Is this why the Palestinians 'deserve' a state, Mr Biden?

Simon

Im glad you picked up on this.
Its been on the JP website for over 24 hours, and I believe this is the first mention of it in the UK MSM.
As appalling as the evidence of a mindset amongst the leadership which would claim to be a legitimate nation, is the stupifying enabling - denial of the UK media.
Put simply, by ignoring and failing to MORALLY condemn such blatent acts as an almost genocicidal hatred that has no place, anywhere, anytime, the BBC, gruniad, et al, condone the act, and the crime of murder, war crimes, and a most grotesque injustice.

charles soper

Sharon was scorned for calling Arafat his Bin Laden, but his analogy was solid, and much the same could be said of the current or aspiring leadership of Fatah too. How long will the West close their ears to the incitement, the sermons in officially sponsored mosques and the Arabic TV and radio pronouncements? How many of our own cities must be attacked and how many more of our own civilians must die first?

Olaf Rye

Until the Palestinians stop targeting citizens in their terroristic rampages, indulging in all sorts of moral contortions to justify why the killing of Israeli (and more broadly, any Jew), is ultimately justified, there is no reason to treat their representatives as civilised people with whom we can negotiate. I still remember feeling that the conflict was resolved with the Oslo Accord, only to see the Palestinians violate all the agreements months later and demand the destruction of Israel. Here is a touch of realism for those exhorting Israel to accede to demands from the Palestinians: any mob that wants to see your destruction and celebrates the murder of your civilians should never be appeased. All they do is see it as weakness and will use the new found gains as a new position from which to strike at the Israelis.

mere mortal

"It was, of course, not her land and never was, not at any time throughout history; nor were the West Bank or Gaza. The only people for whom this ever constituted their national homeland were the Jews."

You seem wilfully oblivious to the fact that thousands of Palestinians Arabs who owned property in Palestine before the creation of Israel were forced to leave in 1948. Mughrabi was a descendant of those people. It may not have constituted a 'national homeland' but it is their land just as much as it is the land of the Jews who took over. They have a rightful claim to it.

Adam B.

mere mortal, your comments are astonishing, not just for their historical illiteracy, but also for their (lack of) morality. If a team of Jewish people went on a gun rampage in Germany today, killing 38 people including 13 children, through a deliberate act of terror, because their ancestors came from Germany and had had to leave (not the case with the Palestinians by the way), then this would be perfectly understandable to you, and you would make excuses for it on a blog?

Do you happen to know this terrorist's personal history, or are you just conjecturing that her ancestors "had to" leave?

Indeed, you seem wilfully ignorant of the 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands, who indeed did have to leave their countries due to apartheid laws against them, their dhimmi status and mass pogroms. I suppose they would be entitled to act in a similar way?

charlotte jones

Stuff Biden and Obama. Israel must do what it has to do-stop expansion of hamas and even Fatah and the annihilation of Jews and Israel.The rest is crap. Palestinians had their chances They blew it.

Philo

Moderator,
The question is short and to the point:

Baruch Goldstein?

Philo

"It was, of course, not her land and never was, not at any time throughout history; nor were the West Bank or Gaza."

?

mere mortal

Adam B.
Apparently it is necessary to outline what one is not saying as well as what one is saying to avoid confusion.

I am not saying that her acts were just or right, they were not.

I am well aware that thousands of Jews became refugees from Arab lands. That simply means that Jews also have a rightful claim to property in Arab lands. It does not mean that Palestinians do not have a legitimate claim to lands that they had to leave behind in 1948.

I am just conjecturing that this particular terrorist's ancestors had to leave. However it is a well known fact that thousands of Palestinians had to leave what became Israel in 1948. If this is "historical illiteracy" then humour my astonishing ignorance and explain why.

elixelx

mere mortal: your historical (not to say hysterical) illiteracy lies in your choice of words: many palestinians "had to" leave; many others "chose to" leave. Are you suggesting that you can tell the difference down to the third generation.
Also, my forefathers "had to" leave England in 1290; "chose to" leave Spain in 1492: were "required" to leave Ottoman Iraq in 1910; and "elected to" leave India in 1961: It is truly "astonishing ignorance" (your words!) to suggest that I have citizenship rights in any of these places merely because my forefathers once lived there!
By the way, I have just come back to live in Spain; The Spanish have refused me citizenship on the basis of my provable family history!
Does your heart bleed red for me or for my expropriators?

