Jordan is Palestine

TomTom

Not only that, can we push for the Hashemites to have the Hejaz returned from The House of Saud ?

Isn't it time Saudi Arabia returned the territory stolen from the Hashemite Kingdom ?

Raymond Douglas

Wilders is right . Jordan IS the Palestinian homeland ! Palestinians make up the majority of Jordan's population. Why don't all those in the Palestinian diaspora go home to jordan . After all, it is just what the Jewish diaspora did in returning to THEIR homeland ! Won't hear the BBC calling for this thought ?

Neil Turner

Geert Wilders - great bloke

Harold

You surely have to hope that Israel doesn't feel that it has to rely for recognition on wonky history/mythology like this.

EL

From Wilder's mouth to G-d's ears.
English politicians are too flabby, complacent and right-on to face this "inconvenient truth" with any degree of honesty. With the austere financial axe cutting a swathe through the UK, expect even more deflected anger towards Israel.

James Taylor

Thank you for this post. It has been something that I have felt for a long time, but my colleagues dismiss. Brainwashing, I guess.

Well written and precise!

Mycroft

Whether or not Jordan 'is' Palestine, there are plenty of Palestinians outside the boundaries of the present state of Jordan, so it really wouldn't solve anything to simply identify Jordan with Palestine. I hope this is not meant to suggest that the Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza are to be sent into Jordan! And would Jordan want to extend it boundaries to cover the West Bank (and Gaza!?), even if that would be acceptable to the Palestinians in that region? I cannot see that this leads anywhere.

john in cheshire

Good on you Melanie. Keep on telling the truth. Even if the powers that be do nothing with it, they can't say they didn't know.

Tom

Um, so what? Melanie. In year dot there may have been no distinction between the Palestinians and Jordinians, but now, after 40 or so years, I'd hunch there is a fairly profound one.

I support Israel unreservedly, but it is difficult to see how the present impasse can ever be resolved without recognition that the core idea of a two state solution is the sensible solution, Palestinian cooperation (a big if) permitting.

Adam B.

Well, anyone with any knowledge of the history of the region has been saying this for years. Jordan is three quarters of "Palestine", and most of its population are Palestinian Arabs. Do we need a second Palestinian State If so, I propose a second Jewish State.

Daibhidh

Harold:
'Wonky history/mythology'?
Present your case.

Graeme

Melanie, you are speaking the truth yet again. Jordan is in fact Palestine and vice versa. An Arab state west of the Jordan has no right to exist. The River Jordan is the natural frontier between Jew and Arab. Israel is historically and geographically all the land between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean.

Annie Loyedeer

Oh for a Geert Wilders for England

rickyshotts

Well even if Transjordan does become the Palestinian state, what will be the fate of the West Bank? Will the West Bank become the western bank of the Palestinian State? I would not have any theoretical objections to that. But if Israel were to decide that, since Transjordan is the Palestinian State, then Israel is entitled to annexe the West Bank and make it part of Israel, then, in order that Israel could remain a democratic country, Israel would have to confer on all the Arabs living in the West Bank full Israeli citizenship, including all civil rights accruing to Israeli citizens, and in particular, the right to vote in Knesset elections. This is a situation that, as an Israeli who very much wants the continued existence of Israel as a democratic nation state of the Jewish people, I would not wish at all to come about

JJM

"You surely have to hope that Israel doesn't feel that it has to rely for recognition on wonky history/mythology like this."

Why not?

After all, the Palestinians themselves rely on wonky history to advance their own cause.

Bob.India

Harold. Could you perhaps explain to us all the wonky aspect of the history narrated and the part that would come under the heading of mythology?

I'm intrigued and thank you in advance for your reply.

Ricardo

"Why don't all those in the Palestinian diaspora go home to jordan . After all, it is just what the Jewish diaspora did in returning to THEIR homeland"

Curious notion of a native land, or homeland - somewhere they and their forebears didn't live.

Raymond in DC

Harold derides this as "wonky history/mythology" perhaps because he prefers narrative to history. But it's all true.

What's overlooked in this history though is that Abdullah had designs not just on the entirety of the original Palestine (including Israel) but on Syria and Lebanon, even Iraq, as well. All this is documented in Ephraim Karsh's "Palestine Betrayed".

Indeed, had Israel been overwhelmed in 1948 there's not a chance in hell an independent Palestine would have emerged. Egypt, Jordan and Syria would have pounced to get their own chunks of the carcass.

EDDIE

The world would never recognise this proposition. History is no longer a taught subject and in any case ,a fact must never be allowed to interfere with a good prejudice

Oke

Harold, I bet you cannot support your denial of these truths. Go on, try it, at least.

Toni

Geert Wilders is absolutely right. And it is a tragedy that the Israeli politicians and intellectuals in their pursuit of peace have adopted the Arabs narrative. On the way, they have lost their belief in the justness of Israel, as a Jewish homeland. They have always taken their cues from abroad, and being leftist before being Jews or Israelis, now they are unable or unwilling to separate from and confront the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel international leftist movements.
That is why Israelis cannot get their side heard, despite being in the right. The international Left has a lot to answer for, for they are working hand in hand with Muslims to destroy the Jewish Nation and they don't give a hoot if they bring on another Holocaust.
It is ironic, indeed, that the true supporters of liberal values are this days identified as ‘the right’ and in the case of Geert Wilders, 'far right.' Those are also the very people who overwhelmingly support Israel, precisely because Israel is a liberal country.
The monikers of ‘right’ and ‘left’ have totally lost their meaning, as the left and ‘liberals’ march with Islamic fanatics who do not recognize the rights of others, women rights, gay right or those most basic rights – the right to free speech and to disagree; while a 'far right' like Wilders defends the rights of women, gays and freedom of ideas and the right of the Jews to their own homeland in their ancestral land, Israel.
Thank God for Wilders, Azar, Bolton, and you, Melanie. We need to hear voices of sanity and reason.

David Menashy

Come on Harry baby - prove it.

Gary

If jews were allowed to live in Jordan as full citizens just as MUslims are allowed to live in Israel, there would be no middle east crisis. But, you see, the Jordanian Arabs hate Jews. That is the REAL problem

Daulat Ram

Well, God gave Palestine to the Jews.

That settles it. No mythology.

Chiang Mai Chris

I was working in a government ministry in Amman, Jordan in 2008. Most of the people in the office told me they were Palestinians.

Derek BLADES

Ms Phillips tells us that "Immediately after World War One, Palestine consisted of what is now Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The great powers dividing up the region decided that Britain should be given a mandate to administer Palestine and restore within it the historic Jewish national home. Within a couple of years, however, Winston Churchill, for reasons of realpolitik, gave away three quarters of Palestine to the Hashemite dynasty to found (Trans)Jordan (leaving all the rest to be settled by the Jews; but that’s another story).”

What the victorious allies agreed to is spelled out in the 1917 Balfour declaration "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Not quite what Ms Phillips claims! No mention of restoring "the historic Jewish national home". That goes beyond what the great powers had in mind. Note however that they did insist “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The Palestinian refugee camps are evidence that this part of the mandate was not fulfilled.

