Can they give Britain a loan, please?

Roger K

Jolly good, Israel can do without visits from weak, godless ill-willed useful idiots like these. I also wonder if those who sign these hateful letters realise that their names go down on other lists too, that are of longer duration?

John Edwards

Any economic progress in some parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is no substitute for the Palestinians achieving their own State.

And no mention of the continued suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza inflicted by the blockade.

Vicky Niry

The choirmaster was to show his choir the situation out there, and visit holy sites. But Betty Hunt (a name ripe for spoonerisms if ever there was one) put paid to that with her far left extremist activism.

The Bishop of Jerusalem and the choir caved into Palestinian threats of being made "unwelcome", whatever that means.

Betty Hunter has thus prevented the Clare College Choir from visiting Bethlehem, East Jerusalem and Israel, because of her threats and intimidation by far left extremists.

And she threatens more to come. These people should be locked up in the madhouse.

Major Plonquer

Pah! These are all just numbers. You fail to take into consideration the 'cool factor'. It just isn't cool for young people to acknowledge mere facts. The truth is:

Palestine = cool. (socialist)
Israel = warmongers. (democratic)

Maybe you just don't get it. What drugs aren't you smoking?

Paul Freeman

John Edwards:

As a determined and relentless Seeker After Truth on the Middle East conflict, you will, I'm sure, be interested to read this report on the Gaza "blockade":

http://www.bicom.org.uk/newsletter-latest-from-bicom/bicom-briefing--israeli-policy-on-access-to-gaza

Here is a taster:

What goods enter Gaza from Israel?

Israel accepts that even though it withdrew from Gaza, and considers Gaza
under the rule of Hamas to be an ‘enemy entity', it still has a humanitarian
responsibility to the population. Israel, therefore, allows international aid
and trade in basic commodities through its border.
There is no limit on the quantity of essential commodities entering Gaza from
Israel, only on types of goods. Goods that routinely enter include food,
medical supplies, educational materials/stationary, cleaning supplies,
agricultural materials, animal feed and livestock. Israel also supplies
commercial fuel for the power station and cooking fuel.
In addition Israel has responded to specific needs and requests from
international aid agencies. Israel recently allowed the transfer of Swine Flu
vaccines, masks and medications into Gaza. In November, Israel facilitated
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8352076.stm) thousands of cattle to be shipped into
Gaza for the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. In the past few months, materials
have entered to facilitate water, sewage, and electrical infrastructure
repairs. In July, Israel authorised hundreds of tonnes of cement and building
materials to support UN-sponsored construction projects.
Figures from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
show that the total amount of materials transferred into the Gaza Strip from
Israel in 2009 up to the end of November (not including fuel) was 28,431
truckloads, compared to 26,838 trucks for the whole on 2008. Of 64,000 tonnes
of goods that entered Gaza from Israel in November, 89% was private sector
trade and 11% was international aid.
Israel is not the only source of goods into Gaza. Whilst Egypt allows hardly
any goods to enter though its border, much of what enters Gaza today is
smuggled though tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border. This includes a wide range
of goods not allowed through the Israeli border, including weaponry. It was
recently reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8405020.stm)
that Egypt is erecting a metal wall along its border with Gaza in an attempt to
prevent smuggling through the tunnels.
Whilst the quantities of basic goods that enter Gaza from Israel have
fluctuated over the past year, this is linked to demand, which is also affected
by the supply from the smuggling tunnels. A UN report
(http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_humanitarian_monitor_monthly_report_2009_10_18_english.pdf)
in October suggested that one reason the quantities of certain materials
entering from Israel had declined was ‘market saturation'.
From the beginning of the year to November 16, 4000 medical patients
accompanied by 3600 escorts had passed through the border into Israel for
medical treatment. Some traders also have special dispensation to enter Israel
to organise imports of goods. 18500 permits had been granted for Palestinians
to leave Gaza and enter Israel or travel overseas in 2009.

Merry Christmas to you.

Miranda Rose Smith

When Ms. Hunter described Israel as a "state which represses Palestinians," perhaps she was thinking of Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt.

Tired

"Any economic progress in some parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territories is no substitute for the Palestinians achieving their own State."

They have their own state. It's called Jordan.

"And no mention of the continued suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza inflicted by the blockade."

...Because she's already dealt with that over and over again in previous posts.

Truthwatcher

THIS MUST STOP NOW. we the enlighted liberals with a dark hidden agenda must do all possible to reverse this trend and return our friends the Palestinians to poverty and misery, so we can continue to point our finger at the Israelis and scream oppressors and Nazis.

We must also secretly wish for a new Israeli military incursion to use as an channel for our hatred of Jews (sorry meant to say Zionists) and give our comrades from the BBC/Guardian/Independent a reason to salivate with excitement enabling them once again to to accuse the Jews (Israelis) of war crimes and make comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto.

This would also help the British legal system which has suffered during the recession with all the new litigation and arrest warrents against Israeli leaders, whilst Hamas murderers can walk around the world greeteed with adulation.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Mr. Edwards: Gaza has a border with Egypt. If the Gazans have no problem getting weapons from Egypt, why can't they get food, medicine, whatever else they may need from Egypt? The Gazans would be suffering a lot more if Israel cut off their water and electricity. Why do you mention the "suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza inflicted by the blockade," but not the suffering of the Israelis in Sederot, Ashdod and Ashkelon, caused by the rockets?
The now so-called "Palestinians," who are culturally, linguistically and historically Arabs, had their
chance for their own state in 1948, and they blew it. Israel, unlike Egypt or Jordan, stands ready to give the now so-called "Palestinians" their SECOND autonomous homeland (ever hear of Jordan?) any time the now so-called "Palestinians" agree to quit killing Jews for five minutes.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Tired: Bravo!
I wish all of you a merry Christmas and a happy, healthy New Year.

Romo

Truthwatcher: Excellent post. How true are those words.

You have to ask yourself why each and every article in the UK media that relates to anything to do with Israel is negative. A specious piece in the Telegraph a couple of days ago lamented how the 'poor shopkeepers of Bethlehem are suffering because the [nasty] Israelis stop the tourists from shopping there!'

By the way, I posted a comment on the BBC website about the Choir's visit. It wasn't published.

What is happening here??

MNC

And what about Gaza? You know, that barrel full of fish that Israeli gunmen like to shoot in?

phil

MNC .you said it son ,not including the innocents of course ,sometimes a pearl of wisdom drops from the mouth of-----

Henry Sidgwick

I believe this is what passes for irony here.

There was a similar piece a few weeks ago. Again, I am not sure what is intended. Is this to be read as a snapshot of the Palestinian economy, a measure of the standard of living of the average Palestinian; or a measure of how much the gangsters funded and supported by the US and EU (and Israel) profit from doing their bidding, and how much of their wealth "trickles down"; or a demonstration to Gaza of the rewards accruing to obedience; or a glimpse of what would be possible across Palestine in the event of a genuine two-state agreement (not the travesty Israel thinks it can get away with and probably will)?

What is the intention here?

C. Gee

Henry Sidgwick:

The intention was to confuse you with facts. But you saw right through it: the whole West Bank boom is "a demonstration to Gaza of the rewards accruing to obedience."
Well done. "Gazans, obey the rule not to murder Israelis and look what rewards accrue."

By the way, why should the West Bank boom give us a glimpse into what a state of Palestine could do? There is no reason to expect that under the socialist PLO or the Islamist Hamas, the Palestinian economy will do well. It will be a despotism, but will have no oil. It will join the Arab boycott against Israel. The usual Arab state corruption and nepotism will keep wealth in the hands of the governing elite, who will brutally suppress dissent. Etc.

wonderer

Henry Sidgwick, simpler than irony perhaps. Rather, a suggestion that the privations suffered by the Palestinians are not so severe as has been depicted.

While you're around, it would be interesting to have your considered response to the question put to you by John Roosevelt in the comments on the piece about Andrew Roberts's speech:-

"Henry Sidgwick: Just stay on topic, forget your "parsing" for a moment, and focus on refining your prescription for Peace. So far, as many have clearly pointed out, it has been found lamentably wanting.

"Let's try and kick start your thinking on this...Hypothesis: Israel returns to the Armistice Lines of 1949. Hamas continues attacking Jewish civilians. Recommendation?"

What, for example, if the armed groups, and not just Hamas, got up on the hilltops and started firing missiles at planes using Ben Gurion airport?

wonderer

Betty Hunter objects to a choir touring Israel because it ‘promotes Israel as a normal state rather than one which represses Palestinians'.

I don't recall any of the bien-pensant objecting to similar tours of the USSR on the ground that it repressed many millions of people.

daniel maris

I think Palestinians fall into three camps:

1. Those who are deadly serious about wiping out Israel.

2. Those who realise what a good thing they are on to with UN, EU, Saudi and US subsidies, combined with the Israeli connection and are happy to continue whilst keeping the grievance machine going (since that is what generates the money).

3. Those who want a genuine peace settlement and a two state solution (probably keeping quiet as that is a good way of staying alive).

sebastian

And I suppose this silly woman - Betty Hunter - thinks "Palestinian" islamist persecution of Christians and women (something that does not happen in Israel) along with harrassment of gays (ditto) and assassination or routine, gross ill-treatment of dissidents or political opponents (ditto), plus the intractable, murderous hostility between Hamas and Fatah, plus the lack of PA and Hamas financial accountability...............and so on, is "normal"?
I'm astonished that the choir took the slightest notice of this deluded and deeply prejudiced activist.
So called "Palestinians" never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity; and make sure everyone else does likewise. What choral folly to silence themselves on behalf of the world's most determined, wilful and deliberate losers.

Andy Gill

Hunt's petty little protest is typical of the small-mindedness of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign. They have been moaning about the 'humanitarian crisis' in Palestine for years, in an attempt to drum up sympathy. But it only exists in their imagination.

Raymond in DC

The irony is that in the 60+ years since Israel's independence, the Palestinian Arabs have fared best when they were under Israeli suzerainty. This is supported by reams of economic data.

George Gilder in his recent "The Israel Test" divides the region's recent history into rough two decade eras. In the first, from 1948-1967, Gaza (under Egyptian military rule) and the West Bank (illegally seized by Transjordan) were economic an political backwaters. From 1967-1987 under Israeli "occupation", infrastructure was no longer neglected. Roads, electric, water and sewer lines were installed, schools (including their first universities) and medical facilities were built, and economic growth was among the fastest in the world.

From 1987 (first intifada) to 2007 when security was reimposed, things went into decline. Under Arafat, they went off a cliff. Only now are they getting back on track, but unlike that earlier era, relies heavily on economic aid.

The truth is most in Gaza live better than most in Egypt, those in the West Bank live better than those in Jordan.

Henry Sidgwick

Some are very impressed with these facts. Some talk of a West Bank boom.

It is certainly welcome that Israel has allowed the economy to stabilise. But remember that a 10% increase on very little still amounts to very little. And remember that facts need interpretation.

I know several people whose annual income is in six figures, who live in large houses, own several luxury cars etc. Does this fact tell us anything very much about the general state of the economy? More pertinent to Palestine, in Guatemala, El Salvador, and even in the wreckage of Nicaragua, there is conspicuous wealth, as there is in most examples of pacification administered by the US. What we have in Palestine are the first green shoots of gangster capitalism, with the usual official imprimatur of the IMF and the World Bank. The gangsters profit, there is some trickle down, and the sponsors of the pacification are satisfied.

What happens to the Palestinian economy depends almost entirely on Israel. Why does Israel allow the economy to stabilise and even grow? Israel is as hard-headed as anyone in pursuit of its own interests.

It seems to me that Israel sees two benefits.

First, there is a quid pro quo. Arafat proved useless at the task assigned him at Oslo of keeping the Palestinian population in their place. His successors are wiser. The US, UK and Israel are busy training up the PA security forces to do the job of keeping the peace, or keeping the Palestinians down and the Israelis free from threat. Why would the PA do this? Apart from the trappings of power? Money. Power and affluence in return for "security". It has been the recipe used by the US throughout the world since the Second World War.