In the Wilderness in America

It is not a fight over land and ancestral rights regarding land. It is a fight over whether Israel and Jews should exist. Hamas, hizbolah, the PA, and Iran have all given their despicable answer to that question.

Biden is a poor excuse for a diplomat let alone a politician. He is a water carrier for Obama. Both should be asked how they feel and what they think about honoring this terrorist but, they won't be. And if they were, they would make some excuse about "freedom fighters."

The only analogy in America would be the lunatic right wanting a memorial for Timothy McVeigh, the terrorist who was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, and the government agreeing to it.

Rachel

@elixelx you are one person and not a whole country of people.

Having had there land removed, they now live in a veritable shanty town. This has a historical background that allowed a whole group of people to be displaced into temporary accommodation, that was not so temporary. I do not condone any acts of terror, however, if they had not been displaced in the first place this situation would not have happened.

As a country we have to accept our role in this situation. However, you point out your family history over hundreds of years, but this only really kicked off after WW2. This is something that has affected their parents and grandparents. This is recent history and is affecting people now.

Anth

mere mortal
I stand in awe of your cool and generous clarity in the face of unwarranted provocation. You remind us of painful facts which lie at the heart of the Palestinian tragedy.
I trust you share my revulsion at the naming of this square after a mass murderer (assuming the NY Times is right), and my anger at the way the UK media seem to deliberately suppress such news.

Independent Patriot

Israel will take care of itself, as she always has. The Jews have survived for over 3500 years against some of the worst oppression the world has to offer, and they will continue long after these modern day Hamans are long gone. But vigilance as always is necessary.

As far as the Obama adminsitration is concerned, recent polls show that the US is respected less today by the world then during the Bush adminsitraiton. Really what a shock! Lets just all hold tight, as Obama completely implodes, unfortunatley the worst administraion in the history of the United States may actually take many with him, as his stupidity and the stupidity of those around him cause the most devestating war the middle east has ever known.

elixelx

Rachel: are you suggesting that because my family IN PARTICULAR has a history of disinterrment that I don't count as part of a whole; while this terrorist harridan, whose family was disinterred DOES count as part of a victimised Community?
Are you suggesting that there is a statute of limitations on disinterrment; that if it happened in the "PRESENT" (say 30 or 40 or 50 years) it counts, but if it happened ONE SINGLE DAY before your artificial time limit that it doesn't?
Finally, you write: "however, if they had not been displaced in the first place this situation would not have happened."
Rachel, a philosopher ordered a wall NOT to fall down and it DIDN'T! Can you prove that he is NOT a charlatan?
Thus, anybody who says "If A had NOT happened B would NOT have happened" is a charlatan. or worse, cuckoo!

Rob-NY

As an American, it is worth mentioning that the Palestine leadership supported every enemy my nation had from Hitler to Hussein and everyone in between. Arabs were dancing in the streets of East Jerusalem on 9/11 and now I am supposed to be upset that Jews are building houses there.
Joe Biden is a joke and his boss knows this; that's why he got the job.
BTW...where is Hillary? Isn't glad handing vile gangsters her job.

Adam B.

Rachel, ask yourself why the Palestinians are still called "refugees" but the Jewish refugees from Arab lands (who were actually more numerous in 1948) are not.

Why is that?

mere mortal

Anth

Of course I do.

elixelx

"Astonishing ignorance" were not my words, they were the words that the gracious Adam B used to describe my comments.I just forgot to put quotation marks around them.

Your point about the difficulty of distinguishing between those who were forced to leave and those who you say "chose to" is valid if the distinction is true. I don't know the answer. Miss Phillips made it sound like no Palestinian has or ever had any claim to any part of what is now Israel. I disagreed since this seemed to ignore the fact that many Palestinians were forced to leave their homes in what is now Israel.

I think it is incredibly admirable that in the noble spirit of turning the other cheek you have gotten over the injustices done to you and your forefathers in the examples you mention. I salute you, but many Palestinians don't feel the way you do, nor do I find their feelings incomprehensible.

You are a tough, confident, happy fellow elixelx, you don't need bleeding hearts!