Terry, Eilat - Israel

The sad fact of the matter is that Israeli politicians, by and large, since the Oslo disaster, have embraced the two-state solution & this includes our supposedly Right-wing Netanyahu. Most Israelis believe Jordan is Palestine but how to get our gov't. to support that position? As an Israeli, I feel that we are being betrayed by our own gov't. - our politicians are worthless appeasers, as spineless as European leaders.
Believe me, if Geert Wilders would run for P.M. of Israel, I'd vote for him & so would the majority of Israelis.

Guy Leven-Torres

Yes I agree but allow the present Palestinians into Jordan/Palestine and it will not last five minutes, simp,y replacing a 'democratic' Kingdom with a terrorist Hammas State in the arms of Iran/Syria and continued jihad. King Hussein knocked the Palestinians out (Al Fata) after an attempted coup/civil war. Lets face facts- nobody wants the present 'Palestinians' not even the Arabs. They are trouble.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades wrote: "Note however that they did insist “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The Palestinian refugee camps are evidence that this part of the mandate was not fulfilled."

No, Derek, as was the case in 1949, the Palestinian refugee camps will be be maintained by the Arab and moslem leadership - be they Egyptians or Hamas with Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood connections. They cannot afford to give up that status, just like Hamas cannot afford to accept any increase in aid to Gaza or the "right of Israel to exist"...It doesn't fit the strategy to destroy Israel.

No amount of your propaganda and your total ignoring of war after war and its effects will change the truth: the Palestinians are the cannon fodder of the "freedom fighters". They couldn't care less about the innocent....neither could you. Anything goes for you idiots as it did for Stalin and his ilk. Freedom? You can't spell the word.

Paul Freeman

You’re right, Jordan is Palestine. And here’s another truth studiously avoided by a craven West. No country should have to endure the rejection of its right to exist by people living within its borders or live with the threat of extinction by virtue of its desire to maintain itself as a democratic nation.

The conclusion of these truths is inescapable: those Palestinian Arabs who continue to reject the Jews’ right to a homeland in historic Palestine should be resettled in Jordan.

Resettlement took place in Europe following World War II to bring justice and create a durable peace. It should take place in the Middle East.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold
June 21st, 2010 5:43pm
You surely have to hope that Israel doesn't feel that it has to rely for recognition on wonky history/mythology like this."

Harold always goes very quiet when he asked to get specific a leave the sloganising and unsupported accusations, etc to one side...so don't expect him to back this last manifestation of his undoubted grasp on the "complexities of history" to reflect a more forthcoming aspect of his his very nimble intellect.

It could be, however, that Linda Smith has, at last managed "to put a sock in it". I have a feeling that if Linda was Israel's PM, Harold's may have weened himself off this addiction to obscurantism and Israel baiting a long time ago.

Derek Pasquill

Jordan, Palestine, Syria, etc: mere chesspieces to the purblind planners at King Charles Street. Here is the German propagandist, Giselher Wirsing, writing in the 1930s:

"Even for Athanasius it would have been a formidable challenge to separate clearly the spheres of influence between the India Office and the Foreign Office in the administration of India and the Arab Bureau in Cairo. […] In the offices of the Foreign Office .. the countries that were dealt with were nothing but chess pieces. The only consideration was the all-consuming struggle with France."

cityca

Fascinating article and lots of interesting posts that follow.

I'm torn between 'great idea', and 'how long would Jordan last if it became Palestine and the large numbers of original refugees and their now vastly extended families left their camps/towns around the region and came to settle in Jordan proper, i.e., not just the West Bank'.

It would certainly put the onus on Jordan, the Arab states and the US, UN, EU etc to get involved rather than on Israel.

How would the eastern border of the West Bank (along the Jordan and the Dead Sea) be treated if Jordan became Palestine? It's currently part of Israel and contains Massada, Ein Gedi and the Dead Sea resorts. How easy would that be to transfer or allow access to?

Gazans could be given the option of moving to Jordan/West Bank or being absorbed by Egypt, as it would be difficult for them to function as an independent state, although on second thoughts, it works for Monaco with probably a similar size and population density.

Finally, I echo people's thoughts about Geert Wilders. Extraordinary man - a true prophet for our time.

Carl

I take it then that you are all for Israelis with Russian heritage moving back to Russia then and Ethiopians back to Ethiopia?

Campbell Gray

I entirely fail to see how this helps anybody. At a personal level it doesn't help a Palestinian whose family left, fled, whatever you want to call it, say Jaffa after 1948.
On the political level, if the map at the top of Melanie's article is correct it would be just about a New York minute before the new 'Palestinian' state would be claiming its 'lost' territory. Border disputes, the continued existence of Israel etc etc would remain unresolved.

Noah Aaron Bashi

Carl, actually all the Jewish people all over the world should "make aliyah"

Isabella Lindstrom

I seem to remember a remark attributed to Tony Blair that he "wished he had more history", (don't we all).
Instead of asking politicians if they have any experience of the world outside Westminster as Andrew Marr asked David Miliband yesterday,(question sidestepped), I think a knowlege of modern history would be more beneficial than almost any other subject. It just might prevent politicians being bamboozled by selfserving orators as well as allowing them to refer to previous British experience in the Middle East. For instance,just the slightest knowledge of past experience there might have avoided the shambles that is Iraq and Afganistan presently.

O-Dog

One other point is that Mel is ambiguous about what her ultimate conclusion is. Does she favour evicting the West Bank Pals into Jordan or does she propose that peace should involve the shifting of Jordan's borders west of the Jordan river?

Harold

Attempts to post a comment here appear to fail at random. I'll try again.

When the Mandate Power divided the territory into Trans-Jordan and Palestine, did it stipulate that the Palestinian Arabs were no longer to consider their native land their homeland?

When it is asserted that all the rest was to be left "to be settled by the Jews", what is meant and where in the Mandate is it to be found?

If they had been allowed self-determination, the Palestinian Arabs would at one time have preferred to be part of a Greater Syria, or some such. Why should this be taken to mean that they forfeited the right to express a preference for any other option when the Mandate Power finally decided that they had been sufficiently "civilised" to be allowed to manage their own affairs? Where is this to be found in the Mandate?

Augustus

The truth is that Geert Wilders is right, and King Hussein was right. Geert Wilders is a sane politician in an insane world, he has simply stated what every Palestinian, every Jordanian, every Syrian, and every Lebanese
already know: All these people are Palestinians, because Palestine is the name of the territory. It was part of the Ottoman Empire in the same way that Siberia is part of Russia, and it was just as desolate. It is only for political and Muslim tactical reasons that Arabs have spoken of a
'Palestinian' people, because of their demands to oppose Zionism in terms of national interests. One need only go back
to the 1970s to discover that Arabs were declaring that the moment they 'reclaimed' their
'rights' to all of 'Palestine' they 'will not wait a minute' to
unite Palestine and Jordan. Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian himself) said, "Peace for us means the destruction of Israel." And let's not forget that the conflict in the ME is not predominantly about land. It
is about Jihad. It is simply a step in the goal towards world domination.

Groovy Times

Maybe Harold has gone to the library to studiously research his long awaited reply. I'm sure he wouldn't want to give us the impression that his conspicuous silence is a reflection of vacuous sloganeering and shallow, sanctimonious moral posturing.

Harold

Others have already asked the more pressing question: what has all this to do with settling the conflict? Is the idea really to expel all Palestinian Arabs from Israel and the Occupied Territories on the pretext that Jordan is where they belong? That is certainly a plan as ambitious and audacious as that of 1947-48.