Secondly, Israel can now point to the prosperity of the West Bank (and it and its propagandists are already doing so), and say that the Palestinians do not need land back, Israel's settlements and monopoly on aquifers, and control of access and movement, are not impeding Palestinian prosperity, the Palestinians do not need a contiguous state, they are fine as they are in their ghettoes. So Israel can keep what it wants, and the world will acquiesce.

Is any of this in the interests of the Palestinian people? Who cares apart from them and a few "lefties" or "liberals" or "bleeding hearts" or whatever the insult of the moment might be.

Adam B.

Henry Sidgwick, as you ignored the question on another thread, I'll ask you here.

What is your prescription for peace in the Middle East?

Henry Sidgwick

Adam B.,
If you recall, you have told me what motivates you: "you see, I just enjoy winding up Israel haters so much." With such a combination of slander and silliness, why do you think I would continue to attempt rational debate with you?

phil

Adam B.
December 28th, 2009 7:42pm you can tell HS @ 8.50-that he never did !!

Adam B.

Henry, what is your answer? Don't do it for me, why not respond to John Roosevelt, who posed the question to you? Or is there a problem with him as well?

You have, in the past, castigated me for not replying to you. This was due to workload, and I apologised for it. You clearly have time now, so may we have an answer?

Verity

Adam B.,
I have followed your comments and those of a John Roosevelt over a number of threads. Why spray your opponent with contemptible insults and then bray about their refusal to respond? This is shabby at best and puts in serious question your sincerity in saying you want to debate the issues. Why do you do it?

Verity

Adam B.,
"My belief is that we must revert to the lines drawn in 1948 rather than try to guess what deals were done in the garden of Eden ,in other words
"get real"." - Phil.

I suppose Mr. Henry Sidgwick might agree with Phil on what a peace deal should look like but I suspect he's more realistic - there'll have to be a compromise somewhere between Phil's historically informed solution and the rejectionism of every Israeli government.

Verity

Verity Verity,
I'm sorry - I fogot my name is your property. I will use my pseudonym in future to avoid distressing you further (in the unlikely event that you are reading any of this).

Adam B.

Verity, "sprayed with contemptible insults"? I think you will find it's the other way round.

The reason I pursue Mr Sidgwick for a response is becuase he continuously heaps the most unfair condemnation and vilification upon the Jewish state, and I don't want to give him a free ride. There is enough of this in the world. Aren't you concerned that such people are quick to vilify the only democracy in the region, but then can't come up with a workable solution? This is also in light of the fact that Mr Sidgwick criticized me for not answering him - something he is now guilty of himself.

What is that prescription for peace?

Adam B.

Verity, that is sheer revisionism. It is the Israeli side which has repeatedly offered solutions - the Arabs have continuously chosen war instead.

wonderer

Henry Sidgwick, one might be forgiven for surmising that your refusal to reveal your prescription was a cop-out. Adam B and Phil may have used outspoken phrases from time to time, but others have made the same request. Was I guilty of "slander and silliness" when I put it to you in this thread on 24 December?

Truthtriumphs.

Adam B.

Excellent points which they are unable to refute.
The truth is on our side.

Verity

Adam B.,
As I understand it the historical record has shown Israel keen to avoid a constructive response to everyone from super-powers, to neighbouring states, to the likes even of Hamas(!), and local worthies seeking a modus vivendi with the occupying power. It may require a revision of Israel's official history, but that is not revisionism but setting the record straight.

I suppose you are unwilling to second Phil in his peace proposal?

On the question of vilification and insults I think you should re-read your contributions and those of Mr. Henry as if a disinterested observer - in your latest long exchange he appeared to be scrupulous in trying to answer every point you made even if you didn't like his answer, and you were (surprisingly, to me) assiduous in passing over his points in silence or distracting from them with distortions of what he said and with insults - go and look again. I came back to this site in search of the constructive debate I think perfectly possible - but you seem to have other ideas - which is a shame.

phil

WHICHEVER VERITY WROTE THIS "
Verity
December 30th, 2009 10:38am

Adam B.,
"My belief is that we must revert to the lines drawn in 1948 rather than try to guess what deals were done in the garden of Eden ,in other words
"get real"." - Phil.

I suppose Mr. Henry Sidgwick might agree with Phil on what a peace deal should look like but I suspect he's more realistic - there'll have to be a compromise somewhere between Phil's historically informed solution and the rejectionism of every Israeli government"
--------------------------------------------------------------
I would be unlikely to ever agree with HS or in fact with the impersonation,to his detriment, of a long since passed philosopher . Adam states the truth and has asked questions for a long time and he has been the victim of incessant evasion by a person who continues to find criticism whether right or wrong of the Israeli state .JR has engaged him patiently and intellectually and found him wanting consistently .I have tried endlessly and wasted my time with a stubborn mind bent on disagreement .I have found him to have no interest when peace is sought in a practical manner ,just a list of requirements for "further and better particulars" comes to mind .So I would ask you whoever you are to not include me in any discussions with this man. Adam has proved himself for years to be an honest and respected person on these threads and deserves better than these insults .

Adam B.

Verity, I couldn't disagree more. Israel has offered the Palestinian Arabs a state on several occasions, before Israel was even born, again at its birth (when the Jews accepted the UN partition plan, and the Arabs rejected it, favouring an invasuion of the fledgling Jewish state instead), again after the Six Day War, when the Arab league's response in Khartoum comprised the three "No's" - that is to say, No peace, No recognition, No negotiation. Again in 2000, a state was offered and Arafat responded with the second terror intifada, which murdered 1000 innocent Israelis. Then Olmert offered another state a couple of years ago, rejected by the Holocaust denier Abbas.

Verity, what have the Palestinians offered? On what issues are they compromising? Hamas and Fatah both reject a Jewish state, and have said so explicitly. Same goes for Hizbollah and Iran and Syria. Rejection after rejection. What was the response after Israel withdrew lock stock and barrel from Gaza? An increase in violence aimed at Israeli civilians, not a decrease. Did the Palestinians put their energies into creating a new state? No - it was more important to put their efforts into violence against Israel. A more extreme agenda in the election of the antisemitic terror group, Hamas. Now perhaps to you, this paints a picture of Israeli intransigence and Arab victimhood. But I choose to live in reality. Perhaps you could provide me with an example anywhere in the world when the victim of numerous wars and attacks is moral bound to appease and provide concessions to its attackers and those who seek to eradicate it?

This conflict will come to an end when the mentality of the Arab world changes from one which enthusiastically seeks the destruction of Israel and the killing of its citizens - when pluralism is embraced and despotism is rejected. Unfortunately, we aren't close to that happening yet.

Verity

Phil,
"My belief is that we must revert to the lines drawn in 1948 rather than try to guess what deals were done in the garden of Eden ,in other words
"get real"."

This is a quote from you, isn't it? Your reply, if that's what it was, left me unclear.

Verity

Adam B.,
We are not going to agree on the history. I will just say that any protagonist's official history is not going to include facts which show that protagonist in a bad light. This applies as much to Israel as to the PLO or Hamas. I can only suggest that you dig a bit deeper. The more accurate your account, the more robust will be your case.

Truthtriumphs.

Verity.
Adam B's account IS accurate but your problem is that you find the facts unpalatable, because they contradict your wishful thinking.
Therefore let me simplify it for you.
The root cause of the Palestine/Israel problem is the failure of the Arab world to accept a tiny sliver of land, majority controlled by Jews, because in Islam there is no place for "the other". Islam will never be satisfied until it rules supreme. It is written for all to see.
Israel today, Europe tomorrow, as soon as Muslim immigration and birth-rate permit.
Arab governments have always promoted a vile hatred of the Jews and Israel, in order to deflect the attention of their subjugated masses from the failings of their miserable bunch of theocracies, autocracies and kleptocracies.
Muslim/Arab lands are vast, and Israel is a mere one sixth of one per cent of that land mass.
The notion of a Palestinian identity is a recent invention, to tap into the anti-semitic proclivities of people such as yourself, in order to evict the Jews from their historic homeland, in which they had dominion for some 1,400 years, more than 1000 years before Islam was even thought of.

If a Palestinian identity exists, what defines it?
A sovereign Palestinian state has never existed throughout history.

Adam B.

Verity, I always find it amusing when anti-Israel individuals, when confronted with facts as outlined above, dont't dispute the facts, but rather tell me to "dig deeper", as if somehow my support for Israel must necessarily be a result of not being knowledgeable.

Which part of my previous post is incorrect?

Si, N

Paul Freeman's is a misguided/lazy/cynical/mendacious attempt at enlightening Mr. Edwards. The 'taster' from the BICOM Briefing is shallow but a fair representation of the whole.

BICOM note:

'Rocket attacks from Gaza against Israeli civilians
greatly increased after the election of Hamas.
After Hamas violently expelled forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas from Gaza In June 2007, they strengthened their hold on Gaza and increased their arsenal. In the first four months of 2008 there was a rocket or mortar fired at Israel on average every three and a half hours'.

So, as a 'taster', is the above supposed to sate the curiosity of a 'Seeker After Truth on the Middle East conflict'?

Not nearly. For example, BICOM fail to note crucial facts as to why Hamas elected, 'violently expelled forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas'. Such as the decidely violent Israeli/US backed coup - remember that? Vanity Fair reported in, The Gaza Bombshell:

'President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan,
touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever'. (David Rose April 2008)

Such are the operations when 'Israel does not want to act in a way that will enable Hamas to reap political reward from its control of Gaza or that would undermine the moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank' (BICOM). In deliberately shattering the fledgling Hamas/Fatah alliance,
the Gaza/West Bank separation was complete - Gaza officially an 'enemy entity' September 2007 onwards; its 1.5 million inhabitants hostile agents.
The policies enacted by Israel against Gaza's inhabitants ever since have plumbed new depths of barbarism.

Si, N

BICOM's portrayal of the blockade is problematic too - for instance, why does BICOM only cite figures for 2008/09? To make any sense of the truckloads entering/leaving Gaza surely there ought to be a consideration of pre-blockade deliveries/exports?

Such as this from, Failing Gaza December 2009:

'[i]n the period before the blockade, an average of 70 truckloads of exports left Gaza a
day, and 583 truckloads of goods and humanitarian supplies came in' (Failing Gaza, December 2009, p. 5 - figures from August 2009, p.5, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/
FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/NSPR-7UWGWL-full_report.pdf/$File/
full_report.pdf.)

Compared with:

'the first two years of the blockade, an average of
just 112 truckloads per day – one-fifth of previous levels – were allowed into Gaza. Exports have been entirely banned with the exception of several small shipments, for example of carnations for the Dutch market. (Failing Gaza, December 2009, p.5 - figures from August 2009, p.5, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/
FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/NSPR-7UWGWL-full_report.pdf/$File/
full_report.pdf, & Palestine Trade Centre, Special Report: Gaza Strip Two Years Through
Siege, July 2009, http://www.paltrade.org/cms/images/enpublications/
Special%20Report%20-%20Gaza%202%20years%20thru%20siege.pdf)

And again on re/construction material:

'[b]efore the blockade just over half of the imports going into Gaza were made up of construction
materials. In the five months running up to its imposition 7,400 truckloads a month containing construction materials were entering Gaza; in
the six months after, this shrunk to a trickle of 31 a
month on average. The cement lane at Karni was shut down altogether. There was a brief increase in materials gaining access from July to October 2008
during the Egyptian-brokered cessation of violence between Israel and Hamas.