Archie

Well certainly, Miss Phillips, and wasn't it hilarious to see the Israelis wave two fingers to Biden (and by extension that ghastly Obama) by announcing the additional settlements after sensing the political wind in Washington? It really is about time that the world realised that Israel is in a fight for survival and the pronouncements of foreign "leaders" count for nought, especially when the Palestinians have refused the several opportunities of a separate state offered by Israel.

Nili

Thank you. If any government was truly interested in resolving the middle east problem they would read the "charters" of our arab neighbors--all of which state as their goal the total elimination of Israel. All we have ever asked for is to live in peace on our tiny, tiny piece of land. It appears that arab oil money is winning the war, but we are, if anything resilient, so maybe peace will come soon--in our time.

Adam B.

mere mortal, it is an interesting distinction you draw - Jews are entitled to their property, but Arabs are entitled to land.

Is that what you meant?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

The disputation is a waste of time. Israel will not go away. The Palestinians, Hizbollah, Iran etc, will not want a full and final settlement to the conflict whilst Israel still exists. Very simple.

Israel will doubtless have to play a game that will prep them best for the war which has to come. Obama is playing a dangerous game. Israel has to factor that into its strategic planning.

Let's now stop the discussions with the Philos et al. Pointless.

Stanley Tee

And today, the PA is calling on Arabs to "defend al Aqsa" against Israel. Israel's latest "crime"? Dedicating the rebuilt Hurva synagogue. Remember, this is the synagogue the Jordanians destroyed when they ethnically cleansed every last Jew in East Jerusalem in 1948. So I wonder: do Biden, Clinton, Obama et al consider this latest call from the PA to be "unhelpful", or just business as usual? Silly question, I know ...

Raymond in DC

Philo writes, "The question is short and to the point: Baruch Goldstein?"

Here's the difference. Goldstein was an aberration. He was a physician who had treated Arabs for years, but came under the impression Arabs were going to do a "Haman" (Purim was coming). Aside from a few crazies, his actions were repudiated and condemned by Israel's Jewish populace. He has not been honored. Schools, summer camps and public squares have not been named for him. Mughrabi, on the other hand, ...

To listen to their words, the Palestinians are an amoral people. The worst they will say after a heinous attack is that it "does not serve the Palestinian people". They will not say it was wrong, or evil. If it helps the cause to butcher 38 innocents (oh, right... no Israeli is deemed "innocent"), then it's OK. And *these* are the people, the world chooses to stand with!

Michael Medved

Philo: Baruch Goldstein?

When you get a link to a ceremony of naming a central Jerusalem / Tel-Aviv square after Baruch Goldstein, with Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman present and making speches glorifying his deeds, please let us all know.

Philo

Raymond in DC
March 14th, 2010 10:33pm
Goldstein as an army medic persisted in refusing to treat Arabs. He was not court-martialed, but tolerated. Among civilians, he followed the precepts of the Halacha on how to treat gentiles. On the massacre (or the "event" or "occurrence"), opinion polls showed not just that a majority of settlers supported his action, but that a majority in Israel as a whole were more inclined to support the settlers after the massacre than before. Goldstein's funeral became a pretext for a large demonstration of support not just by settlers but by many from Jerusalem. There were eulogies by prominent rabbis. In 1994, it is reported that Rabbi Shimon Ben-Zion sought contributions to finance a book in memory of Goldstein. A book was published in 1995. A memorial was built by the Kiryat Arba municipality, which became a place of pilgrimage. The community Goldstein lived in, which celebrated his actions, cannot be characterized as "a few crazies". They are a significant constituency in Israel with influence considerable enough to ensure that mainstream politicians treat them with respect. Thankfully, Israel being Israel, there was also widespread horror and condemnation. This is reassuring, but should not allow the influence of those who support Goldstein to be made to seem less than it is.

Lynne T

For Rachel -- the name "mughrabi" suggests origins other than "Palestinian"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughrabi,_Yemen

As for the recency of Jews suffering attacks in "Palestine", here's a little history about the synagogue that has just been rebuilt in Jerusalem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurva_Synagogue

Four cities in what is now modern Israel always had large Jewish populations despite conquests, crusades, caliphates and pogroms like the one in Safed in the early 1820s. It was coincidental that partitioning followed WW II. It should have happened long before.

Adam B.

Philo, you really are amazing. You manage, yet again, to turn a thread about what is a disgusting act of glorification of a mass murderer of Jewish civilians into an attack on Israel.

