and determine their own futures. However, you might also like to consider that this can never happen so long as one side insists on denying and destroying the very existence of
the other.

Henry Sidgwick

Polly Gamma, ...?...! Okay...I'm sorry I asked.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, "...fodder for those who wish to fiddle while Rome burns." And this is "Creative and meaningful for the intellectually endowed."?

"Discussing the legality of the operation was of no use on the way to the gas chamber."

So now we have a false dichotomy, a mixed metaphor, and bathos. - The benefits a
robust university education!
A couple of footnotes: Why do you think the lawyerly tricks went all the way to the Supreme Court? Why didn't the Israeli authorities just evict the Palestinian Arabs without all the palaver and mock show of legality?

And I hadn't realised how important the geography of this property dispute is. Does it not go a long way to complete the encirclement of the Palestinain Arabs who live in the open city of Jerusalem, cutting them off from the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank? So the grinding process of discouraging them from living in Jerusalem appears to go on.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, my opinion is that Jerusalem should be thorougly "ethnically" mixed so that it will be difficult to make East Jerusalem the Judenrein capital of a Judenrein Arab state.

Derek BLADES

Several of the more intelligent contributors to this blog have made the obvious point that Israeli laws cannot apply to any of the occupied territories - whether in East Jerusalem or the occupied West Bank. The continuing and illegal seizure of Arab homes in East Jerusalem is further evidence - if any were needed - of the Israeli government’s determination to scupper any peace deal. Their real objective is ethnic cleansing and continued theft of Arab land. Fortunately President Obama and his advisors will eventually impose a just, two-state, solution. It may take time but it will surely come.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, An ethnically mixed Jerusalem, with Palestinian Arabs in West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem so that it will be difficult to make Jerusalem the Arab-free capital of...An ethnically mixed Paleatine/Israel so that it will be difficult to make an Arab-free state... A noble ambition.

Linda Smith

Ah, Derek Blades, one man kangaroo court. Do you provide lynching parties too?

Michael B

Henry Sidgwick,

An obstreperous and even buffonish comment. 22% of Israel's population is Arab. By contrast, all twenty-plus Arab League states are very nearly Judenrein, some of them, such as Libya, Syria and others, virtually or even literally are Judenrein; in all cases, despite the fact there were vibrant Jewish populations and cultures present, as recently as the 1930's and 40's.

Further still, when Israel voluntarily withdrew from Gaza, it was for purposes of rendering it Judenrein.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, the notion that Israel has a goal to be Arab-free is an inversion of reality. Antisemitism is part and parcel of Islam and finds its source in the Koran. The evidence shows that it is Arab lands that have become virtually Judenrein through persecution and expulsions of Jews, after 1400 years of dhimmitude alleviated alone by European "imperialism". Note for inversionists: Jordan has a law against Jewish citizenship. The Palestinian Authority has a law against selling property to Jews.

Note this extract from yesterday's report in the Jerusalem Post on Fatah's sixth General Assembly erases Jews and Judaism from the history of Jerusalem although of course the Old City of Jerusalem was predominantly Jewish for centuries until ethnically cleansed by the Arabs in 1948 who threw out the Jewish residents, stole their homes and gave them to Arabs. The Jewish temples stood in Jerusalem before the Arabs conquered the Middle East in holy jihad:

"The new resolution says that Fatah considers Jerusalem a "red line" that no one could cross. It defines Jerusalem as the "eternal capital of Palestine, the Arab world and the Islamic and Christian worlds."

The city "is awaiting our sacrifices" and Fatah pledges to continue to make sacrifices "until Jerusalem returns to the Palestinians void of settlers and settlements," according to the resolution."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418552346&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I find it most interesting that Arabs and their supporters accuse Jews of being racist and practising apartheid and ethnic cleansing, when it is the Arabs themselves who perpetrate these practices against Jews, and scream that such actions are just.