Michael White

Mr Blades, you advise that:

"Not quite what Ms Phillips claims! No mention of restoring "the historic Jewish national home". That goes beyond what the great powers had in mind."

I'm not sure that it did. My amature study of the Balfour Declaration indicates that this was from the outset one objective. In fact the Declaration does say "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...."

You also counsel that:

“The Palestinian refugee camps are evidence that this part of the mandate was not fulfilled." You strike me as highly knowledgeable of Middle Eastern history, hence I would be surprised if you were unaware of the full background of the refugees (from all perspectives) how they became such, and why they are still there today.

Okey

Harold, the intention of the architects of the Mandate was, initially, that all the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordanian desert was to become the Jewish nation-state.
Britain soon thereafter ripped away the eastern part and gave it to Arab interlopers from the Hejaz. Today their entity is called the Kingdom of Jordan.
As for the Arabs living west of the Jordan River, they called themselves Arabs. The British and the rest of the world called both those Arabs and the Jews there, "Palestinians."
The post-World War One settlement following the defeat of the Turkish Empire promised the Arab nation independence in more than 90% of the Middle East, and promised the Jewish nation a sovereign state in a tiny fragment. The Arabs living there would be citizens of the future Jewish state.
Many people, however, believe that all Jews should constitute minorities in various states, deprived of Jewish sovereignty or self-determination, but that all Arabs should have the right to constitute majorities throughout the Middle East, and that it is unjust for any Arab to have minority status.This principle is known as "equity", "justice","fairness, "humanitarianism", "Christian charity" etc, and because its adherents give it these names it must be right, proper and truthful. Right, Harold?

Bob, son of Bob

Who says Geert Wilders is 'extreme right'?
Answer: the BBC
As they are about as far left as you can go, everything normal appears 'extreme right' to them.
They also think discipline in schools would be 'extreme right wing'. They also think it is extreme right wing to punish criminals, with the exception of Jeffrey Archer and BBC licence fee evaders.

Paul

And so what?

The history of the name and extent of Palestine goes back 2000 years - why pick on one moment in time for a convenient definition? (well obviously, because it suits MP's cause). For example up to 1920 nobody ever considered the easternmost part of modern Jordan to part of historical 'Palestine' - it was included by the British to provide a link to Iraq for an oil pipeline. Palestine has not always included Negev or Aqaba but has sometmes included Sinai (for the Byzantines).

The westernmost part of the British Mandate of 1920 was designated as the location of a home for the Jewish people. That very specifically did not mean the Jews were the only people to be allowed to live there, or that they could take the land by force. It was to be an extension of the peaceful Zionist migrations of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Thats not to say that an independent Palestinian state shouldn't merge with present day Jordan. It could and probably should. Arabs have a long history of regarding themselves as one people divided artifically - see the attempts to build a United Arab Republic. But the reality is they do feel themselves to be different. I guess its a bit like Europeans - we are all 'Europeans' with lots on common but still don't want to be one state.

But as someone has already noted - even if this was all true what difference would this all make?

Most of the Arab people who used to live in what is now Israel have been kicked out and lost their homes and land. And I assume the logic of Melanie's statement is that those west of the Jordan should be removed too or are there on sufferance.

The alternative logic is that if Jordan is Palestine and the 1920 boundary of Palestine is the real boundary then ALL of the territory of the old Mandate shoiuld be ruled from Amman? (or Tel Aviv? - its hard to see what the logic is).

All of this twisted logic is because of one definition of the boundaries of Palestine, that was imposed by outsiders and lasted just 28 years (1920-48) in the 3000+ year history of 'Palestine' as an entity (its name comes from the land of the Philistines).

Here's a challenge for the pro-settler policy Israel supporters on this blog. Are the following two scnarios both legitimate or both wrong? I can't see how one can be right and one wrong.

Scenario 1

The Jews are descended from people who used to live in Palestine but left 1500+ years ago. They claim the land is theirs and have come back to take it back. They argue they have historic links with Palestine and have the right to displace the Arabs living their and take over their homes and land. Those Arabs can go into neighbouring states into neighbouring territory such as Jordan and Lebanon, which are culturally and linguisically the same people. The Jews only want a small bit of the total Arab territory.

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

The Anglo-Saxon English are descended from people who used to live in Germany but left 1500+ years ago. They claim the land is theirs and have come back to take it back. They argue they have historic links with Saxony and have the right to displace the Germans living their and take over their homes and land. Those Germans can go into neighbouring territory such as Brandenberg and Bavaria, which are culturally and linguisically the same people. The English only want a small bit of the total German territory.

Harold

Augustus
June 22nd, 2010 1:22pm

I was not surprised by your abrupt departure from the discussion about Israel lifting its embargo on goods which represented no "security risk".

Hwoever, I am suprised that you felt moved to break cover for this.

Augustus

Let's put one lie to rest once and for all: That there were no Jews in Palestine before Jews began to emigrate there in the late 19th Century, after the Russian Revolution in 1917, and before the foundation of Israel in 1948. The Romans exiled the Jews from their land in the year
135 AD. In spite of that, there were still some Jews who remained in the area. Although many did disperse throughout the world, a few simply remained
out of the Romans line of fire.
However, the 'Palestinians' living in the area when Israel was born were not the original Philistines, but were from nomadic Bedouin tribes who had settled in the area mostly because of what the Jews had made out of desolate and deserted area. When the Romans changed the name of Israel into
Palestina, it was inhabited by
Jews not Arabs. And furthermore,
no Arab land was ever stolen or
confiscated from Arabs by Jewish
settlors. They either developed it from wasteland or bought it from Arabs at extortionate prices, land which the Arabs themselves at the time had very little, if any, use for.

gareth

Moreover - the surrounding Arab countries refused to accept their own citizens (advised to flee Israel by the rapidly descending Pan-Arab Mother of All Armies, and not expelled by Israel as propaganda suggests) fleeing the wars of 67 and 73.

Then Yasser Arafat received millions upon millions upon millions of western aid which should have put all these refugees in luxury condominiums with plenty left over....instead it went to Arafat's Swiss Bank Account (no wonder the left wing love him) as per the socialist elites' guidebook .
At least Tony Blair is a true socialist in that respect having secured as much of other peoples money as he possibly can.
Good on ya Geert!

Harold

Okey
June 22nd, 2010 2:07pm

The map presented by the Zionists of their proposed Jewish Homeland stretched from Sidon in the north to Rafah and Akaba in the south, and from the coast to Amman. This is what Zionists have consistently maintained is their minimum requirement providing defensible borders and control of the regions water supply (the head waters of the Jordan and the aquifers of the West Bank).

Weizmann certainly intended a Jewish state with these borders. Lloyd George and Balfour, I think without doubt, intended a Jewish state (although I do not know if they were explicit about its borders). However, for them, a Jewish state was a side issue - like the rest of the British foreign policy establishment the main point was to secure British control of Palestine to protect the Suez Canal and of the Arabs to the east to protect its growing interests in the increasingly strategically important oil fields.

The letter Weizmann drafted for Balfour was amended in the final version to keep British intentions opaque (in part to avoid making the inconsistency between its promises to Arabs and Zionists too stark). The letter refers not to the Jewish Home, but a Jewish Home. Weizmann fully realised the implications. It was this opaque version that was inserted in the League of Nations Mandate alongside all the stuff about preparing the natives for self-government.