However, in the last year, since a military offensive which left much of the territory’s civilian
infrastructure in tatters, Israel’s constriction on
the entry of construction materials into Gaza has tightened. Barely four trucks of construction materials a month have entered Gaza during this
period, just 0.05% of pre-blockade monthly flows'.
(Failing Gaza, December 2009, p.6 - for a full breakdown see http://www.ochaopt.org/gc/)

0.05% of pre-blockade monthly flows! BICOM, like most supporters of Israel, insist it is necessary because 'Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction and is still holding kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit'. (BICOM)

Yet, where Hamas is observant of
unilateral ceasefires/halts on suicide bombings - - Israel invariably breaks bilateral ceasefires - notably that of June/November 2008 - Israel failed to adequately ease the blockade as agreed and on 5 November 2008 killed 6 Hamas operatives then proceeded to massacre 1,400 mostly innocent
civilians using modern napalm, DIME munitions and god knows what else. Various explanations for the timing of Israel's transgression on that occasion: the US interregnum; to scupper the mooted 9 November Cairo reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah; restoration of the 'deterrent factor' after the 2006 Lebanon fiasco. The Israeli military insisted that in breaking the ceasefire there '[was] no intention to disrupt the ceasefire,
rather the purpose of the operation was to remove
an immediate and dangerous threat posed by the Hamas terror organisation'. Lest we forget, the 'immediate and dangerous threat' was a tunnel the Israel military insisted was intended for the 'kidnapping' of an IDF operative. So despite the fact that Hamas was in observance, Israel, rather than simply move their forces away from the ambit of the 'immediate and dangerous threat', broke the ceasefire.

Naturally, Gilad Shalit always trumps the thousands of Palestinians detained by Israel to the extent that the Palestinians do not merit a mention - Some 'TRUTH' that is Mr. Freeman.

Caleb

Adam B, you ask, 'Which part of my previous post is incorrect?'
I have checked but I cannot find a reference for the '1000 innocent Israelis' you say were killed during the second intifada. According to B'tselem, between 29 September 2000/26 December 2008, 1062 Israelis were killed. 727 were civilians, 335 were soldiers. Can you demonstrate that the soldiers were not involved in actions against the Palestinians?

Worryingly though your potted history overlooks Palestinian deaths. B'tselem's records
show that 5 times as many Palestinians were killed in the same 29 September 2000/26 December 2008 period. Can you demonstrate that all Palestinians killed in that period were not innocent?

On this thread you have been keenly canvassing opinions about a 'prescription for peace'. But I fail to see how any solution can be found without an honest reckoning on both sides.

Truthtriumphs

Si, N.
One question.
Why, when Israel withdrew from Gaza completely, even removing dead Jews from the soil, but leaving valuable infrastructure like profitable greenhouses, homes etc. to help the Gazans , was all that trashed, and rockets in their thousands dispatched to Israel, deliberately aimed to kill civilians?
Because the Arabs, instead of making peace, understood the Israeli actions to mean surrender.
Sorry, but in accordance with their oft-stated aims, the Arabs want the removal of Israel in its entirety, for all the rest is commentary.
Prove to us otherwise.

Si, N

Truthtriumphs asks, '[w]hy, when Israel withdrew from Gaza completely, even removing dead Jews from the soil, but leaving valuable infrastructure like profitable greenhouses, homes etc. to help the Gazans, was all that trashed'?

It should be noted that years before ‘disengagement’ the destruction of Gazan agriculture by Israeli forces had become routine. A few isolated incidents of vandalism perpetrated by smarting Palestinians in the wake of the occupying forces' exit do not constitute a golden opportunity missed. To suggest so is naïve in the extreme.

Remember, destruction of civilian property, including agricultural land, and the targeting of civilians
is illegal under international human rights law including the Fourth Geneva Convention – as ratified by Israel.

In 2005 (6 months ahead of ‘disengagement’), the United Nations Economic and Social Council noted:

'Israel’s destruction of Palestinian orchards has increased food insecurity in Gaza, destroying over 50% of Bayt Hanun’s orchards since 2001. In order to create “security” areas during 2004 military operations in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army levelled at least 17% (203.8 hectares) of Bayt Hanun’s arable land, and caused a cumulative loss of over 50% of all Bayt Hanun lands cultivated with fruit-bearing trees. In Jabaliya, occupation forces levelled 70.6 hectares of agricultural land and, in Bayt Lahia, razed 14.7 hectares and damaged or destroyed six livestock facilities. The army gratuitously razed two large tracts of agricultural land two fields of greenhouses outside the Tel al-Sultan housing project, far from any border.
From January to May 2004, Israel’s army destroyed some 38,000 dunums of cultivated land in Gaza, and uprooted over a million fruit-bearing trees.
In Zaitun, 2km from the Rafah border, the army destroyed 33 greenhouses, in addition to poultry farms, during a five-day curfew. These resulting economic losses would take years to recover. (A single fruit tree requires 5–7 years of steady cultivation before yielding fruit and any income)'.
(E/CN.4/2005/NGO/327 - 18 March 2005)

Clearly, it’s Israel that’s wrecking Palestinian greenhouses, crops and orchards - has been for decades and does still.

Ahead of the Dec 2008/Jan 2009
massacre in Gaza, Oxfam reported:

‘[t]he agricultural sector in Gaza has been severely affected by the ongoing conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian I
ntifada in 2000, 112,000 olive trees have been destroyed in the Gaza Strip by the conflict and Israeli military incursions. Also, one third of agricultural land - thousands of dunums (1 dunum=.25 acre) along the border with Israel - has been inaccessible to Palestinian farmers since Israeli settlements were dismantled in 2005. Israel then carved out a security zone that included valuable Gazan farming land. Farmers have been killed and injured trying to access and cultivate these lands’.
(27 November, 2008)

The International Committee of the Red Cross found:

‘[l]arge tracts of…land levelled, green houses destroyed, irrigation systems severely damaged and trees uprooted, farmers are facing ever-increasing hardships.
They were just about to start harvesting when the latest hostilities changed everything… The agricultural sector has deteriorated steadily since Israel's disengagement
from Gaza in 2005. The creation and extension of a buffer zone has led to the loss of much of the fertile agricultural land. Frequent military incursions have resulted in the repeated destruction of farms and fields in areas near the buffer zone. Farmers who get too close to the fence are often killed, wounded or arrested’. (4 February, 2009)

Eva Bartlett reported on the destruction:

‘Prior to the attacks on Gaza, the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees reported that of the 175,000 dunams (42,000 acres) (one dunam is 1,000 square meters) of cultivable land in the Gaza Strip, 50,000 dunams (12,000 acres) had been damaged by the Israeli army. These are the most fertile and productive agricultural areas,
the "food basket" areas, the group reports. Following the attacks on Gaza, international bodies put the amount of destroyed land much higher: 60,000-75,000 dunams of farmland they say is now damaged or unusable...

…Even before the attacks, Gaza's farming sector had been seriously devastated by the crippling siege on Gaza. Whereas Gaza had been producing half of its agricultural needs, the combination of siege and warfare on Gaza has led to the "destruction of all means of life," including destroyed farmland along with hundreds of
greenhouses, hundreds of wells and water pumps, and farming equipment…

…The ability to produce food is vital to combating staggering malnutrition levels in the Gaza Strip, a region rendered impoverished by Israel's blockade and the
consequent soaring unemployment levels. According to PARC, due to the Israeli ban on fertilizers, seeds, plastic sheeting for greenhouses, and irrigation piping,
among many other things, there has been a steady regression away from qualitative and productive farming practices’. (7 April, 2009)

And Bartlett on the destruction of 200,000 square metres of crops:

‘[o]n the morning of 4 May 2009, Israeli troops set fire to Palestinian crops along Gaza’s eastern border with Israel…Ibrahim Hassan Safadi says he was present when Israeli soldiers fired small bombs into his field, which soon after caught ablaze…[a]cording to Safadi, he lost 30,000 square meters to the blaze, including
300 pomegranate trees, 150 olive trees, and wheat’. (22 May, 2009)

Note: the post ‘disengagement’ 100-150 metre ‘off-limits’ area (unilaterally imposed by Israel on the Gaza side of the border) has, since the Gaza massacre,
been increased to 1km on the east side and 2km in the north. Bartlett has pointed to a Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) report stating: ‘roughly one-third of Gaza’s agricultural land lies within the confines of the “buffer zone”’. The World Food Program and the FAO have reported that anywhere from 35%-60% of the agriculture industry has been destroyed by Israel's attacks on Gaza.

Naturally, opinions about 'why' Israel deems it necessary to behave as described differ. No doubt Truthtriumphs will cast some shade on the matter.

Adam B.

Caleb, a few points.

Firstly, I regard those Israeli soldiers murdered by the Palestinian terror groups as innocent victims, in much the same way I regard British soldiers murdered by the Taleban and Al-Qaeda as innocent victims. Hamas, the Al Aqsa martyr brigades and Islamic Jihad were responsible for those deaths. None of these are "resistance" movements, they are rejectionist terrorists; they are sworn to kill every Jew on earth, indulge in antisemitic fantasies and oppose any kind of peace. So yes, over 1000 innocent Israelis have been murdered during the second terror intifada. Interesting, isn't it, that you are keen to make such a distinction, but I bet you are quite happy to say that 1400 Palestinians were killed in Operation Cast Lead without making a distinction between Hamas terrorists and civilians. In this case, both sets of casualties always get lumped together.

Secondly, it is absolutely tragic that innocent Palestinians have lost their lives, and I do not make light of this. This is a result of war, the ongoing war waged against the existence of the Jews in the Middle East which has been going for over a century. I do, however, place the blame for their deaths on the terror groups, who are happy to fight from amongst civilian infrastructure, and indeed deliberately use it, in order to obtain a double victory - if the Israelis abort a mission (as they frequently have) due to the risk posed to civilians, Hamas win. If Israel hits the target, but civilians are killed, they win again. They care little for their own people (as demonstrated by a complete lack of investment in civilian wellbeing - remember, more aid has poured into Gaza than any sub-Saharan African country. Where are the new hospitals, new housing, roads, schools? Hamas are media savvy, and know the value of propaganda.

Thirdly, I utterly reject anything from Btselem. This is not an independent group, and engages in political activism against Israel. They admit their lack of impartiality. So I'm not impressed with their figures - which have been demonstrated as false and misleading in the past. yet Israel is the kind of open society where such groups can exist. Pity one can't say the same for Hamas run Gaza.

Lastly, I note you do not deny the many opportunities (as I detailed above) for the Palestinians to establish a new state (in addition to the one called Jordan).

What is the prescription for peace? Do you think it lies in constantly and obsessively demonising Israel?

phil

Verity
December 31st, 2009 5:46pm -
---------------
If you make it clear which verity you are ,I will provide you with an answer .Are you the one who inhabits the coffee house and despises Obama,I ask you that merely for identification ,because with all the faults I found with "you" being anti Israel was never one of them .I abhor this invasion of privacy even to the "fragrant" lady with whom I have often disagreed but I will defend "your" right to identification as I know "you "defend the western way of life .I await your reply .

phil

Truthtriumphs
January 1st, 2010 1:06pm -I truly hope you will ignore Billy Liar -the greatest twister of truth that has ever been here .

Verity (not the Coffee House bigot)

Phil,
It was you wasn't it who took part in this exchange:

"...go and study a map of the West Bank. Study in particular the areas already annexed by Israel and out-of-bounds to Palestinians. What is left is a network of cantons, not a viable state nor a viable economy. So the question is, where do yo think the Palestinians should have their peaceful and prosperous state? It is not possible on the scraps they have left, yet you tell them to accept Israel as it is.
phil
November 19th, 2009 5:53pm
Henry Sidgwick
November 19th, Henry ,I do not have the time to study all these maps ,but you obviously have, so please can you tell me ,is the land you are complaining about within the original land assigned to Israel in 1948 or are you saying they have substantially accrued more -I genuinely do not know..."

I am remiss. I said I would remember not to use my name as I share it with someone else at the Coffee House. It is second nature. But I will try to do better.