How extraordinarily hypocritical.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith and Michael B., Can I remind you of previous discussions of Israeli citizens as a demographic existential threat, of transfer, of Benny Morris and of Avigdor Lieberman, of the topics discussed at the Herzliya conferences, of how martial law worked for decades and civil administration after to discriminate against Palestinian Arabs simply because they were Palestinian Arabs. I doubt you are interested in following the detailed accounts given previously in references, but I will give you one quote from the former mayor of Jerusalem proudly boasting of his record. He was asked what he had done for the Palestinians: "Nothing! Sidewalks? Nothing! Cultural institutions? Not one! Yes, we installed a sewergae system for them and improved the water supply. Do you know why? Do you think it was for their good, for their welfare? There were some cases of cholera there and the Jews were afraid they would catch it." As small example of a widespread attitude. Will I start quoting Lieberman, who I believe is a widely respected politician in Israel? He at least is frank and straightforward about his intentions. He does not resort to humbug to maintain the illusion of moral superiority.

Linda Smith

Henry Sidgwick, kindly cite references for your quotations so that we may judge the comments for accuracy and context before responding.

Of course, I am not employing the royal "we" above, I am referring to other readers.

Henry Sidgwick

Linda Smith, A very reasonable request. I apologise for needing prompted. Teddy Kollek gave an interview to Ma'ariv on 10th October 1990. I found it in a B'tselem report of May 1995 entitled "A Policy of Discrimination". I am sure you have come across less restrained references to Palestinians.

Michael B

Henry, you're content to ignore enormities on one side of the divide, yet are miserly in cataloging every perceived slight, every infraction, on the other side of that same divide. Whining and straining at a gnat while contentedly and even cheerily swallowing a camel.

No one has so much as intimated that everyone within the Israeli Jewish community has always acted or spoken perfectly. No nation/state within the western orb has been perfect, not during the Soviet era, not previously, not presently, and Israel is no exception. Israel represents a classical liberal democracy in the profoundly problematic, in the deeply divisive and unstable M.E. milieu, with offsetting balance of powers, with checks and balances, with elected representatives and voting rights vested among all citizens, 22% of which are Arab, with an independent judiciary, etc., etc. Israel, effectively, represents a model of stability in that milieu and in fact is an outpost on a certain ideological and civilizational borderland and frontier. The fact all 20+ Arab League states are Judenrein is but one of the more prominent indicators pointing to that still larger fact.

So, what does your bravado and discontent amount to, Henry?

That despite the fact all twenty-plus Arab League states have rendered their populations Judenrein or very nearly so (when certain people don't exist, pesky things such as voting rights become a non-problem, eh, Henry?); that despite the fact they teach and enculturate their children, from the earliest ages, to viciously and murderously hate Israel and any Jewish presence, and do so at institutional and other social/cultural levels; that despite the fact, and by contrast, 20+% of Israel's citizens are Arab, with full voting rights; that despite a long-held programmatic investment in annihilating Israel and Jews on the part of primary actors such as Hamas, Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, et al.; that despite such enormities, and more that could be listed, there are those among the Israeli Jewish community who have spoken and acted imperfectly at times, at times in a manner that no one could approve of?

Good for you, Henry.

Henry Sidgwick

Michael B., I get the impression that those who support the views of the more extreme Israeli politicians maintain their righteous indignation, and avoid (at least in their own minds) the charge of hypocrisy, by having nothing to do with the evidence of what Israel does and by casting around for countries they think do worse.

"...there are those among the Israeli Jewish community who have spoken and acted imperfectly at times, at times in a manner that no one could approve of?" How many Palestinian Arabs and Lebanese have been killed and how many impoverished by Israel acting imperfectly at times? Go study.

"Israel represents a classical liberal democracy" - and yet increasingly views a portion of its citizens, identified by ethnic origin, as a demographic existential threat, and feels able to subject a population in territories it unilaterally claims as its own to violent oppression.

Teddy Kollek's loutishness is, I agree, a very minor, wholly inadequate, symbol of Israel's loutishness.

"...you're content to ignore enormities on one side of the divide, yet are miserly in cataloging every perceived slight, every infraction, on the other side of that same divide. Whining and straining at a gnat while contentedly and even cheerily swallowing a camel."

Adam B.

Derek, whose law should apply in so called "East" Jerusalem (which includes the Jewish and Armenian Quarters), if not Israel's?

Michael B

Most remarkably - in fact the only thing deserving of a remark at this time - you serve as a marker, an indicator of the times. Be proud, Henry, you're a monument to the times.

joeblough

Jez:

"... Please don’t tar us with the same brush.