This is a long way of saying that I agree with what you say. However, how does it follow that Jordan is the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs?

Rob-NY

We must take back the narrative and stress this clear fact. It has been the elephant in the room for 60 years that nobody wants to consider it. Make them consider it by underlining it in every debate.

Rob-NY

Rabbi Meir Kahane said the same thing for years until his assassination in New York in 1990 by the same cell that was responsible for the first WTC bombing in 1993.

Rob-NY

The irony of course is that Israel rescued King Hussien and his regime in 1970 at the behest of Nixon and Kissinger when the PLO revolted and Syria sent tanks. This was such a political earthquake that it contributed to the demise of Nasser in Egypt and the start of a new era of conflict in the region.

Harold

Augustus
June 22nd, 2010 3:22pm

The "Palestinian Arabs" are no doubt an amalgam of every people who has traversed or settled the land. There might even be a large proportion of the ancient Jewish population who converted to Islam. What follows? Not a lot.

Augustus

Harold - I am not entirely sure exactly whose side you are on. Is it that of the Arab leaders, who from the very early 1920s onwards proceeded to launch a relentless campaign to virtually obliterate the Jewish national revival? Or is it the hapless constituents of those leaders who actually did not wish, as a people, to proceed with that predatory Zionist assault, and who, given shall we say a democratic say in the matter, would have accepted the 1947 UN Resolution which called for the establishment of two Palestinian states, one for the Jews, and one for the settled Palestinian Arabs? You really don't get it if you think that
anyone in the region was actually ejected by the Zionist movement or a militant Jewish movement. In fact, the opposite is true. Mainstream Zionism went out of its way to foster Arab-Jewish coexistence. Between
1919 and 1948 Zionist representatives held possibly hundreds of meetings with Arab spokesmen at all levels, even including the later King of Jordan, as well as the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Saud, in order to come to a solution. The sad fact is that the way the world has twisted since those times, people who purport to side with the Palestinian cause of what you so readily describe as 'Palestinian self-determination' are only showing
gross ignorance, and in fact siding with those Arab leaders and their proteges who caused the dislocation in the first place.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Paul: the most relevant fact is this: Israel exists as a sovereign state and will not commit national suicide. Period. Any peace must be predicated on that realisation of this fact.

Add to this the fact that the Arabs - Palestinians - moslems of the Middle east - have never accepted that fact in sufficient numbers to make the waging of peace a viable political aim for them.

Given Israel will not go away, the Arabs have to choose what they want to do: have a state of their own based on UN Resolution 242, or unite with Jordan and negotiate the enlarged Jordanian state on the basis of 242.

Nothing else counts anymore. That is the reality we all have to live with.

All the other debates are for the ideological self-abusers - most of whom have agendas which are recipes for mass murder, in my view - all, of course, in the name of Justice.

With justice like that....

Paul

Augustus - "Romans exiled the Jews from their land in the year
135 AD....the 'Palestinians' living in the area when Israel was born were not the original Philistines, but were from nomadic Bedouin tribes who had settled in the area mostly because of what the Jews had made"

So the Arabs in Israel have ONLY been there since AD135 when they moved in after the Romans exiled the Jews. Well that makes it perfectly fine to steal their land then.

"no Arab land was ever stolen or
confiscated from Arabs by Jewish
settlors."

In 1945, on the 26.4 million dunams of land in Mandate Palestine, 12.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.5 million by Jews, 1.5 million was public land and 10.6 millions constituted the desertic Beersheba district (Negev). In terms of arable land, 7.8 million was owned by Arabs, 1.2 million by Jews and 0.2 million was public land. By 1949, some 700,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled from their lands and villages. Israel was now in control of some 20.5 million dunams (approx. 20 500 km²) or 78% of lands in what had been Mandate Palestine: 8% (approx. 1,650 km²) were privately controlled by Jews, 6% (approx. 1,300 km²) by Arabs, with the remaining 86% was public land.

All those crafty Arabs were selling the land at extortionate prices in 1948 were they? How entrepreneurial of them. And how much collectively did Israelis pay for that land then?

And it continues, see this from an Israeli newspaper:

"Legitimization of land theft
The theft of private land and lawless construction, with the authorities' collaboration, have long been routine in the land of the settlers."

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/legitimization-of-land-theft-1.214201

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote:"The letter refers not to the Jewish Home, but a Jewish Home. "

One wonders if Harold's sensitivity to the "politics of the definite and indefinite article" stretches to the debate over the clause in Resolution 242 re the giving back of lands conquered by Israel in the '67.

Augustus

In a book called 'From Time Immemorial' by Joan Peters, she answers the question: When and why did Arabs start migrating to
Israel? She writes that the return of the Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s created jobs. Arabs from impoverished
areas were drawn to the Holy Land for work. She adds that in 1948 so many Arabs were new to the area and could not qualify for the UN requirement for refugee status (people forced to
leave 'permanent' or 'habitual'
homes) that they added a clause
permitting refugee status for Arabs who had been there as little as two years. In other words, the Palestinians came to Israel to work for the Jews and now claim the ownership of the land. Please take note Harold and others! There are really only two ways to end the conflict in the ME: The Islamic way, i.e. the destruction of Israel, or the rational way, i.e. resettling the Palestinians in their own homelands, Jordan and Syria. Resettlement will not be cheap, but in the long run it's going to be a lot less expensive than feeding a perpetual war.

Harold

I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how the wonky version of history in the article is so obviously correct.

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 22nd, 2010 5:27pm
A very good point. As I understand it, the ambiguity was deliberate in both instances, and in both instances has caused a world of grief to all concerned. As I said, Weizmann was well aware of the implications of the amendment to his draft. In my opinion, the Israeli interpretation of the UN resolution is more of a stretch than the interpretation of the Mandate powers by everyone except the Zionists, Balfour, and Lloyd George. But clearly in both instances, diplomatic fudge may have served everyone's short-term interests, but no-one's long-term interests (although possibly Israel's).

Augustus
June 22nd, 2010 5:02pm
I'd be interested in your source for these fairy tales.

Augustus
June 22nd, 2010 6:22pm
Please, no, not the Joan Peters hoax yet again. Israel does not need to rely on such stuff to defend its right to recognition.

"or the rational way, i.e. resettling the Palestinians in their own homelands" Jordan and Syria (!). I see you think it rational to complete the 1948 ethnic cleansing/fortuitous exodus of those the Zionists wished to see exit. Do you include the citizens of Israel in this deportation?

I would still be interested to hear how you explain the Israeli government's lifting of the embargo on goods that represent no security threat.

Geoff Miller

On the subject of the Dutch check this out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/7846704/Dutch-police-use-decoy-Jews-to-stop-anti-Semitic-attacks.html

I have tried to get the programme but can't . You may have more luck.

It should be aired widely

Augustus

Harold - No, not fairy tales, but well-documented evidence of how Arab leaders behave. If you want a source see the books about Israeli history by Efraim Karsh. I see you are still obsessed by Israeli 'ethnic cleansing' in 1948. It is people like you, siding (now admitted - see 'fairy tales') with Israel's enemies, a truly Western useful idiot, whose opinions and false propaganda only serve to further a cause designed to destroy a nation and the right of its ethnic people even to exist. If Israel goes under it will be for Muslims the first sign of the 'hour of resurrection' when they will be compelled to wage Jihad on all mankind. The sacrifice of Israel will not end the war, it will be the beginning of something far greater.