Verity (not the Coffee House one)

Adam B.,
Your reply suggests that your grasp of how the study of history works is shaky, at best. As I said, official "history" will include only "facts" that fit. Official "history" will also assert "facts" that are partial at best.

You say Olmert offered a state. Was this when he headed the government?

Or take the "state" offered in 2000. What was offered was later set out in detail in a memo for Olmert, which reveals it to be a patchwork of ghettoes, some larger and some smaller. Barak said contemptuously to his colleagues that they can call it a "state" if they want.

I could take every one of your "facts" and show how the historical record (readily available)reveals a story more complex than you care to tell, a story which does not support the myths you wish us all to accept as the basis for oppressing one people to benefit another.

phil

Verity (not the Coffee House bigot),but a fair imitation as regards the bigotry ,which in fact I have never found her to be .
January 2nd, 2010 9:29am
---------------- well at least now we know who you are and it also shows how forgetful we all can be !-I shall choose not to involve myself with you as your mind is obviously made up and in my view of course wrong .so vaya con Dios ,you can say whatever the moderator will allow and we are free to ignore you .
---------------------------
The real verity is rude supercilious and very full of her own importance but occasionally speaks the truth ,so you will realise I am sure ,why I knew it wasn't her ,rather it was a student of our man HS whose views have been well documented here and equally well disparaged by John R.

Adam B.

Verity, coulf you explain what you mean by "official" history? There is no such thing. Are there "official" historians, putting material in front of an "official" panel who decide what is "official"?

This may not be fashionable amongst leftist circles, but there is such a thing as the truth Verity. It isn't simply a relative term, depending on perspective. You complain that Israel hasn't offered enough. The proposed state in 2000 was a contiguous land mass in Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. Bill Clinton told Arafat "you will never get such a good deal again." But Arafat wasn't interested in building a state, his bluff was called and instead he chose violence.

If Arafat, the man who invented modern plane hijacking wasn't happy with the proposition, was he unable to stay in negotiations and propose something else? He didn't. Negotiations don't mean you get all you want. Why couldn't the talks continue? What did the second intifada achieve?

Olmert is on record saying he proposed a state, including 97% of Judea and Samaria, and the Old City of Jerusalem - offered to the Holocaust denier Abbas whilst he was in govt. Make of it what you will. The fact is that the Palestinians have been offered a state so many times that one more hardly makes a difference. By the way, are you aware that Jordan is a Plaestinian state?

Verity, on what is the Arab world compromising? You have an exclusive list of demands of Israel. Is compromise only a one way street? Please reply to this point. And furthermore, you say my facts are shaky and you don't believe them, but then provide no substance to dispute them. It's like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I'm not listening!"

is the Khartoum conference fiction? Is the Arab rejection of the UN plan fiction? Come on, let's hear!

Verity (not Coffee House)

Phil,
I have read your efforts over many threads. I would do nothing so daft as to try to "involve" you in conversation on this matter (unlike one or two others where you express genuinely wise opinions with firmness but also with courtesy). Here I merely wanted you to confirm that you are the "Phil" who wrote the comments I quoted.

I will for now continue the habit of a life time and use my own name. At least here, for now, there will be none of the ambiguity which I should have known from past experience to avoid.

Caleb

Adam B your ultra partisan scattergun approach is comical. It does render it difficult for
one to take you serious though. You keep hectoring people about a 'prescription for peace',
when it is clear that there can be no sensible discussion about peace with somebody so mired in
Arab hatred.

Any prescription will necessarily mean contributions from all parties - you could help too; if you stopped misrepresenting the record.

You appear very belligerent. You condemn B'tselem, yet the figures they cite for Israeli
casualties largely concur with what you said. You simply put a spin on the statistics is all. Similarly, when confronted with Palestinian fatalties you equivocate and spin those too.

Please would you show me where B'tselem 'admit their lack of impartiality'. Are B'tselem not just a group of conscionable
Israelis keeping a tab on the conflict. Why are you so opposed to people making a record of events?

As for your insistence about 'opportunities...for the Palestinians to establish a new state' - the 'facts' as you present them do not ring true. For example, the 'deal' offered to Arafat by Barak was clearly
unacceptable - even the top Israeli negotiator at Camp David, Shlomo Ben-Ami, has since stated:

'Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well'; 'he [Barak] was very proud of the fact that his map would leave Israel with about a third of the [West Bank] territory'.

Are you better placed than Ben-Ami to comment on Camp David?

In short, everything that you state so emphatically [you offer no sources for your assertions] proves to be a distortion or misrepresentation. It is clear because as Verity rightly says the record is 'readily available' - anyone can check.

Also, when you go like this:

'Verity, coulf you explain what you mean by "official" history? There is no such thing.
Are there "official" historians, putting material in front of an "official" panel who decide what is "official"?'....

...you appear very childish or naive at best. You must have heard the cliche about victors writing the history. As I understand the term, official history is a type of propaganda. Speaking of which.

When you say, 'Hamas are media savvy, and know the value of propaganda', it appears that you view Arabs as subhuman or backward in some way. And with regards to an honest reckoning, you need to own up to your own service to Israeli propaganda.

One last thing, something that will forever remain an obstacle to peace is the dishonesty and
intransigence displayed by the likes of you. Adam B You are not helping.

phil

Caleb
January 2nd, 2010 3:28pm --- That post was simultaneously childish ,supercilious and the product of a young man whose knowledge of his subject is sparse to say the least ..Adam is entitled to speak his mind here without being insulted by people like you who most obviously know little or nothing of the problems facing both the Arabs and Israelis .I am older and probably a lot wiser than you on these matters and I know how difficult it is for all parties, and it does us no good when cheeky spouters come here and intervene between those who at least are offering their heartfelt opinions .Your position is so clear a child would know what you feel and yet your only research appears to be from places which will put Israel in the wrong .Our need is to find a common ground and not to pour oil on troubled waters and that is precisely what those like you are doing.I suggest if you really care ,you must go and read both side,s reports and then you may? come to the conclusion that one side has attacked the other for the last 60 years and wishes to annihilate it and that the other side is fed up with it .

phil

Verity (not Coffee House)
January 2nd, 2010 3:28pm ,Thankfully there is only one phil here .so yes it was me ,and as you couldn't work it out, I was saying that no problem will be solved in this area by one side referring back to borders from the bible and the other saying it will push them into the sea .I do not want to go into any more detail as I am truly fed up with the lack of empathy that arrives here on a daily basis ,epitomised by the nasty attack by caleb on Adam without even the start of a solution .Our world is ever more being taken over by fools with a lot to say but nothing of value .

Adam B.

Caleb, lots of invective, not much substance in your post. Let me deal with your accusations in turn.

You make the accusation that I hate Arabs, that obviously I am a racist. You even say that I view Arabs as “subhuman or backward in some way.”

By the same (very silly) token Caleb, I can recklessly accuse you of anti-Semitism, as you clearly hate Israel so much. Two can play at that childish game. And how ironic that condemnation of Hamas be interpreted as being racist, when it is that organization which is openly racist.

Back to a grown up discussion, you correctly state that peace will involve compromise on all sides. May I ask you what precisely on what the Palestinians are compromising? Please respond directly to this point.

Next, you defend Btselem, describing the organization as “conscionable Israelis keeping a tab on the conflict.” Except they don’t. They focus solely on supposed transgressions by Israel, and remain largely silent about Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran. Many members of btselem are what is known as “post-Zionists” or even “anti-Zionists” – that is, they don’t believe Israel should even exist as a Jewish state. What do you mean they have no political agenda? It is openly stated. They follow the leftist Israeli agenda. Fine if you agree with it – but don’t be so dishonest to pretend they are impartial observers – they have very clearly stated goals about what Israel should do (and not so clearly stated about what the Palestinians should do). Their statistics have been questioned, because they have often, as you did, lumped civilians and combatants together on the Palestinian side (including presenting Palestinians lynched by other Palestinians as being victims of Israeli actions) whilst presenting as Israeli military deaths those off duty reservists who may be blown up on an Israeli bus by a Palestinian suicide bomber. In short, they aren’t reliable, due to their being a political organization.

I could argue with your presentation of Ben-Ami (I don’t notice you providing any sources Caleb). I think you are rather selective – after all, did Ben-Ami present Arafat as negotiating in good faith? I think not. The fact is that what was offered was contiguous land – but for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re right. Are you saying that the Palestinians haven’t had ample opportunity for establishing a state? That with Clinton fully engaged in the process, there was no opportunity for further negotiations? I note you are quiet about the UN partition plan, the Khartoum conference – because you have no answer to that. What about Gaza? Israel withdrew lock stock and barrel, yet what has been achieved with the billions of aid money? The first act of the Palestinians was to burn down the synagogues and destroy the acres of greenhouses, bought for them by a Jewish philanthropist. A great start to building a viable state.

I was unaware that Israel has written all the history books in the world – and that this is now considered “official.” How very silly. Whose official history are you talking about?

Hamas are indeed media savvy, as you well know, for the reasons I previously described. I note you don’t dispute them, but rather say I am a racist. That’s simply an attempt to close down debate – and an attempt to silence without substance.

If you think the way to peace lies in obsessively demonising Israel, whilst whitewashing the racism and violence of groups like Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad, go ahead. See how far it gets you.

Si, N

Adam B asks, '[w]here are the new hospitals, new housing, roads, schools'?

Part of the answer may lie here (sic): Israel bombed it all again in Dec 2008/Jan 2009. As noted in Failing Gaza:

'[r]esidential areas suffered
significant damage during the bombardment – some were almost entirely flattened. Over 15,000 homes sustained sufficient damage to displace 100,000
Palestinians during the intense conflict. 2,870 homes still need major repair; 3,540 need complete rebuilding, while 52,900 have minor damage,
according to the UN’s latest estimates. As of July 2009, 20,000 people remain displaced
from their homes – living with relatives, renting elsewhere or, in some cases, still living in tents'. (December 2009, p.7)

'A World Health Organization (WHO) assessment of 122 health facilities in Gaza revealed that 48% were damaged or destroyed during the fofensive: 15 hospitals and 41 primary health care centres were partially damaged; two primary health care centres were destroyed; and 29 ambulances were partially damaged or destroyed. Since the end of hostilities, most health services have resumed and are functioning as normally as possible within the constraints imposed by the blockade'. (December 2009, p.11)

'During the military offensive, 18 schools were destroyed, (including eight government schools, two private schools and eight kindergartens) and at least
280 were damaged. Six of the destroyed government schools were in North Gaza alone, affecting almost 9,000 students who had to relocate to other schools. To date, almost nothing has been rebuilt or repaired as
a result of the ban on entry of construction materials into Gaza'. (December 2009, p.12)

Phil, prove if you can that these are lies - otherwise don't comment at all.

Verity (not the Coffee House one)

Phil,
When you explain what you meant it makes so much more sense. Indeed, it falls into the other category of your comments that I mentioned. Thank you.

Verity (not Coffee House)

Adam B.,
I am surprised you make such a meal of the notion of "official" history. The same, the very same, list of half-truths is recited again and again by contributors here, yourself included. You may not know what an "official" history is, but you have certainly read one.

When you say, "This may not be fashionable amongst leftist circles, but there is such a thing as the truth Verity. It isn't simply a relative term, depending on perspective." I don't know whether to take it as touchingly naive or as disingenuous. Of course we can agree that there is truth, there is half-truth, and there is falsehood. This does not give what you say any more weight or credibility.

You are right and I am quite wrong about Olmert. I had forgotten he was still a lame-duck prime minister when he made his offer, just as Barak was a lame-duck prime minister when he closed down the post-Camp David negotiations. Olmert's offer is the same in essentials as Barak's, Sharon's and now Lieberman's proposed solution to the "demographic threat" - it is not a bona fide offer to the Palestinians, it is a way to lock them once and for all in their ghettoes. (No proposal that insists on ignoring the refugees can be taken seriously).