It’s the UK governments that have done this ..."

It may surprise you but I would much prefer to see a happy, healthy solidly English England.

That said, I'm afraid that if the British don't get a grip on their gov't, and damned quick, there won't be much of a Britain left to speak of.

And there's no escape clause on that. Neither history nor reality care who's fault it is.

The British gov't may be the responsible party. But the truth about reality is that if the British people don't take that in charge and correct the situation, Britain is done for. That's all there is to it. Excuses don't count. And they certainly wont affect the outcome.

All that is to assume that the British public still has the stuff and grit and moral integrity to hold on to what their forbears passed down to them, and what the future might promise from that.

Regarding your comment that:
"The situation there *does* have a knock on effect to our lives, as we live next to one of the largest Muslim communities in Europe here in Yorkshire. It kicks off there and it may/does kick off here…. as it did in January with the anti-Israel demos in London and Lancashire."

I find that excuse for appeasement to be morally repugnant.

It is simply to say, "I'll throw the other guy under the bus if it buys me a little time".

Understandable, but cowardly and repulsive.

I believe your Mr. Churchill had something to say about that. Something about feeding the alligator if memory serves.

But as I said above, who wants a friend that cannot even protect his OWN culture.

By the way, just in case you're unclear on this, British culture is a part of western civilization, of which American and Israeli cultures, as well as French and Czech and a bunch of others are also parts.

So in betraying yourselves you betray all of us.

There's really nothing to choose between you.

joeblough

Oh, and by the way, by betraying the rest of us you betray yourselves.

Henry Sidgwick

Michael B., Orotund more in sorrow than in anger evasion is so much easier, is it not, at least for the hypocrite who does not want his prejudices tested, than robust debate.

Edward N

Michael B:

The figures you give in your post of 5 August are most illuminating. You say, and I have no doubt that you are right, that in 1944 there were about 456,700 Jews living in the mainly Muslim countries of Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Syria. Many of them and their families had been living there peacefully for many centuries. The early Muslim rulers were ethnically tolerant (though they imposed a modest tax on those who would not convert to Islam). In later centuries the Ottoman Empire was on the whole equally tolerant. The great Moses Maimonides, for instance, spent the last forty or so years of his life in Egypt, where (among other things) he became physician to the equally great Sultan Saladin. Many of the greatest literary, philosophical and other learned works of Judaism were written in Muslim lands, as witness the 200,000 or so documents stored in the Cairo Geniza.

Now, you say, there are only 2,176 Jews living in those six countries. What is the reason for this huge discontinuity in the history of Judaism, the effect of which is much more far-reaching than the Exile in Babylon in the 6th century BCE?

There can be very little doubt that the tragedy of the virtual extinction of these ancient centres of Jewish civilisation has been due to the establishment of the State of Israel on land that had been Muslim territory since 638 CE. Some of the Jews living in Muslim lands moved voluntarily to Israel. Many more were expelled from their Muslim homelands, or made so clearly unwelcome that they felt forced to leave, because of the way in which the State of Israel was established, with what the Muslims saw as injustice to the indigenous peoples (their co-religionists), the illegal use of force in 1948 and subsequently, and other wholly unjustifiable iniquities and offences against Arab Palestinians (whatever may have been the provocation that sometimes the Israelis felt they suffered).

The majority of my Jewish in-laws were strongly anti-Zionist in the first half of the 20th century, because they foresaw the destruction of ancient Jewish communities and the growth of anti-semitism that would be the almost inevitable consequence, and the antagonism that the Zionists would arouse if they achieved their aim of a Jewish state in a mainly Muslim part of the world, though even they can hardly have foreseen the disastrous effect on the peace of the Middle East and the whole world that the Zionists would cause. Were they wrong? I think not.

Michael B

Edward N,

You are very much whitewashing the treatment of Jews and others (since 634 to 644 CE, as the Geniza documents you cite, obviously among others, help to establish).

Firstly, the pogroms, murders, incitements, etc. began before 1947/8, not after Israel was created. In 1941, for example, in Iraq, Jews were massacred in a particularly violent fashion. Babies were pulled apart by their limbs and wives and daughters were raped in front of their families. (Apologies to sensitive readers, but it's true.) In Egypt, Syria, Libya and other locales similar events took place. In some substantial part it was aggravated and provoked by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who worked in direct relationship with Hitler/Himmler, in Berlin, from 1942 to 1945, and had formed a formal working alliance with Hitler/Himmler prior to that point. Again: prior to '47/48.