It is not for me to explain the lifting last week of the Israeli
Government's embargo on certain goods, as I am not a member of that government. Perhaps they thought it would ease tensions with world opinion. You really are being tiresome.

Helene Davidson

Reading these torturous arguments (and this from someone who lived and worked in the region, including Jordan, for over 10 years), you can see why so many people in the West long for energy independence. Then Arabs and Israelis can fight out their own sense of self-determination and leave the rest of us alone. If it weren't for oil, a hell of a lot people wouldn't give a damn, frankly, and given all the goodwill expended in trying to introduce logic into an illogical situation are fed up. Enough already. If the Jewish people needed a homeland it was not in our gift, as Westerners, to provide it. Whether there are Palestinians amongst the Bedouin and native populations of Jordan does not make Jordan Palestine, any more than the large number of Egyptians living in New York City make that place Cairo.

Harold

Augustus,
Efraim Karsh - all becomes clear. If you want a balanced account of the history you will have to read more widely.

I was only asking about your views on the partial lifting of the blockade because you were so very ready to give them until it was pointed out to you what this partial lifting implied about the blockade hitherto - after which you became very abruptly very quiet.

Since you are (it turns out) not a member of the Israeli government, why were you so keen before to pontificate on the subject. Or, if you don't need to be a member of the Israeli government to pontificate, why so coy now?

C.Gee

Paul @2:35 pm:

What do you mean the 3000+ years of 'Palestine' as an entity? Entity? And the boundaries were where?

You seem to be profoundly confused about the conceptual distinctions among inhabited land, native land, national home, national territory, nation, state, a people, administered territory and sovereign state.

Your scenarios reflect that confusion, and are nonsense.

Check out the real scenarios of populations being forcibly moved after WWII. Check out Kosovo today.

Why do you care about the Arabs more than any other displaced population? Including Sudeten Germans, and Kosovar Serbs. Uzbeks are on the move too. How about the refugees evicted by Arabs (not including the Jews)?

Adam B.

But Helen, Jordan constituted three quarters of Palestine. It WAS most of Palestine. What did you think it was before 1922?

Adam B.

Harold, are you trying to make a point? If so, what the hell is it?

I have never read such long winded posts saying so very little.

Augustus

Harold - I prefer to believe the writings of Professor Efraim Karsh who knows what he's talking about, rather than those whose only real concern is to reverse the effects of the so-called 1948 occupation, i.e. the establishment of the state of Israel itself. As Karsh
says: "As is well-known, the implementation of the UN partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well-known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation." I also believe him when he says that "during the three decades post 1967, fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasser Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched between
3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere between 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. He further states: " It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian
terrorism started well before 1967, and continued and intensified after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the enduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state
was itself an original act of inhuman occupation, with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible." No wonder, Harold, that you find such accounts unbalanced, because they are the truth.

C.Gee

Paul @ 5:23:

"So the Arabs in Israel have ONLY been there since AD135 when they moved in after the Romans exiled the Jews. Well that makes it perfectly fine to steal their land then."

Please read some history. The Arab conquests of some centuries after AD135 might be of interest to you.

As for your ownership statistics of 1945 and 1949, may I remind you that there was an intervening war? War changes boundaries and populations.

Please inform yourself of the incidence of absentee owners, the holding of property by the state (and individuals) for the return of the Arabs inhabitants, the laws pertaining to forfeiture, the compensation paid, the actual return of certain property to former owners, the offer of compensation as part of the peace negotiations. Dry, unemotional, legal stuff.

You might have to venture further than Haaretz, which, by the way, is shy of publishing facts - and corrections - which exonerate settlers. Settlers have been evicted from illegal settlements - and from settlements which are not illegal, but whose dismantlement is necessitated by political gesturism.

Illegal land snatching and building is also practiced by non-Jews in Israel and the territories.

Harold

Adam B.
June 22nd, 2010 11:24pm
What mastery of polemics! What wit and acuity! What shining intelligence!

I am so destroyed and desolated that I will not again try to answer the specific challenges of other contributors without first seeking your approval.

spalding

Well done Ms Phillips.
The truth is too uncomfortable for the foes of Israel.
I am much more bothered by the Western antiZionism than by Palestinian. With the Pallies its up front and clear. With the western liberal morons its all lies, deceipt, disguised Jew hatred and fabrication. They are the real enemy. The screaming ranting braying marching tattooed pierced mob who march in the streets for Palestine. They are a blot on civilised humanity. The people of Palestine are victims of terrorists in Hamas, and of stooges like "Friends of Palestine", the UN, and all the other liars and useful fools who care zero about suffering in the world. Their entire motivation is to destroy Israel.

Okey

Harold, the map that the Zionists supposedly suggested to Britain was and is utterly irrelevant. The Jews' leverage was zero.
The Mandate fixed the boundaries in international law (for what that's worth).
According to that legal determination, "Palestine" comprised what in today's parlance is Israel, Gaza, the West bank AND Jordan. Hence today's Islamic, Arab Kingdom of Jordan constitutes 80% of "Palestine", hence it is the homeland of those Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. The remainder of the Palestinian Arabs are a minority in the Jewish majority nation-state.
With respect to economics, demography, social cohesion and harmony and peace, it makes sense for Jordan to be the state of the Palestinians. Of course if they accepted that, they would lose their pretext for waging their war of annihilation against Israel.

Linda Smith

Both of Paul's scenarios (June 22, 2:35pm) are factually false. The Jews did not "leave" the Land of Israel, they were forcefully evicted. However some Jews evaded eviction and others returned so there has been an unbroken thread of continuity of Jewish links with the Land despite continuous oppression under Roman, Christian and Muslim rule.

The Jews did not argue that they "have the right to displace the Arabs living and take over their homes and land." There was plenty of room for Jews and Arabs to live in harmony together.

The conflict between Jew and Arab arises, not because they are not "culturally and linguistically the same people", but
because of the religiously supremacist and antisemitic dictates of Islam. The Muslims would live in perfect harmony with Jews if only they would convert to Islam - like Ahmadinejad.

Paul, like his compadres Blades, Harold, and Uncle Tom Cobleigh, plays the usual trick of the antizionist by airbrushing the fundamental cause of the conflict from his "analysis" - Islam. Consequently, Paul's analysis, like theirs, has no legs

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "
June 22nd, 2010 7:28pm
I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how the wonky version of history in the article is so obviously correct."

I am curious to understand how Linda got the sock thing so wrong when everything she says is so right..Anyway, "wonky", ha? Harold, tell us how the version of history in the article is so wrong....

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 22nd, 2010 5:27pm
A very good point. As I understand it, the ambiguity was deliberate in both instances, and in both instances has caused a world of grief to all concerned. As I said, Weizmann was well aware of the implications of the amendment to his draft. In my opinion, the Israeli interpretation of the UN resolution is more of a stretch than the interpretation of the Mandate powers by everyone except the Zionists, Balfour, and Lloyd George."

Why are we not surprised you think that, but would you explain why? Not a chance..

" But clearly in both instances, diplomatic fudge may have served everyone's short-term interests, but no-one's long-term interests (although possibly Israel's)."