It is a gift. You should give lectures.

The day a central square in Tel Aviv gets named after Goldstein, you'll have a point. Until then, what is your point? (other than vilifying the Jewish state)?

Adam B.

It's amazing, isn't it, that every Israel basher knows the name Goldstein but how many names of Palestinian suicide bombers do they know? I would bet a large sum that Philo had never heard of this woman before reading this thread - but he knows Goldstein's name. Why, I wonder?

Philo

Adam B.,
It's about double standards, again. The state that had Begin and Shamir as Prime Minister, and permitted such as Ariel Sharon to work his way up through the military and political hierarchy is not in a position to be righteous on the subject of terrorists. All this throwing up of hands in horror and all these shrieks of how evil the other side is distract (perhaps deliberately) from the only point worth making, namely, that further bloodshed can only be avoided by negotiation between the parties, however much they despise each other, and that the outline of an agreement has been commonly accepted for decades, except by Israel.

(I notice that Mr. Bickerstaff was wrong: you do leave threads abruptly - I am not sure if you are graciously giving your opponent the last word, or just pretending not to have read something you can't answer.)

Adam B.

I see Philo - and those Prime Ministers are on the level of this woman? You have evidence that they personally and deliberately murdered innocents?

Think very carefully before you answer that.

I know you're very concerned with double standards - like you not knowing this woman's name (how many Palestinian suicide bombers can you name?)but well equipped with Goldstein's. Comes in handy when you want to obsessively vilify the Jewish state and its inhabitants.

Another example - Racel Corrie. Bet you know of her. How many Israeli Rachel's murdered by Palestinian terrorists can you name?

Says it all.

Adam B.

I take it, Philo, that you utterly condemn the Palestinian Authority for this disgusting display?

Gordie Howe

They used to live in the entire state of Israel, but are now confined to an ever decreasing portion. Terrorism - inevitable consequence of imperialism.

Philo

Adam B.,
I am intrigued. Are Begin and Shamir to be excused because they later became Prime Minister or because you can't be sure whether they pulled the trigger or planted the bomb themselves in any given instance. Can you give me the names of the members of Irgun, the Stern Gang, or whatever you wish to call these terrorist organizations, who actually did the killing? Is Sharon to be excused because he was in military uniform and only gave the orders or because Israeli investigations into various of his exploits found the necessary euphemisms? The state of Israel only manages to maintain its pretence of righteous victimhood by sustained hypocrisy.

To repeat, this is all a distraction from the task in hand, which is to reach a peace agreement. The terms of a practicable peace have been agreed long since by all parties except Israel and its sponsor. This is urgent, to avoid further bloodshed. One would never know from any of your comments at any time that Palestinians had ever suffered anything at the hands of the state of Israel. Righteous indignation such as yours is merely a way to temporize.

Broadwood

Is nobody going to mention Jordan? Given 80% of the original land of the British Palestine mandate to be the permanant homeland for the muslim arab palestinians, while Irael got just 20% for the Jewish homeland. The so-called refugees of Gaza and the West bank are pawns in the Arab game of winner-take-all in the holy land, and should have been permanantly settled in Jordan years ago. Israel took in thousands of Jewish refugees from surrounding arab nations without a murmur.
This never was a land issue - it's about Israel's right to exist, period.

Adam B.

Gordie they still do.

Perhaps you should go and see the 25% of Israel which is Arab. Then you can go to Yemen, Egypt, Iraq and see the 0% of the Jewish population - despite having large Jewish population before 1948.

Ever heard of the Jewish refugees? The BBC won't tell you...

Adam B.

Philo, admit your double standard.

Never heard of her, had you?

Your moral equivalncy is revolting.

Philo

Adam B.
March 16th, 2010 6:52pm
" Philo, admit your double standard.

Never heard of her, had you?

Your moral equivalncy is revolting."

Now there is a curious phrase. What do you think I am saying is equivalent to what? Terrorism for Israel to terrorism against Israel?

As you would say, in your most tiresome moments, I am still waiting for the names of those Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists.

The bankruptcy of your response must strike even you.