In fact, you are whitewashing the entire dhimmi experience, since the seventh century and through to this day. This is a vast subject, as the nearly 1,400 year span suggests and there were certainly better periods and locales and worse ones, as some of what you note also suggests. Nonetheless, I'll provide some quotes from 20th century Jewish refugees:

"The Arab rioters killed and burned, they stormed into houses, killing, destroying and plundering ..." Lydia Hayoun, survivor of the Libyan anti-Jewish riots of 1945

"Dhimmis always had to be both physically and metaphorically inferior, for example a Jew could not ride a horse because then his or her head would be higher than a Muslim." Loolwa Khazoom, whose family was of Iraqi origins

"You always felt like an inferior - I wish I could say "only" second class - but it felt more like tenth class at least ... constantly trying to complement the Arab, trying to minimize yourself." Gina Waldman, Libyan refugee

Those are mere samplings only, obviously. Bat Ye'or's documentation of dhimmitude is of course one source that has been well publicized, but there are many sources that help to document the dhimmi experience, since the 634-644 era that initiated the "Great Jihad."

Linda Smith

Andrew N, I recommend you read Andrew Bostom's book "The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism" for an accurate history of the Jews of the Middle East. Here is an extract from the Foreward by Ibn Warraq.

"The history of the Jews in Muslim lands especially Muslim Spain needs to be studied on its own terms, without myth or countermyth"

"And that is exactly what Andrew Bostom has done, provide a history of the Jews in Muslim lands, without myth. Bostom provides the necessary corrective to the idealized portraits of the golden age or the absolute tolerance of Ottoman Turkey. Patiently and methodically, he shows the real situation of Jews against a background of the institution of dhimmitude, which relentlessly persecuted all non-Muslims and reduced their lives to a misery, lives which were further punctuated with massacres and pogroms, all grimly recorded by him. Bostom also takes into account the discoveries of the Cairo Geniza, which forced even the great historian Shlomo Dov Goitein (d. 1985) to revise his ideas about the situation of Jews in Islamic lands. While the West has recognized her own shameful part in the slave trade, and antisemitic persecution, and has taken steps to make amends where possible, the Islamic lands remain in constant denial. Until Islamic countries acknowledge the realities of anti-Jewish persecution in their history, there is no hope of combating the continuing hatred of Jews in modern times, from Morocco to Indonesia."

Oh, and a few words from Maimonides:

"..the Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us...Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they..."

Adam B.

Edward N simply blames the victim for bringing it on themselves. The perpetrators apparently bear no responsibility. It's a tactic as old as the hills.

Edward N

Adam B:

I don’t think that it is the case that I blame the victims rather than the perpetrators. The Palestinian Arab victims have certainly provoked their persecutors, not least in sending their little rockets from Gaza into Israel; but the persecution they have suffered has been far from proportionate (a word beloved by EU lawyers), not only in the Gaza War but in many other ways too numerous to mention. There is an element in the Israeli make up which has much in common with the domineering arrogance and disregard of the indigenous inhabitants which some of the Nazis showed in countries which they occupied during World War II.

As for the dhimmitude suffered by non-Muslims in past centuries, that applied to Christians as well as to Jews, but it is not to any great extent the Christian Arabs who are persecuting their Muslim neighbours (I leave out the Christian West’s wars of the last 20 years, the provocation for which is still a matter of debate). There are pros and cons to the Crusades (except the 4th, which was an unmitigated evil), but so far as the Muslims can be said to have been victims of the First Crusade, although they were guilty of provocation I do not greatly blame them – Palestine had already been Muslim territory for nearly 500 years and they had a right, however unwise it may have been, to tighten up the regulation of the passage of Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem.

Or are you thinking that the Israelis are victims? The Israelis are able to look after themselves, and the perpetrators of attacks on them have received disproportionate retaliation from them, in addition to the general discrimination shown against them. I do place some blame on the Israelis for the state of relations in the Middle East, but that, as I tried to point out, was the virtually inevitable result of the success of Theodor Herzl’s Zionist movement.