I note you have made no effort to find out precisely what Barak offered in 2000, relying instead on PR material by the Israelis and their American friends. I am simply suggesting you try to find out what it is the Israelis say about it when amongst their own.

On Khartoum, I agree with you that it was a stupid blunder by the Arab states. I take it you are relying on Abba Eban's account of the Israeli offer. It was a generous offer. The Israeli cabinet regretted it almost as soon as it had agreed it. This offer implied annexation of part of Sinai and Golan. There is no record in the American archives that the offer was passed on and no record in the Arab archives that any of them received it. I suspect we will have to wait for more official documents to be released. At the same time Eban was relaying this offer to the Americans, Israel rejected out of hand the Americans' first draft of a proposed UN resolution to produce a settlement. The infamous rejectionism at Khartoum was understandably taken by Israel as a complete refusal to negotiate, and Israel understandably took its offers off the table. According to Arab sources, Khartoum was a holding operation by Egypt and Jordan to hold off their more extreme neighbours. In a masterpiece of diplomatic drafting that only the drafters would understand the three noes were interpreted by Arab spokesmen to mean no formal peace treaty but not a rejection of peace, no direct negotiations but not a refusal to talk through intermediaries, and no de jure recognition but acceptance that Israel exists. Nasser and Hussein agreed together that they must negotiate a settlement with Israel (a policy continued by Nasser's successor, Sadat, and at that time resolutely ignored by Israel and by Kissinger). As I say, the truth is infinitely more complex than your slogans allow.

The same applies to the partition, which gave 650000 Jews who owned 6% of the land 56% of the territory, and the 1.35m Palestinian Arabs 44% of the territory, by the diktat of an organization that after the Second World War by right of conquest took upon itself the authority the imperial powers had taken upon themselves by right of conquest after the First World War - which naturally the Palestinian population did not recognize as a legitimate authority to deprive them of their land by outragous back-stairs bribes and bullying and by a vote in favour by a collection of states who represented a minority of the world's population and included no Muslim states (a stance the more honest Zionists admitted they would have taken in similar circumstances). - As I say, it is more complicated than your slogans allow.

I will not delve any further into the history. Much of it is readily available for you to study, if you so wish.

I will end with an interesting quote from Balfour: "So far as Palestine is concerned, the powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate."

Adam B.

SiN, I am simply not going to engage with you, after your past epithets against me.

Verity, I will respond to your points when I have a moment.

Verity (not the Coffee House one)

Adam B.,
P.S.
None of the following is the whole truth, but it is a part of the truth that cannot simply be disregarded:

You do know the Mandate was avowedly one of the means employed by Britain to maintain imperial control of a region it considered vital to its interests. It was an instrument Britain used to project its power, not an instrument created by others to curb its power or direct its exercise.

You do know that it is anachronistic to say that Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs a state in 1948 or before.

You do know that Ben Gurion urged acceptance of the partition, and proclaimed independence without defining the new state's borders, as only a first step towards the Zionists' ultimate goal. The Zionists did not accept the partition as the final settlement.

You do know that in 1967, Israel, while making an offer to Egypt and Syria that would have formed the basis of substantive negotiations, had no intention of making an offer to return the West Bank to Jordan (fair enough - it didn't belong to Jordan) or to allow its population self-determination (Dayan suggested they be left to live like dogs until they got the message and chose to become refugees elsewhere).

You do know, just to be clear, that Barak ended the negotiations after Camp David, not the Palestinians.

Verity (Not the Coffee House one)

Adam B.,
"SiN, I am simply not going to engage with you, after your past epithets against me."

Can we take it you will stop using "epithets" about others, or will stop haranguing them to respond to the questions you have wrapped up in "epithets"?

Si'N would appear to have provided some of the facts that have otherwise been omitted from the discussion so far.

phil

ADAM we are dealing with one demented nutter who calls in occasionally ,calling us silly names and writing nonsense as he has for years .one callow youth who knows nothing and another who I believe is an agent for a Palestinian cause,she flatters me in the hope I will be fooled ,which I am not .They all will write nonsense but for different reasons ,the lady has a brain and is well versed in the tactics of hamas etc .the bigger the lie the more it will be believed ,a method from a bygone age -Both you and I wish for peace and justice for both peoples ,I do not think they give a damn ,hatred suffices for them .
--------------------------
I ask you again do not give them the fuel that they need ,let them say what they want it will change nothing .Matters may well change for the better when people like this care more for their own than aggravating us and fomenting trouble -answering them hurts us and gives them more chance to write their rubbish .I implore you to stop it.Both the Palestinians and the Israelis are harmed by the lies that are written here and although two are mere fools one is not and she is being wicked regardless of the harm she causes -leave them to it Adam .let them correspond with each other ,they waste their time here anyway ,and you demean yourself by engaging with them .I understand why you do it as you have told me before but respectfully I must tell you that you are wrong .

Adam B.

Verity, you know nothing of the history between Sin and myself, so I would respectfully ask you to keep your nose out of it. I have not called anyone a "butcher" or "barbarian" as he freely did in the past.

I drew attention to your accusation that I indulge in “official” history because it simply makes no sense. To whose “official” history do you refer? And what makes it official?

As for your own potted history of the region, I could go through each point in turn, but don't have the time. Instead, I will sum up - you write from a profoundly mistaken assumption, which is that the Arab states and terror organizations want peace with Israel. They patently do not. Whenever an Arab leader has held his hand out, such as Sadat in 1977, and King Hussein in 1994, peace has been the result. Israel has time and again shown a willingness to compromise, withdrawing from the entire Sinai Peninsula for peace with Egypt, withdrawing from most of Judea and Samaria for the sake of the doomed Oslo accords, withdrawing from Gaza just four years ago. In the cases where there has been an Arab partner for peace, it has worked. In the cases where there hasn't it's been a disaster, making a bad situation worse. Now perhaps your conclusion forom this is that it's all Israel's fault, but I would submit that this demonstrates that peace follows with a truly willing Arab partner. hence your contention that the Khartoum conference was a "blunder" by the Arab states is simply wrong - because the Arab states didn't want peace. It would only be a blunder if they did. Instead, it was deliberate and calculated to make peace impossible. Why? Because the Arab states and organizations do not believe in the right of a non-Islamic country to exist in the Middle East. This mental,ity, fuelled by a deeply rooted antisemitism, is rife throughout the Arab world today.

Furthermore, your potted history about the Un partition plan neglected to mention that of Mandate palestine, 80% had already been given to the Arabs in the shape of Transjordan. Surely you know this, yet it is missing from all your statistics, which apply to the remaining 20%.

I should make it clear to you that whilst I acknowledge Israel's many offers of a stae for the Palestinian Arabs (on top of the one which exists in Jordan), I do not believe Oisrael is either morally or legally duty bound to do so. I know of no other conflict in the world where ther aggressor, who has repeatedly tried to commit genocide against its victim, (openly declared by the Arab states in 1948, in 1967, and the view of Hamas and Hizbollah today) and loses in the process of such aggression, is repeatedly offered rewards for such aggression. This wasn't the case in Europe after WW2, and rightly so.

You remain silent about the endemic racism of Hamas and Hizbollah, Syria and Iran, and the oppressive nature of these regimes and organizations. Why?

As you fail to recognize this aggression, and indeed make excuses for it, coupled with your partisan and selective statistics, devoid of context, your ensuing analysis is completely flawed. I note you still haven’t informed me on what which issues the Palestinians are prepared to compromise, but then I guess when you can obsessively blame Israel for everything, it simply doesn’t enter your mind that perhaps they should.

Caleb

Adam B, when you say, 'The fact is that what was offered was contiguous land', isn't that actually the opposite of the truth?

Barak's offer consisted of five isolated cantons under
Palestinian administration in the midst of expanding Israeli settlements and other land given over for the Israeli military to muck around in. The Palestinians had no link with Jordan either.
Given your crowing about Jordan being a Palestinian state anyway, surely you must see the inequity there.

So five non contigious cantons: Jericho; Abu Dis; Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm; Ramallah; and Gaza in limbo as the fifth canton, to be 'resolved' following disengagement', but with Israel retaining total control and the right to re-enter any time for any reason.

Do you understand the difference between contigious and non-contigious.

Do you see how the truth is the opposite of what you stated?

Please note, when you say, 'I note you don’t dispute them', when referring to your 'facts', please bear in mind my earlier comment:

in short, everything that you state so emphatically [you offer no sources for your assertions] proves to be a distortion or misrepresentation. It is clear because as Verity rightly says the record is 'readily available' - anyone can check.

To illustrate again, Truthtriumphs claimed that the Palestinians 'trashed' 'profitable greenhouses'. You made the same claim about Palestinians destroying 'acres of greenhouses'. Yet the material posted by Si,N strongly indicates that Israel is destroying Palestinian agriculture.

So when you say, 'I don’t notice you providing any sources', let's be fair, all I have done is cite B'Tselem and Ben-Ami; both citations can be checked easily. More to the point, your scattergun approach takes in the whole of the conflict, makes a multiplicity of fantastic claims, and I've yet to see you offer a single source. Why are you exempted from backing-up your claims?

There appears to be something strange going on here. I note that this flirty Phil descibes Si'N's comments as lies despite the fact that all of the material Si'N has cited is copiously referenced. I've
checked Si'N's sources and they all appear sound. What then is the point offering sources if you refuse to 'engage' with the material and others term them lies?

Adam B.

Caleb, I refer you to my post to Verity, as you seem to be suffering from the same malaise.

The Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses, bought for them by a Jewish philanthropist - no one else.

phil

Adam sadly I see you are ignoring my pleas ,you are being drawn into a spiders web ,and with every explanation you give them ,back comes more .what on earth do you think you will achieve with them ?.I promise you nothing .If you proved beyond any doubt that you were right they would deny it,and I have said to you before you are providing flesh for them to feed on .You are being treated like a child and I do not like watching it .just tell them goodbye !!!

Adam B.

Caeb, for your information, it is YOU who is wrong.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

Adam B.

Caleb, do you deny that Israel has offered the Palestinians a state (despite no moral or legal need to do so) on several occasions, and that these have been rejected every time? Do you deny that Israel has made peace when they have a willing Arab partner - and made great concessions to do so? And do you deny the virulent antisemitism and racism of Hamas, Fatah and Hizbollah, the oppression of their own people in Gaza? Try being openly gay or Christian or Jewish in Gaza -or any of the palestinian run territories - see how long you last. Israel by contrast is an open democratic society, with free and fair elections, a free press and an independent judiciary. All the rest of your pontificating is bumph.

Do you think, for a second, that if the roles were reversed, the Arab world would consider the establishment of a Jewish state? Get real.

Caleb

Adam B, simply repeating a dud claim: 'The Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses,
bought for them by a Jewish philanthropist - no one else', does not make it any truer. Si,N has provided compelling material that indicates Israel is destroying Palestinian agriculture and has been doing so for years. If you wish to counter Si, N's material you need produce equally convincing evidence or withdraw your claim.

Ditto Camp David. Simply posting a link to an Israeli propaganda website will not do. According to the site you indicated, directly following the Camp David talks the Palestinians launched the second Intifada. There is no mention at all of Ariel Sharon's extremely provocative visit to Temple Mount with a thousand or so
tooled-up soldiers. That event is often cited as the real spark for the second Intifada yet it is completely ignored. You see
details such as that really do matter and I mistrust sources that overlook them.

You really do need to try harder.

Verity (not Coffee House)

Adam B.,
"you know nothing of the history between Sin and myself, so I would respectfully ask you to keep your nose out of it. I have not called anyone a "butcher" or "barbarian" as he freely did in the past."

With all due respect, you frequently call people Jew haters. You endorse your fellow polemicist when he says that his opponents would support a Final Solution to the Jewish Question. In my book, this is infinitely worse than calling you a barbarian. I am not interfering in your feud with anyone. I am asking you to clean up your act.