What is required now is negotiation. Israel (i.e. its security establishment) appears to believe it does not need to negotiate because it is so close to attaining its goal: the Palestinians are now almost entirely powerless in their ghettoes (with relative prosperity for collaborators and absolute poverty for everyone else). Only if the US decides to switch from the charade of the "peace process" to a genuine negotiation is there any hope of a decent life for Palestinians and sense of security for Israelis. Your selective indignation is a faithful echo of the propaganda employed by Israel to ward off the threat of genuine negotiation.

Adam B.

Philo, you ask the question of me? If it's not moral equivalency, why do you try to draw a parallel?

It is disgusting that you belittle the terror this woman inflicted, that you look to turn the naming of a square in her "honour" into an attack on the Jewish state - and deny Jewish people in Israel the right to feel disgusted by mocking their feelings at such a spectacle.

Negotiations blah blah...

Philo, how do you negotiate with someone who doesn't even think you have a right to exist on this earth?

Peace will come when one thing happens -- and that one thing is that the Arab and wider Islamic worlds give up on the idea of destroying Israel. They have not given up on that idea, and consequently this "peace process" will inevitably go the same way as every previous one - except more people will die when it fails.

Do you think we should negotiate with Al-Qaeda? Do you think we should have negotiated with the Nazis?

Philo

Adam B.,
And still you resort to the rhetoric of righteousness to avoid matters of substance. Why do I not admit that eating babies for breakfast is just WRONG?

The phrase about my "moral equivalency" was curious because you seemed to imply by it that terrorism is not equivalent to terrorism.

You tend not to have to negotiate with those you agree with or those who have already given you everything you want, but you tend to negotiate because agreement is better than continued conflict. In this instance, the terms of an agreement are clear, they are possible and practicable, and all parties have indicated a willingness to negotiate on these terms, except Israel (and the US)

Adam B.

Philo

This blog is about terrorism. The accusations you make aren't.

What and whose terms are those?

Philo

Adam B.,
I have to conclude that you are saying that the Stern Gang and others of their sort did not engage in acts of terrorism. There is something to be said for that, but it would not be printable.

Once the body parts have been picked up and the blood cleaned up, it seems to me, the rational thing to do is not to start a shouting match to see who can accuse the other of the worse atrocities, but to negotiate. The terms you ask about have been set out by the UN and endorsed by all members except the obvious two.

Adam B.

Philo

Have those terms been accepted by Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran and Fatah?

Adam B.

Philo

In case you're struggling, the answer is no, they haven't - thus making such "terms" meaningless.

Philo

Adam B.,
I apologize for not getting back sooner. I assumed your question was merely obtuse. I now realize it may simply be forgetful or ignorant (however wilfully). The answer is, Yes, all have subscribed to the peace proposal of the Arab League, which requires all parties to negotiate on the terms set out by the UN. I am not sure why you appear to believe your question an argument stopper and why you think it sensible to block genuine negotiation.

Adam B.

Philo

Your naivete is touching, were it mot so dangerous. Iran has repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction, and denied the Holocaust. Hamas calls openly for the extermination of every Jew on earth. Fatah says it will never, under any circumstances, recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Hizbollah also advocates genocide against all Jews on earth.

Negotiations with that?

An evil idea.

Adam B.

It is quite amusing you think anything fair could come from the Arab League? Remember the three No's? Has that been rescidned? What about their support for the genocide in Sudan?

The entities I mentioned have no accepted negotiations (except Fatah in principle - although no in practice) under any terms. You are misinformed.

Philo

Adam B.,
Oh, dear, I am sorry: the question was indeed obtuse. In your fervour you are more ultra than the ultras. The state of Israel has negotiated or cooperated with each of the entities you anathematize.

Adam B.

Philo

What were these negotiations, and when did they occur? More to the point, what was negotiated? "Negotiating" a ceasefire is, I am sure you would agree, not the same as negotiating for peace, which is the sense you mean, and what these entities have all rejected - in every sense.

Tell me, do you think they don't mean "Kill the Jews" when they say it?

Philo

Adam B.,
Negotiating a ceasefire is...ne-gotiat-ing. The two parties...n-e-g-o-t-i-a-t-e. "Ah, but you see they negotiate but don't negotiate." ...um...

Israel in the 1980s I believe covertly aided Iran against Iraq (I fully admit that word is that Israel - and the US - now covertly help terrorists against Iran, but times change...)

Adam B.

Philo

I have attempted an answer several times, which has been censored.