Or is it the Jews in the six countries that Michael B mentions? I certainly do not blame them for the ill-treatment they received from time to time before or in the early years of the 20th century. Even in England, where the first Jewish members of my family arrived 150-200 years ago, they have faced a certain amount of discrimination, though not enough to prevent them from employing their undoubted talents in banking and other forms of business with considerable success – and for nearly 200 years after Jews settled in England during the Commonwealth, Roman Catholics were often treated as badly if not worse. The fact is that both were different; and in a broadly homogeneous society such as existed in England until the 1950s those who are different tend to be regarded rather as second class citizens. The dhimmitude, if one can call it that, experienced by Roman Catholics and Jews in England until the 19th century was, I think, regrettable though understandable in the light of the Reformation and the gradual consolidation of the national Church of England, but I do not blame the victims of it for anything (except perhaps an element of triumphalism in the pronouncements of some Roman Catholics in recent years).

Adam B.

Edward N,

So now they're Nazis too?

I didn't even read beyond that - not worth my time. Grotesque.

Michael B

Edward N,

Good grief. Firstly, those six Muslim countries were simply examples of the larger phenomenon.

Secondly, if you're going to advance the charge of equivocation with Hitler's Nazi imperium, substantiate that charge via references to actual, real world comparisons and evidence in general. Advancing such a charge, absent a substantial explication, reflects no small vanity and indulgence. You interweave some more sensible commentary with over-arching indulgences that are truly repulsive.

Fly in the ointment. Too many flies in too little ointment, Edward. The result is in fact a type of revulsion.

GoodVibes

Linda N - it really does not help your case to quote Maimonides saying "..the Arabs have persecuted us severely ... Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they..."

The views and preachings of this man were/are shocking. As he taught "As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow' - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow"

Maimonides is quite explicit that a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. In another passage he concludes: "and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment ..." though he continues that doctors may treat threatening Gentiles: "... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment". This comes from the court physician to Grand Vezier Alfadil in Egypt and later to Sultan Saladin (of Crusader fame). You really want to quote him on the subject of the racism of others?

Until the antisemitism deliberately induced by Israel, the Jews of Egypt led a life of quite astonishing stability, the Cairo Geniza holding some 200,000 document/fragments from about 870 AD to as late as 1880 (Wikipedia). What happened then? Oh, Western scholars arrived and robbed it of everything!

Liz SA

Good Vibes. It really doesn't help your case to quote Wikipedia either.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Due to absence, I missed out on an opportunity to respond to D Lindsay's comments of 6 August.

On his oblique reference to the bombing of the King David Hotel, that action was intended as a symbolic demonstration against the British administration in its HQ, to which end a warning was given in advance, in order to enable evacuation of the staff. According to a survivor, a typically arrogant British officer forbade and prevented the evacuation, declaring that "we" don't take orders from the Jews; "we" give the orders !

Lindsay's recommendation that Ms Phillips take out Israeli citizenship and settle there "so that those of us who want to be British can get on with being British" is a typical British reaction today towards UK Jews who dare to speak out in support of our brothers and sisters in the Land of Israel. There was an earlier version of this, before the re-birth of the Jewish state in our ancestral homeland ; it was extremely common for UK Jews to be told to go back to 'Palestine' "where you came from". I'd wager that Lindsay and his ilk would be extremely reluctant to recommend to blatantly disaffected UK Muslims that they return to their countries of origin !

Mark Robertson

When you let out your premises, you may have to deal with a number of different people. You may come across honest tenants who pay their rent on time and or come across problem tenants who may not be paying rent on time or may not be taking proper care of the accommodation provided to them. In the case of the latter, you can choose to evict problem tenants. In order to How to Evict Squatters or, problem tenants, a notice is served on the tenants for the breach of the agreement. Many a time, the notice itself helps you to evict problem tenants or get the dues. But in case, the tenant continues to be a nuisance and does not vacate or, pay the rent then the next step is to issue proceedings against your tenant.

charlie

My anger burns, we have as a nation been complicit in these atrocities against the jewish people,keep up the good work melanie be a very profitable fly in the ointment, for this nations soul is being sold, and it seems the price is yet more Jewish blood.