Jewish conspiracy, no doubt..but so what? You want to ignore International Law and do what? How? At what cost?

You are a dangerous thiner, Harold. No concern for the mayhem you would cause in the name of expiating your overweening sense of self righteous indignation...or all this about being needlessly provocative?

You're a funny guy, if that's how you get your jollies..

david singer

Melanie:

Palestinian Arab journalist Khalid Amayreh - no friend of Israel - had this to say recently:

"None the less, the Jordanian and Palestinian peoples are the two most homogeneous and closest Arab peoples, given their ethnic, cultural and religious commonality. We are actually one people, as Arab clans on both sides of the River Jordan have one common ancestry.

This indisputable fact should debunk all the myths about any proclaimed intrinsic distinctiveness, let alone contradictions, between Jordanians and Palestinians.

It should also demolish all parochial ideologies such as territorial nationalism, namely exaggerated Palestinian and Jordanian nationalisms, ideologies that grow out of fanatical tribalism which Islam condemns as acts of Jahilyya or ignorance."

Some Arabs are beginning to tell the truth. It is the Obamas and Ban Ki Moons that are still in a state of denial. When will they wake?

Division of sovereignty of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan appears to be the only possible way out of the current impasse.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

davidson wrote: "Reading these torturous arguments (and this from someone who lived and worked in the region, including Jordan, for over 10 years), you can see why so many people in the West long for energy independence. Then Arabs and Israelis can fight out their own sense of self-determination and leave the rest of us alone. If it weren't for oil, a hell of a lot people wouldn't give a damn, frankly, and given all the goodwill expended in trying to introduce logic into an illogical situation are fed up. Enough already."

So far, so good, helen. You seem to be saying, it's nothing to do wtih us and we should stop caring and trying to make sense of it.

" If the Jewish people needed a homeland it was not in our gift, as Westerners, to provide it."

You mean, it was up to the Jews and the Jews alone? or are you now taking sides?

"Whether there are Palestinians amongst the Bedouin and native populations of Jordan does not make Jordan Palestine, any more than the large number of Egyptians living in New York City make that place Cairo."

This last comment is just silly. of course, given the history of the region. You cannot be serious, surely?

Seraph

For Jordan to take its rightful place as Palestine is a simple matter. Allow for free and fair elections in the country and the Hashemites will be history.

Over 70% of Jordan's population self-identifies as Palestinian. Give them a vote and you will see how quickly there will be a two state solution.

Seraph

Derek Blades states:
"Note however that they did insist “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The Palestinian refugee camps are evidence that this part of the mandate was not fulfilled."

This is a commmon error that comes from reading one's prejudices into the text of the Mandate. Note that it only refers to the "civil and religious" rights of the existing non-Jewish populations. This was meant to signify that these non-Jewish peoples had no NATIONAL rights under the Mandate. Only the Jewish people had the right to a NATIONAL HOME in Palestine.

Seraph

Paul's scenario #2 is a false analogy on numerous levels:

1. There was always a Jewish presence in Israel and even a Jewish majority in cities such as Jerusalem, Safed and Tiberias throughout most of recorded history.
2. Unlike Anglo-Saxons who moved on to new hunting grounds, the Jewish people did not willingly leave and, as evidenced by their prayers and actions, they never gave up the desire to return to their native land.
3. Migrations of Jews throughout the centuries and even cases of mass migration (such as under Shabbtai Zevi, or the students of the Gra), demonstrate that the Jewish people actively endeavoured to return to their home. Certainly the same can not be said for Anglo Saxons.
4. Jews do not have any other home but Israel and many of them see themselves or are seen by others first and foremost as Jews. There are very few people who self-identify as Anglo-Saxon and even a smaller number of those who are stateless.

There are numerous other reasons why your scenario is poorly thought out and disingenuous. If anything, the Jewish people are more akin to the Tibetans or Native Americans. Are you saying that these people should also forfeit their national right to self-determination or do you only preserve this prejudice for the Jewish people?

Simon

Is Miss Philips implying that the population of the west bank and the Gaza Strip should be transferred to Jordan? This would surely be ethnic cleansing. Moreover Miss Philips appears to reject the 1967 frontier. Where precisely does she thinks Israel's borders should be?

Harold

Okey
June 23rd, 2010 12:27am
I think we more or less agree on the history of the boundaries of the Mandate. My question was, how does it follow that Jordan is the homeland of the Palestinian Arabs? Why is their native land not their homeland? Are you proposing deporting them to the east to make room for Israel?

Andrew Murray

Melanie
There are only three practical options that could flow from this analysis:
1. All Palestinians living on the West Bank are expelled by force majeure into Jordan.
2. The West Bank becomes part of an expanded Jordan, Israeli settlers and all.
3. Israel annexes the West Bank and gives full citizenship rights to the Arabs living there.

Which do you favour? If you can't say, then all this historical ruminating by Mr Wilders leads nowhere.

John.

Paul: The Anglo-Saxon contribution to the British gene pool is far smaller than had been previously thought and is also so completely absorbed by the main component of the pool that it would not now be possible to pin-point any "pure" Anglo-Saxons at all. So probably not a good example to choose. The native British are, surprisingly enough, principally of the same origin as the Basques and the Berbers and their ancestors arrived, in what was then part of the European mainland, roughly fifteen thousand years ago. They have little wish to return to the Basque country whence they came. (See Brian Sykes, Professor of Human Genetics, Oxford, "The Blood of the Isles" and Steven Oppenheimer, "The Origins of the British" for example.
Secondly, whatever the pros and cons, the State of Israel was legally established by the agreement of the UN and that cannot be gainsaid. The resolution is there in black and white.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Andrew Murray wrote:
June 23rd, 2010 9:42am
Melanie
There are only three practical options that could flow from this analysis:
1. All Palestinians living on the West Bank are expelled by force majeure into Jordan.
2. The West Bank becomes part of an expanded Jordan, Israeli settlers and all.
3. Israel annexes the West Bank and gives full citizenship rights to the Arabs living there.

Which do you favour? If you can't say, then all this historical ruminating by Mr Wilders leads nowhere."

Which do you favour?

Occasional Ostrich

While we're at it, Melanie, can we challenge the sloppy restriction of the term 'Semite' to Jews. Just about aLL the ethnic and religious groups that called Palestine their homeland over the past 2000+ years years are Semites, are they not? It's an ethnic term, not a religious one. So where does that leave the usage of the word 'Antisemitic'?

Andy Gill

Wilders is a remarkable and charismatic politician. But his recent success in the Dutch elections indicates he is pushing at something of an open door. Many agree with him.

Let's hope the UK can find its own Geert Wilders soon. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are sick of the rising tide of Islamocreep, and waiting for a politician like Wilders to get behind.

Paul

C.Gee No I am not profoundly confused about the differences between the things of the sort you list. I'm clear about "occupied territory" for instance. I deliberately avoided using words like nation or state because there hasn't been one for 3000 years. I am talking about the geographical entity commonly referred to as Palestine for several thousand years, the borders of which have varied over time but usually has at its core the territory to the west of the Jordan to the Med.

My point is that Melanie/Wilders are basing their argument on just one definition of what are the borders of Palestine, a definition that existed only from 1920-48 and included areas that were not usually considered part of historical Palestine.