As with your insistence that those you have insulted answer the points you make, your double standard here seems to be so engrained that you are blind to it.

Verity

Adam B.,
PalestineFacts!
QED

Adam B.

Caleb, you have provided no sources at all for your claims, including cantons in 2000 etc. Pot, kettle and black come to mind.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses which was a potential economic boost for themselves because of false allegations against Israel. Where is the logic in that? That the Palestinians have to destroy their own future to spite the Israelis? Your failure to see that absurdity is indicative of you being exposed to a diet of hate filled propaganda against the Jewish state.

Verity, I don't much care about your book, but I challenge you to find one place where I have undeservedly called someone a Jew hater. One example will do. Furthermore, I note that neither you nor Caleb are able to come up with one single example of Palestinian compromise for peace. Still waiting...

Verity (not Coffee House)

Adam B.,
You don't care for my book. In my book, accusing someone of being a Jew hater is worse than calling them a barbarian. What is it you find to object to?

I have checked back, and it seems you feel justified in calling anyone a Jew hater when you feel they have criticized Israel "too much"... You can't see how dodgy this is as a rule for dealing out abuse? I can well understand that it has advantages in allowing you to feel able to ignore the criticism - but should you not feel a bit embarassed about hiding behind such a flimsy pretext, simply hurling abuse?

Could you show me one instance where your abuse was justified?

When you say to Caleb that it is pot calling kettle black, you seem to be accepting that you are guilty as charged.

I see pressure of work has not allowed you to address the history, or the present day facts provided you by Caleb and Si'N, but has allowed you to rack your brains for snide retorts.

As I said before: clean up your act and engage in debate.

Caleb

Adam B, you seem to be impervious to reason.

You address me with this: 'It makes absolutely no sense to say that the Palestinians destroyed the greenhouses which was a potential economic boost for themselves because of false allegations against Israel.
Where is the logic in that? That the Palestinians have to destroy their own future to spite the Israelis? Your failure to see that absurdity is indicative of you being exposed to a diet of hate filled propaganda against
the Jewish state'.

None of it makes any sense to me. What false allegations are you referring to and where is the proof indicating the falsehood?

On what grounds do you ludicrously assert that I have been 'exposed to a diet of hate filled propaganda against the Jewish state'? When you say of yourself, 'I just enjoy winding up Israel haters so much';
are your ludicrous assertions part of the 'winding up' process?

It's not working.

Truthtriumphs

Caleb.
Offer by Barak of non-contiguous cantons?

Lies on stilts.
The fact is that the proposed maps were never made public, so what you are spouting is straight out of the Arab propaganda machine.
Further, Dennis Ross, who was part of the negotiating team categorically emphasised that the land offered was contiguous.
He was there, you were not.

Adam B.

Verity, you made the baseless allegation, you point to where I said such a thing. So far you haven't...

And Caleb, why is it so difficult for you to grasp the concept that the Palestinians did themselves no favours by destroying the greenhouses which could have been the basis for a viable economy? I guess you would employ any trick to avoid answering the question - on what are the Palestinians compromising for peace? Neither you nor Verity have come up with anything. Says it all really...

Truthtriumphs

Si,N.

You say that the targeting of civilian property is illegal under the 4th. Geneva Convention.

Quite.
It was Hamas which has been targeting civilian areas for years in Israel, with thousands of rockets and mortars in unprovoked attacks, with the aim of ethnically cleansing the Jews from southern Israel. "We will not stop until they all leave" was Hamas' openly articulated intention.
These attacks were deliberately sited from densely populated civilian areas, so that return fire aimed in self-defence would inevitably harm civilians. ie. a double war crime on the part of Hamas.

As to quoting the UN, ICR, WHO, Oxfam to prove your case, that is the equivalent of quoting Der Sturmer in defence of Hitler.
They are all viscerally hostile to Israel, and lying is their modus operandi, as it is yours.
The UN's agenda is driven by the world's 57 Muslim countries, and their sympathisers.
How can one respect an organisation that has a country like Libya,one of the world's worst human rights abusers, chairing the Human Rights Council? That's why the Durban conference on racism became an anti-semitic, anti-Israel hate-fest to the exclusion of virtually all else.

Truthtriumphs

Verity. (Not the coffee house one).
There were no independent countries in the Ottoman Empire.
At the end of WW1 when the Ottomans were defeated, the area was carved up by Britain and France.
By far the largest areas were given to the Arabs, creating the states of Iraq, Trans-Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, which were wholly artificial creations.
You don't seem to have a problem with those. Why not?
The Jewish state was designated to the Jews, as of right, and as a fair counterbalance, even though the land mass was but a fraction of the former.
You don't seem to have a problem with the creation of these artificial Arab states. Why not, I wonder?

Verity (etc.)

Truthtriumphs,
I have as little problem with the state of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria etc. as I do with the state of Israel.

I find it astonishing that there are those who still refer to something as disreputable as the doings of the League of Nations and in particular of Britain and France as a source of authority for current circumstances. The Mandates were an imperial carve-up whose sole legitimacy was that of imperial conquest (which post-WWII was translated into "the international community", which is only now and only slowly and painfully being transformed into something genuinely other than imperialist).

When you say, "The Jewish state was designated to the Jews, as of right", I am not clear what right you refer to.

When you say,"as a fair counterbalance, even though the land mass was but a fraction of the former", I am not sure how you think this can be "fair" to the people who actually lived in Palestine. Is it not like saying that the Europeans have plenty of land it is only fair that they give over the British Isles to x or y as their homeland?

Truthtriumphs

Verity (et al)
You demonstrate your manifest ignorance of history when you talk about "the people who actually live there".
The League of Nations (the world body which was the precursor to the UN),recognised the unbroken connection of the Jewish people to the Holy Land, who, surprise, surprise, actually lived there in an unbroken chain for 3000 years, admittedly ,in small numbers as most had been driven out by the Roman invaders.
Why do you think that the anti-semites always screamed at Jews "go back to Palestine"--- the refrain that was often heard in pre-war Germany?
Now the refrain by the anti-semites is "Jews, get out of Palestine", because, you see, for people like that (are you one of them?) there is no place for the Jew anywhere.
Jews have prayed for and to Jerusalem for 3,000, years.
The Arabs, Arafat, to be precise, first mentioned Jerusalem in 1974.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran.
Why do you think that the present day "Palestinians" are the indigenous people of that area?
They are not.
They came in vast numbers in the early part of the "20th century and later, and multiplied prolifically.
Just because they are dark-skinned doesn't mean that they are indidenous, or is it that you buy into the Arab propaganda and re-writing of history?
The Arabs are indigenous to Arabia----hence the name.
Here are some quotes to help you.

"We never saw a human being on the whole route (Palestine).... Bethlehem, and Bethany.... untenanted by any living creature.... There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent (Valey of Jezreel)".
Mark Twain, "The Innocents Abroad", 1867.

"The road leading from Gaza to the North was only a summer track.... no orange groves, orchards or vineyards until one reached the Jewish village of Yavneh".
Palestine Royal Commission, 1913.

The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population"
James Finn, British Consul, 1857.

Verity (etc.)

Truthtriumphs (a triumph of irony)

Of course, A Land without a people for a People without a Land! Even Zangwill himself acknowledged that his slogan was bollocks.

"The Arabs, Arafat, to be precise, first mentioned Jerusalem in 1974.
It is not mentioned anywhere in the Koran."

I will give you one piece of advice. Take a course in the methods of history, the methods that allow one to distinguish between the probable and the fantastical.

Other than that, I decline to be further involved in your rigmarole.

Verity (etc.)

Adam B.,
"I note that neither you nor Caleb are able to come up with one single example of Palestinian compromise for peace. Still waiting..." (The same tiresome trick!)

I can't speak for Caleb, but I am surprised you need help with this one. Take a look at Oslo (as much incompetence as compromise, I suppose). Take a look at Taba and Geneva (too much conceded for too little).

Take a step back from the detail. As a previous contributor said, look at the map.

Israel has the overwhelming preponderance of power. The "honest broker" in the negotiations is Israel's unquestioning friend. The weak and defeated are asking for the minimum that would make the ghettoes they have been left with habitable. Admittedly, they use the puny weapons of the weak and defeated, vicious terrorism and a refusal to "recognize" the state they are willing to deal with. What are these to the weapons deployed by Israel?

This talk of requiring the Palestinians to compromise is just another piece of humbug used by those in possession to feel morally justified in not offering anything to those they have deprived.

wonderer

Truthtriumphs, "The road leading from Gaza to the North was only a summer track.... no orange groves, orchards or vineyards until one reached the Jewish village of Yavneh".
Palestine Royal Commission, 1913.

That puzzled me but I see that the Royal Commission (of 1937 presumably) was quoting someone else's report made in 1913.

Si, N

Truthtriumphs says:

‘[t]he fact is that the proposed maps were never made public, so what you are spouting is straight out of the Arab propaganda machine. Further, Dennis Ross, who was part of the negotiating team categorically emphasised that the land offered was contiguous’.

Question: if Barak’s offer was so attractive, why were the maps not plastered all over the mainstream? Surely ‘media savvy’ Israel would have been keen to advertise its goodwill and generosity.

Ross has since reproduced the proposed map in his book, The Missing Peace. More vague outline than map, the reason why it isn’t bandied about is clear – it’s an embarrassing attempt at deception – even Barak has blown the gaff on that one (see below).

It should be noted, Ross couldn’t proceed based on Israeli ‘rights’ so fore-grounded instead Israeli ‘needs’ thus eviscerating Palestinian ‘rights’ – or in Ross’ sterile tones:

‘I was focused not on reconciling rights but on addressing needs. In negotiations, one side’s principle or “right” is usually the other side’s impossibility. Of course, there are irreducible rights. I wanted to address what each side needed, not what they wanted and not what they felt they were entitled to’. (The Missing Peace, 2004, p. 726)

So, not content with dispensing with practically every tenet of International Law, Ross then attempts to conceal the existence of a wealth of ‘facts on the ground’. Whether or not Ross; aka ‘Israel’s Lawyer’, ‘was there’, his insistence ‘that the land offered was contiguous’ demonstrates his lack of credibility as an ‘honest broker’.

Consider this from a Barak interview with Benny Morris and the truth begins to emerge:

‘in the West Bank, Barak says, the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a razor-thin Israeli wedge running from Jerusalem through from Maale Adumim to the Jordan River. Here, Palestinian territorial continuity would have been assured by a tunnel or bridge.’ (Benny Morris, Camp David and After: An Exchange, New York Review of Books, 13 June 2002)

‘[A] razor thin wedge’ – to slice-up the territory you see.

Truthtriumphs

Si,N.

Why were the "Palestinians not offered a state between 1948 and 1967 when the Israelis were not in "occupation"?

Isn't it because neither they, nor the surrounding Arab countries wanted a state?
This has been contrived since 1967 as a tool to get rid of the Jews. Nothing less.
The Arabs openly attest to that.

phil

Truthtriumphs
January 5th, 2010 11:19am --------You may well ask the lady ,,who drained the swamps ,who planted the trees and orchards ,who built the hospitals that are used by Jews and Arabs ,the schools ,the roads ,who had leaders who did not support hitler and whose policy was it NOT to kill people of other races ?-she may care to listen to the plaintive cry of Leo Fuld singing-Where Can I Go - Vu Ahin Zol Ich Geyn,which she can find on the internet and wonder why he sang such words,she may also wonder where the remnants of the Jewish people who survived the horrors that were perpetrated upon them by allies of her heroes ,and applauded by them, should have gone .
----------------
Is she too stubborn to understand that the UN felt it necessary to give them a homeland and that it should be where they originated ,and that those that sought their obliteration should make room for them ? Those Arabs made their own choices or at least their leaders did and they have sadly paid the price ever since. It is high time they remembered that the God of the old testament is the same God as Allah and read the words attributed to him ,if indeed God exists he will not be happy with what her heroes are trying still to do to us .

Truthtriumphs

Phil.

It wasn't a question of the Arabs making room for the Jews---they only started pouring into Palestine in their impoverished hundreds of thousands when Jewish immigration afforded them economic opportunities, the likes of which they could only dream of.

No. The point is that the Verities of this world who scream "Jews get out of Palestine" are simply the heirs of those who screamed "Jews go to Palestine" before Israel existed.

And by the way, Phil, I disagree with you on one point---- if one doesn't answer the falsifiers of history, the lie stands, people are misled, and the mendatious narrative soon becomes the truth.
That is what Goebbels understood.

phil

Truthtriumphs
January 7th, 2010 3:08pm -ADAM B agrees with you on the last sentence too -I just think it is only we few who read what they say and then give them a chance for more rubbish ,but who knows ? For me they can live sadly together .

Si, N

Phil says, ‘I just think it is only we few who read what they say and then give them a chance for more rubbish ,but who knows ? For me they can live sadly together’.

And in the broader terms of the international consensus reached in 1967: the annual UN vote on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine. (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocument)

Consider the 2009 hearing of the proposal - 164 nations, including:

Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and Viet Nam;

voted in favour.

7 nations, including:

Australia, Israel, and the United States of America;

voted, as is their habit, against the international consensus on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine.

So that’s ‘we few’ digging-in against a global will to do the right thing – ‘rubbish[ing]’ since 1967.

Philo

Truthtriumphs
January 7th, 2010 3:08pm
Phil.

"It wasn't a question of the Arabs making room for the Jews---they only started pouring into Palestine in their impoverished hundreds of thousands when Jewish immigration afforded them economic opportunities, the likes of which they could only dream of.

No. The point is that the Verities of this world who scream "Jews get out of Palestine" are simply the heirs of those who screamed "Jews go to Palestine" before Israel existed."

First paragraph false; second paragraph a disgusting slur.

You do Israel no favours.

Truthtriumphs

Philo.

Demonstrate why.
You cannot.

The fact is that down the ages, in countries worldwide, the anti-semites screamed at Jews to go to Palestine.
I personally know people who were subject to such abuse in Nazi Germany, Hungary and Poland.
Prove me wrong.

Put up or shut up.

phil

Philo
January 8th, 2010 9:00am Please answer the questions I posed on jan 7 theres a good girl .

Adam B.

Philo, I'm still waiting for you to produce one sliver of evidence that a specifically Palestinian nationalism existed before 1964.

Philo

Truthtriumphs,
On your first paragraph, I refer you to J. McCarthy: The Population of Palestine: Population Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. Columbia University Press. You appear to be using the fact that Arabs came and went during the Mandate as work became available to deny that there was an indigenous population. This is just silly.

On your second paragraph, you appear to be confused. I too had relatives in Germany subject to abuse by the Nazis. This is beside the point. You accused me of being an anti-Semite. As I said, this is a disgusting slur.

Your contributions would benefit from more homework, more thought, and less spittle.

Philo

Adam B.,
While I enjoy your endless repetition of Answer the question, while ignoring most of the points put to you, I think in this instance we must be talking at cross purposes. It must be a difference over terminology. If you could tell me what you mean, we might be able to agree. If it helps, not all Arab nationalism in Palestine was directed towards the creation of a greater Syria.

Philo

Phil,
Could you tell me what questions you posed me, there's a good chap.

Adam B.

Philo, the question isn't difficult. I'm talking about the aspiration to creat an independent Arab state called Palestine, with a specifically "Palestinian" identity.

It was invented in 1964.

phil

philo I know you can read ,even if you cannot answer,but for amusement only try .At least yuo keep my keyboard skills up to scratch .

phil
January 7th, 2010 11:50am

Adam B.

Thank you for that admission Verity - we now see that you know as well as I that the Palestinians are not compromising on anything at all. The so-called "peace process" means Israel gives, the Arabs take, whilst continuing their genocidal war against the Jews of Israel. What, pray tell, is in it for Israel? Israel is under no legal or moral obligations to give land to an entity which is bent on its destruction - is that what you want?

Si, N

Er, it's gone very quiet on the non-contiguous denial front. The hasbara boys are now trying to make a desperate point: something about Arabs not staking a particular type of claim on the land on which they’d lived for generations until lots of violent Europeans started to ethnically cleanse them.

To what end?

Consider this from Adam B:

‘Israel is under no legal or moral obligations to give land to an entity which is bent on its destruction’.

It’s the cart before the horse again. An inexplicable Arab hostility is to the fore. Yet, leading Zionist and highly regarded Israeli Historian Benny Morris is quite clear about this matter:

‘[t]he fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism’. (Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict 1881-1999, 1999, p.37)

To state that ‘Israel is under no legal or moral obligations’ is repugnant on multiple levels. To be clear, again, Israel is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention. As recently as 22/23 July 2009 the UN International Meeting on the Question of Palestine stated:

‘[t]he participants expressed serious concern that Israel was not abiding by its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to provide protection to the civilian population under its occupation’. (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1E94E4707C96997E852575FC0064A85E)

All this guff about ‘a land without a people’ – Joan Peters and her ridiculous fiction, From Time Immemorial – don’t you guys know anything? - it’s up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zionism in terms of missing the mark where this conflict is concerned.

And as for the obscene invocations of the Nazi Holocaust – do you have no shame?

Bertrand Russell summed it up perfectly:

‘[t]he tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was "given" by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless…[n]o people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis…[w]hat Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.

Philo

Adam B.,
You should still find it of interest to look back before 1964.

You could go back to the first stirrings among the urban elite of western-style nationalism in the wake of the Young Turk revolution. Jamal al-Husayni, looking back nostalgically in 1930 (which would be 34 years before 1964), said that 1908 saw the "liberty of Palestine".

Or jump to 1921, when Churchill met the Palestine Arab Congress who made clear their opposition to a Jewish National Home in Palestine and demanded the right to self-determination and the right to create ties with other Arab states.

You could ask yourself what it was the Palestinian nationalists could aspire to after the French had taken up residence in Damascus, Britain had handed "Jordan" to the Hashemites, and installed itself in Palestine? Not a Greater Syria, clearly. So, what were they asking of the imperialists? Perhaps, self-determination for their own community in Palestine.

Just read some history. It is readily available.

Alternatively, if you have no real interest in the history of Palestine, ask yourself what it is you think follows from your assertion. Let us assume that you are right about 1964 - are you saying that because no-one thought to call the community living in Palestine a "nation" before 1964, that community should never be allowed self-determination, ever? That follows how? I would suggest there are several steps in your argument missing (if it is an argument).

Philo

phil
January 8th, 2010 3:07pm
I had not been aware that you were addressing your questions to me.

I am not sure which of them you consider relevant to the discussion. If you could indicate them, I might be able to answer.

Philo

Adam B.
January 8th, 2010 4:16pm
"Thank you for that admission Verity - we now see that you know as well as I that the Palestinians are not compromising on anything at all..."

I noticed this comment and I thought the discussion must have ended very oddly, so I looked back. Either you are being sarcastic without purpose, or you have woefuly misread.

phil

Philo
January 8th, 2010 9:44pm or shall I call you the artful dodger ? try them all ,it will not keep you busy the answers are about third form level .

Adam B.

Alternatively Philo, one may consider this from Ahmed Shukeiry, founder of the PLO: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is southern Syria." Or this from Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive committee member to a Dutch newspaper in 1977: "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is merely the means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity." There are many other examples if you want more...

The evidence for a deep seated sense of Palestinian identity and nationalist movement is fairly non-existent, and what you cite simply demonstrates a very vague notion at best of a specific Palestinian Arab nationalism - a reaction to Zionism which was already well developed by the dates you provide. But say we go with your proposal in your last paragraph for the sake of argument, and that it was an invention of the 60's - don't you see why it came about? As the above quote demonstrates - this nationalism is simply an attempt to counter, and eventually destroy, Israel - why did such a nationalism not express itself against Jordan when it occupied the West Bank, or Egypt when it occupied Gaza? Because it is purely a strategic and propaganda device to employ against Israel. Destroying Israel has always been the agenda - not nation building.

Furthermore, why should such a nationalism be rewarded when its proponents have repeatedly launched aggressive genocidal wars against Israel, wars with one objective - to destroy Israel and kill its Jewish inhabitants?

By the way, I think it is you who needs to re-read Verity's woefuly(sic) written excuses for a lack of compromise. Don't you think peace can only come about through compromise - or is it only one side which compromises?

Philo

Adam B.
January 8th, 2010 12:39pm
"Philo, I'm still waiting for you to produce one sliver of evidence that a specifically Palestinian nationalism existed before 1964."

I will start with a high school debating point. You asked for "one sliver of evidence". I provided two, brief hints of the complexity you ignore. Your response? "What you cite simply demonstrates a very vague notion at best of a specific Palestinian Arab nationalism" Jamal al-Husayni would have been disappointed to hear he was very vague, as would the Palestine Arab Congress. Churchill did not find them so.

But these were just two very brief hints. If you are genuinely interested in the history of Palestine rather than in its denial, I can suggest some histories, by Isaiah Friedman, David Fromkin, Tom Segev, Baruch Kimmerling, Rashid Khalidi (each will provide you with further references)... For those whose political views you disagree with just look at the historical record they preserve rather than their interpretation of it.

The history of Palestine is more complex than the slogans of Palestinefacts or of PLO officials allow.

Palestinian nationalism developed at the same time as Zionism. It developed in part as a response to Zionism and to the succession of a new imperialist power in Great Britain. It is natural that a threat should produce a response. I am not sure what you would expect to to get from this.

Assume that Palestinian nationalism was always and only an expression of a general wish among the Palestinian people to become part of Syria. How does that help you? It would still be the exercise of self-determination which the imperial powers cynically promised and denied and which people surely deserve - it is not clear why a people should be forced to remain within a given polity against their settled will.

If, against the evidence, Palestinian nationalism emerged only in 1964 (before the West Bank was invaded by Israel, by the way),why should this deny the people the opportunity to express their settled will. For the last forty years, that settled will has been for a two-state solution based on the boundaries as they stood in 1967. All the Arab states, all the Muslim States, the PLO, and Hamas, and the whole international community have endorsed what opinion polls have steadily shown to be the wish of the Palestinians - a two-state solution. You say there are proponents of Palestinian nationalism who seek the destruction of Israel and who make blood-curdling threats. You show less understanding of how things work than did the old Zionists. The Palestinians were always going to consider themselves to have the right to defend themselves "to the death" as Ben Gurion put it. It is in the nature of bloody conflicts to produce blood-thirsty men. When it comes to negotiation, threats that cannot be acted on play little part, because they cannot be taken seriously. The existence of such men is not a reason to deny six million people self-determination. To say that the settled wish of those six million for self-determination is merely a strategic and propagandist device is simply laughable. You are driven to ever greater contortions to deny that there are six million people who want a state of their own on territory that their forefathers have lived on for centuries and which the international community (both in its operative sense i.e. the US, and in the common sense of all nations) has acknowledged is theirs.

As a footnote to your final desperate throw, the Palestinian people have not launched any genocidal war. If you look at the history of the war reluctantly launched by their arab neighbours in 1948, you will find it was less than formidable, and perceived as such by the Israeli high command. Subsequent wars were at least as much Israel's fault as anyone else's, as the historical record makes clear. Israel's war of 1982, and its recent attacks in 2006 and 2008, give your argument the appearance, once more, of humbug.