Fine, lets look at real scenarios of forcible movements since WW11. Would it be OK for the Serbs to move back into Kossovo and deport the entire population because they have claiemd it for 600 years? They have lived there in small numbers for all of that time and it certainly has a mythical place in their national heart. So is it ok for them to steal all the land from the Kossovars and deport them across to their ethnic cousins in Albania? If not, why not?

"Why do you care about the Arabs more than any other displaced population?"

Who said I did? We're on a blog discussing Palestine and Wilder comments about it which seem to imply the answer is to deport all the Palestinians across to Jordan. So not suprisingly we are discussing Palestinian refugees not Sudeten Germans.

The question is why do you care less about Arab displaced populations than others? Or maybe you dont?

Paul

John yes I appreciate its not a good example and it was there to provoke a debate. The point I am trying to highlight is that it really isn't acceptable to use a historical claim to a piece of land that your great-great-great etc etc grandparents owned to steal it and displace the current inhabitants and tell them to go live with their neighbours because they speak the same language. Its really not right and we wouldn't accept it anywhere else - is it ok for the Arabs to take back Spain on that basis?

And yes I agree that the State of Israel was legally established by the agreement of the UN and that cannot be gainsaid. I support that and I am fine with that but the current borders of Israel are not what has been recognised and agreed. And despite what Melanie or Wilders or more extreme Israelies might think the Israelis have no legal or moral right to expel the Palestinians to Jordan and take their land.

gareth

Just read this from the Washington Times - an open letter from the actor Jon Voight (father of Angelina Jolie) to Obama - it is short and to the point so here it is (hope I'm not breaking any copyright law)

President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well,

when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their

enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are

everyone's enemy — and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm's way, and you

have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by

today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientists and philosophers, and the cures for

many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and

say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals who want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown

for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may

never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not

for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

AMEN!!!!!!!!!

Paul

C.Gee I agree the timeline is nonsense but I suggest you direct your comments about it to Augustus. I was quoting from him. He said the Jews were expelled in AD135 and the Arabs move in after that. Maybe it was empty from the 2nd to the 7th centuries (or possibly he means the 19th century). Or maybe he is talking rubbish.

And yes I know there was a war between 1945 and 1949. That was my point. Augustus claimed that "no Arab land was ever stolen or confiscated from Arabs by Jewish settlors. They either developed it from wasteland or bought it from Arabs at extortionate prices, land which the Arabs themselves at the time had very little, if any, use for."

So was there a vast sale of Arab land in 1945-49? No, there was a war and it was taken from them. Although maybe it falls into Augustus second category - the villagers of Deir Yassin certainly didn't have much use for their land after 9 April 1948, for example.

As for "absentee owners" - what right do these owners have to return to their land? Does Israel support the "right of return"? I didn't think so. Its a nice racket - say you are only looking after the land for absentee owners and then make sure they can never return to claim it back.

All the settlements on the West bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are illegal in international lwa, full stop. And I'm sure some Jewish land is taken by Arabs neighbours. You seem knowledgeable about these things, what is the ratio of Arab land taken by Jews vs Jewish land taken by Arabs? Is it 50:50 or more like 100:1?

Paul

Seraph - yes I agree the analogy is not a perfect one, no analogy is.

Yes Jews have always been there, even if in small numbers at times. Well strictly they have been there since they first came and took the land from the inhabitants by massacre in ancient times (according to the Bible).

But a small community of people having been somewhere a long time doesn't give them the right to kick out the current inhabitants and take their land.

I don't see how the question of whether they left voluntarily or not matters. It was nearly 2000 years ago. I doubt all the Anglo-Saxon settlers wanted to move home either but were told to by their tribal leaders. Americans descended from slaves didin't go to America voluntarily but that doesn't give them the right to go back to invade West Africa and kick out the people currently living there.

Yes some Jews throughout history have wanted to migrate there because their ancestors 1000+ years ago used to live there. The question still is - is it right? For centuries the Germans were driven by 'drang nach osten' a desire to invade lands to the East. The Spanish want Gibraltar back. The English/British ruled Ireland for 700 years. Wanting something for a long time doesn't make it right.

Jews don't have any other home is the best argument of the lot. And it why there should be a Jewish state there. But it still doesn't give the Israelis the right to expel everyone between the Jordan and the sea and take their land.

"The Jewish people are more akin to the Tibetans or Native Americans. Are you saying that these people should also forfeit their national right to self-determination or do you only preserve this prejudice for the Jewish people?"

I am not prejudiced about rights to national self determination I think people should have them. It seems Israelis are prejudiced though. They have these rights, Palestinians don't.

An interesting point about Native Americans. Do you think they have the right to take over 80% of the USA, expel the current people living there and then occupy the remaining 20%? The Americans currently living there could then be deported to Europe. Ethnically they are European after all and the "American" national identity was just invented by them to be distinct from their fellow Europeans.

david singer

John Roosevelt

There is one option you don't mention - division of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan. No Jew or Arab will have to leave his home under this option. It is in my opinion the only solution that can end the current impasse in the West Bank.

Augustus

@ Paul, 23/6, 12.36pm

I did not say that the Romans expelled the Jews in 135 AD and the Arabs moved in after that. What I said was that in spite of
the Roman expulsion of the Jews from their homeland, there remained Jews in the area both then and throughout the ages. I simply said, as Linda Smith has confirmed, that there has been an unbroken thread of Jewish culture and presence throughout.
It may be convenient for you to think otherwise. But you are wrong.

Augustus

In his travels through the Holy Land in 1869, Mark Twain wrote:
"There is not a solitary village
throughout its whole extent (valley of Jezreel, Galilea); not for thirty miles in either direction...one may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee...Nazareth is forlorn...Jericho lies a mouldering ruin...Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation...untenanted by any living creature...a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent mournful expanse...a desolation.
We never saw a human being on the whole route...hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country...
Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes...desolate and unlovely."

And who brought the richness?!

Marks Sparks

What is this saying? That in the whole Middle Eastern Conflict the PLO & Co has been barking up the wrong tree!!! I know that there are more Palestinians in Jordan than in "Palestine", but didn't know this was the reason.

I think G. Wilders is a bit extreme and it's a bit hard for me to admit that he might be right... (Grinding my Teeth).

Paul

Augustus, despite your denials you did say that "the Romans expelled the Jews in 135 AD and the Arabs moved in after that."

You said June 22nd, 2010 3:22pm

"the 'Palestinians' living in the area when Israel was born were not the original Philistines, but were from nomadic Bedouin tribes who had settled in the area mostly because of what the Jews had made out of desolate and deserted area. When the Romans changed the name of Israel into
Palestina, it was inhabited by
Jews not Arabs."

So in your timeline Palestine was populated by Jews in Roman times, the Romans then exiled most of them in AD135 and at some point between then and 1948 the Arabs came along.

Yes I know there have been a small Jewish community living there since Roman times but that still doesn't give them the right to take over everything between Jordan and sea and kick out the Arabs.

And yes I'm sure the incoming Jews did make a huge economic improvement to Palestine (getting rid of the Turks on 1917 also helped too). Britain used to say the same thing about bringing railways and trade to the Empire, it still didn't give them the right to treat these people like second-class citizens in their our countries or expel them and take their land.

Harold

You surely have to hope that Israel doesn't feel that it has to rely for recognition on wonky history/mythology like this.

Adam B.

Harold

I see, so you really didn't have a point to make.