I can only assume you have misconstrued Verity because you are unaware of the detail of Oslo and of Taba. On Oslo, I suggest you read the contemporaneous critique by the distinguished Palestinian jurist, Rajah Shehadeh. If you are sufficiently open-minded as to read Edward Said, you will also find prescient comments (and goodness knows, I have managed to read Dershowitz (!) and Efraim Karsh (a good scholar but rabid polemicist)). On Taba, I think Shlomo Ben-Ami covers it (and you do not need to fear that he is some spineless liberal - he is a staunch Zionist, and as a government minister ordered the police to fire on unarmed protesters). But perhaps you do not want to know too much of the detail of the history of this conflict because it makes the Israeli rejectionism so much more difficult to defend. Perhaps you feel it is better stick with Palestinefacts and Truthtriumphs.

Adam B.

Philo, your post is replete with fantasies and sheer inventions. The Arab states and the Palestinians accept two states? Really? Tell that to Hamas (who we keep being told were “democratically elected” – how does that fit with Palestinian acceptance of Israel?), Hizbollah, Fatah (which does not accept Israel as specifically Jewish state – merely that it exists) Syria, Iran (not Arab but the emerging key player of the region). None of those enitities accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state – some don’t recognize the right of Jewish people to exist either. You really need a reality check, dear Philo.
I didn’t misconstrue Verity, you have. She opines that Israel should give everything the Palestinians want, without the Palestinians offering any compromises in return. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp Philo.
Thank you for confirming that Palestinian nationalism is a product of Zionism – and that it had no roots beforehand. There may be the aspiration of Arabs in the region to be governed by other Arabs (your greater Syria) but so what? They blew that chance through their genocidal desire to kill Israel and its inhabitants in 1948, by rejecting the UN partition plan. This isn’t a case of the Arabs wishing to govern themselves (and what fine examples of governance with every tin pot dictatorship of the region) - it is the case of not accepting the right of Jews to self-determination. How ironic that you accuse Israel of the very argument which has driven the genocidal impulse of the Arab world for the last century against the Jews of Palestine and Israel. As you well know, Israel has accepted the two state solution (three if one counts the Palestinian state of Jordan), and has demonstrated a willingness to make large concessions and compromises towards this end, but has not found a willing Palestinian partner. Israel’s acceptance of two states renders our little discussion irrelevant – but this was never a dispute about territory, but rather mentality. When the genocidal mentality which flourishes is large parts of the Arab and wider Islamic worlds changes, peace will surely follow. Obsessively blaming Israel for daring to exist will do nothing but promise further wars.

phil

philo you must find Adam,s questions easier than mine,but until you answer mine you will have no credibility ,I THINK mine must be harder to invent answers too .what do you think ?

Si, N

Adam B is wrong again.

He says:

‘[t]he Arab states and the Palestinians accept two states? Really? Tell that to Hamas (who we keep being told were “democratically elected” – how does that fit with Palestinian acceptance of Israel?), Hizbollah, Fatah (which does not accept Israel as specifically Jewish state – merely that it exists)’.

Firstly, Adam B has expended considerable energy on this thread attempting to demonstrate that there are no such things as Palestinians or a genuine Palestinian Nation. In view of that outrageous denial – on what grounds is this non-group expected to bestow upon Israel an exceptional status? The notion of unter/ubermensch is recalled.

Turning once again to the record: the international consensus on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine has since 1967 considered explicitly the UN Security Council’s ‘vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders’. (http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/cd358b22995a4b078525767e006ac786?OpenDocument)

As noted above, Israel annually votes against the international consensus on the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine - including a 2 state solution.

The Arab League Peace Initiative of 2002 [http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm (renewed 2007)] went further than the international consensus and offered:

‘Israel full recognition by the 22 members of the Arab League in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders, thus allowing the Palestinians to create a viable independent state on what is only 22 percent of historic Palestine’. (Fuad Siniora, Give the Arab Peace Initiative a Chance, New York Times, 11 May 2007)

So yes, ‘[r]eally’, ‘[t]he Arab states and the Palestinians’ are prepared to ‘accept two states’. Israel isn't.

It should be noted that Iran also accepted the Initiative. True, Hezbollah indicated that it didn’t particularly like the Initiative, but agreed not to disrupt any agreement reached by the Palestinians. Hamas, including its most militant faction, headed by Khaled Maashal in Damascus, accepted the Initiative and pledged to support any Arab consensus.

Which left Israel and the US maintaining their habitual stance in opposition to a diplomatic settlement.

Unfortunately, Israel’s unrelenting illegal settlement activity in the occupied territories; the 2008/2009 Gaza massacre; and the extremely provocative Israeli actions in East Jerusalem - in and around the Al Aqsa mosque have put considerable strain on those signatories to the Initiative.

Adam B, not for a moment can your comments stand in the face of the extensive public record.

But quite apart from all the talk of International law, Road Maps and Peace Initiatives, Israel has, as has been clearly outlined on this thread, the ‘preponderance of power’, and could, if it so chose, single-handedly secure peace. As Michael Neumann has rightly noted:

‘Israel’s alternative is unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. This course of action has been recommended since 1998 by the Council for Peace and Security, an organization originally headed by Aharon Yariv…the group comprises some 1,000 “security experts”, including ex-army and intelligence officers with impressive credentials’. (The Case Against Israel, pp.35-36, 2005)

To be clear, that would require a full withdrawal, ‘lock stock and barrel’, as Adam B likes to put it. It wouldn’t work if the ‘barrel’ remained trained on Palestinians; ‘taking out’ anything that moves as was evidenced following the so-called ‘Gaza withdrawal’.

Adam B, It is you whom is in need of ‘a reality check’.

Adam B.

Sin, as I said before, I am not engaging with you, due to your habit of calling people with whom you don't agree "barbarian" and "butcher.".

I haven't read your post.

Philo

Adam B.
January 10th, 2010 4:22pm
"Sin, as I said before, I am not engaging with you, due to your habit of calling people with whom you don't agree "barbarian" and "butcher.".

I haven't read your post."

Humbug. again.

Philo

Si,N,
Phil may talk of "credibility" and Adam B. may persist with his humbug and his "reality checks", but it remains worthwhile to point to the parts of the historical record that are passed over too easily here, and to the steps in the arguments put forward that are untrue or invalid.

Si, N

Philo, thank you for that - I agree and will continue to counter the distortions and fabrications by pointing to the documentary/historical record.

Truthtriumphs

Philo/ Si,N, (Are you one and the same?),

Here are some historical facts for you to digest:-
There was NO Palestinian state offered to the Palestinian Arabs between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank, ditto Egypt and Gaza. Israel could not prevent it then..
Why not?
Here are some answers by people who actually know:-
“There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture.
There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians”.
Joseph farah, Arab journalist, January 2002.

“Most Jews believe in a two state solution.
I do not believe in this.A Palestinian state will concoct its own rules and laws to continue the killing of Jews... Never in history was there a Palestinian state.We never wanted a Palestinian state—even today the Palestinian Arabs do not want a Palestinian state. They want the destruction of the Jews. It's a religious holy war. It's in the culture, the tradition”
Walid Shoebat, former PLO terrorist, 2004.

“There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political identity. The existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel”.
Zuheir Muhsin, late military department head of the PLO. March, 1977.

As to the “indigenous” Palestinians who had lived there for centuries----that's a figment of your imagination.
The land was barely habitable. Swamps in the North which were drained by the early Zionists. Desert in the South.
“The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants, and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population”.
James Finn, British Consul, 1857.

“So far from persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population”.
Winston Churchill, 1939.

The plain fact is that the Arabs/Muslims have always been the invading conquerors, which is why vast areas of Northern Africa have become Muslim states.
You seem to be remarkably untroubled that the hitherto unknown Pakistan was created from land stolen from India in 1947, and some 8,000,000 Hindu refugees evicted from the land of their forefathers by the Muslims. Now that's an injustice.

Finally to a question about Zionism:
“When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-semitism”.
Martin Luther King, Harvard, 1968.
Therein lies your true sentiments.

Adam B.

Philo: "... it remains worthwhile to point to the parts of the historical record that are passed over too easily here..."

Couldn't agree more - like the genocidal antisemitic wave sweeping across the Arab and Islamic worlds against the Jews, which you are only too happy to pass over.

Truthtriumphs

SiN, Philo etc.

And by the way, you do demonstrate your ignorance of the legalities of the situation.
What you call the "occupied" territories are in reality "disputed" territories.
That's because the land now known as the West bank cannot be considered "occupied" in the legal sense as it had not attained recognised sovereignty before Israel's conquest in 1967.
Only the Jewish nation had sovereignity there, for some 1,400 years, with Jerusalem as its capital, before being conquered and driven out by the Romans.

Si, N

Truthtriumphs says:

‘SiN, Philo etc.
And by the way, you do demonstrate your ignorance of the legalities of the situation.
What you call the "occupied" territories are in reality "disputed" territories.’

You say, ‘[w]hat you call the "occupied" territories’ – to be clear, it’s not about what I, Philo, ‘you’ or any individual says – it’s about that which the overwhelming International Consensus says – in this respect the record is abundantly clear, the territories are occupied. There are numerous references and links on this thread relating to the actual legal status of the territories – trackback and review the material – it represents the legal position adopted by the whole world in accordance with International Law.

Since we are beset with ‘ignorance’ – please educate us - point to part of the record which shows that the ‘territories are in reality “disputed” territories’.

To coin one of your charming phrases, ‘put up or shut up’.

Philo

Truthtriumphs,
"Finally to a question about Zionism:
“When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-semitism”.
Martin Luther King, Harvard, 1968.
Therein lies your true sentiments."

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. You suffer verbal incontinence, a mental tic, a reflex. It can be brought under control.

Try first of all to go just a short time without calling someone an anti-Semite. Then build up gradually until you can go a whole morning, a whole day, and so on.

When you hear someone say the Israeli football team is not very good, or the Israeli entry in the Eurovision song contest an abomination, say to yourself, This is not anti-Semitism, it is a point of view that can be justified, even if I disagree.

Then try something a bit more difficult. When the US or UK is condemned for dropping bombs on towns and villages, think, Similar condemnation could be made of Sri Lanka or India or Russia...or...or Israel.

Lo, the state of Israel may be open to criticism!

Then consider: if the criticism of the US, the UK, Israel... is repeated often enough by enough people, there may in time (a painfully long time) be some improvement in their behaviour. They may not feel that they can kill with the impunity of old. It is a long shot, but worth trying.

This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It has everthing to do with who has the power to harm.

Truthtriumphs

Philo.
As expected no engagement with the points put to you, because I am right.
Just ad hominem attacks, always the tactic of a loser.
Out of your own mouth you are hoist with your own petard.

May we now expect a response from SiN, your alter ego?

Si, N

Truthtriumphs says:

'SiN, Philo etc.
And by the way, you do demonstrate your ignorance of the legalities of the situation.
What you call the "occupied" territories are in reality "disputed" territories'.

To be clear, this is not about what I, Philo, 'you', or any individual cares to say - it concerns that which the International Consensus is crystal clear about: Israel is in serious breach of International Law. There are plenty of links/references to the overwhelming International Consensus on this thread - trackback and review the material - note, it is abundantly clear that Israel, with the diplomatic cover offered by the US, is in contravention of International Law - on a daily basis Israel acts in defiance of the will of the whole world.

Now, beset as we are with 'ignorance of the legalilties of the situation', please educate us. Point to those parts of the extensive record of International Law that show 'the "occupied" territories are in reality "disputed" territories'.

To coin a charming phrase of yours, 'put up or shut up'.

phil

Philo
January 12th, 2010 9:26am--- I will not waste my time asking you anything as you are unable to answer -it is a new disease not previously known to man .So I will only tell you that "the international community " consists in your terms of all those who agree with your vision of the world .In terms of killing I bow my head to your superior knowledge of how the militant Muslims have cornered the market ,we lot only do retail rather than the wholesale that you seem to understand better.So why not tell Pinocchio that I have put up instead of TT who is altogether too kind to you two.You might wish to visit the coffee house wall where you will find you have worse enemies than the Israelis and us .,and I have been all week taking a battering whilst trying to defend your side .