Jordan and what is now Israel, Gaza and Judea and Samaria were ALL part of Palestine - it was not two separate entities, which you are desperately trying to claim. Between 1948-67, when the so-called West Bank was under Jordanian rule, and Gaza under Egyptian rule, there were no calls for another Palestinian State in these territories. After 1967, we are expected to believe that suddenly this was what the Palestinian Arabs had wanted all along.

Palestinian nationalism is not about establishing another Palestinian state - it is, and always has been, about destroying Israel. Hamas is open about it - Fatah is just better at PR (but has openly declared that it will never, under any circumstances, recognize a Jewish state). Until this changes, talk about final agreements are pointless. It's about mentality, not borders.

Michelle

The West Bank is slowly, slowly being regenerated and the standard of living is improving. Many Muslims are crossing the green line to live in Israel's pre 67 borders, as if there is a Two State solution, they are not too keen to be living under Islamic law. They've seen what's happened in Gaza.

Israel should keep the West Bank and give the Arabs the choice to become loyal Israeli citizens serving in the army like the Druze and the Bedouins do, or being welcomed into neighbouring Arab countries with generous compensation and help from the UN, etc.

The person to instigate this is Queen Rania of Jordan. She is charismatic, powerful and Palestinian. She holds the key.

Harold

Adam B.
June 23rd, 2010 6:42pm

?

Baron Pippin II

one can argue till the cows arrive the historical angle from the Romans through the Mandate to the recent decades. None of the solutions flowing from it will satisfy many, and certainly not those opposing the presence of the state of Israel in the Middle East. It’s the resurgence of the Muslim world that has the momentum, largely because of the abundance of fossil fuel reserves on their lands. Who has the courage to stand up to them risking the economic hurt it may cause. Certainly not the one who walks on water.

the best and the most equitable solution is proposed by Seraph @ 6.16: the democratisation of Jordan, and a federal status to the West Bank/Gaza within Israel. It would not only be welcomed by many, if not the most of the Palestinian unwashed living in the two enclaves, it would benefit them economically, too, and reduce the risk of another conflict.

sooner or later the Middle East cannot but flare up again, either Israel or the other side will turn victorious. One can hope, for the sake of the free West, that it’s the former.

and another thing: Melanie’s right, sadly, being right doesn’t cut it in a world of moral equivalence and stuff.

Richard

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 23rd, 2010 12:31am

I am curious about your comments to Harold on this and a previous thread.

Here you start by asking him to say how the history is wonky. I have only dropped in on the discussion now and then, so maybe I am missing something, but he appears to have already done what you asked: it is "wonky", as I understand it, because it says that Trans-Jordan was to be the homeland for the Palestinian Arabs - which may do for Zionist rhetoric, but will not do as history. Perhaps you just did not read what you objected to?

But what has struck me has been the needless intemperance of your remarks, which appears to have no bearing on the topic at hand.

For example, Harold says that he supposes the diplomatic fudges might have helped Israel, which seems unexceptionable. Your retort? - "Jewish conspiracy, no doubt" - which has nothing to do with anything Harold has said - it is a smear in place of an argument. Why? What is the point?

You then go on to say that Harold wants to ignore international law - which is very odd since in the previous thread, as I recall, you have been berating him for making a fetish of observing international law (which apparently puts Israel at a disadvantage). You really have to decide what it is you are accusing him of.

Your choler then gets the better of your English: "You are a dangerous thiner, Harold." - I don't know what a thiner is, so I don't know how bad a dangerous thiner is. "No concern for the mayhem you would cause in the name of expiating your overweening sense of self righteous indignation..." Do you know what the verb "to expiate" means? Could you tell me how Harold by expiating his indignation could cause mayhem?

But the most striking feature of the whole performance is that you address no point that Harold has made on this thread.

Is this intended as an example of how the discussion should be carried forward?

I was moved to ask because this is not an isolated example. I have noticed your mix of venom and incoherence before.

In your previous exchange with Harold, you ludicrously enough imagine him enjoying ticking off the names of those to be shot to achieve his idea of utopia! You allude to the Stalinist purges and Pol Pot. What prompted this? He had the temerity to say that Israel should obey the law; and (you seem to think, I don't know why) advocates a one-state solution as viable.

My question is why you think this sort of verbal incontinence and choleric incoherence is worth sharing?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Paul wrote: "And yes I agree that the State of Israel was legally established by the agreement of the UN and that cannot be gainsaid. I support that and I am fine with that but the current borders of Israel are not what has been recognised and agreed."

There are no Israeli "boarders", Paul, only armistice lines. Their definition is still subject to negotiation.

" And despite what Melanie or Wilders or more extreme Israelies might think the Israelis have no legal or moral right to expel the Palestinians to Jordan and take their land"

From where do you think those legal and moral rights derive - the say so of the UN? Hamas? Ahmedinejad? Obama? George Galloway?

Seraph

Paul says: “Yes Jews have always been there, even if in small numbers at times. Well strictly they have been there since they first came and took the land from the inhabitants by massacre in ancient times (according to the Bible).”

Seraph answers: And your point is? I think you would be hard pressed to find many places in the world where the inhabitants who were there 3,500 years ago are still the same ones that are there now. Based on this criterion, most countries lack legitimacy. Yet no one seems to care that the Turks took over Anatolia or that the Huns displaced the Pannonians.

Pray tell, what exactly do you think the Palestinians will do if they ever take over Israel? If your mind reels at the thought of massacres, then why would you lend support to those who have enshrined the practice in their manifestoes and charters?

Paul: “But a small community of people having been somewhere a long time doesn't give them the right to kick out the current inhabitants and take their land.”

Seraph: The Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland no less than any other peoples. If you think about this, you may realize that by denying Jews these same rights and privileging the rights of Palestinians, you are effectively perpetuating a slew of historical wrongs – the expulsion of Jews by the Romans, their expulsion under the Crusaders and the restrictions placed on Jewish immigration by Arab rulers to name a few. Worse, you are privileging a group (Palestinians) who have NEVER at any point in history ruled this land while denying those who have a legitimate claim to the land and a long history of sovereignty.

Besides, the Palestinian people already have THREE political entities in which they are the majority population. Why do they need to destroy the only Jewish state? Let them achieve their right to self-determination in those entities.

Paul: I don't see how the question of whether they left voluntarily or not matters. It was nearly 2000 years ago. I doubt all the Anglo-Saxon settlers wanted to move home either but were told to by their tribal leaders. Americans descended from slaves didin't go to America voluntarily but that doesn't give them the right to go back to invade West Africa and kick out the people currently living there.

Seraph: Again your analogies are hackneyed. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Anglo-Saxons pined for their ancestral homeland. If you have such evidence, please share it with us. As for African Americans, they were taken to America as individuals and from various cultural and ethnic groups and various part of Africa. This is not analogous to a nation being dispossessed of their homeland by invaders. You would also be hard-pressed to find many African-Americans who pine for Africa.

Paul says: An interesting point about Native Americans. Do you think they have the right to take over 80% of the USA, expel the current people living there and then occupy the remaining 20%? The Americans currently living there could then be deported to Europe. Ethnically they are European after all and the "American" national identity was just invented by them to be distinct from their fellow Europeans.

Seraph: LOL! You would have to ignore a whole lot of Americans to claim that they were ethnically European! Ignoring for the moment your false narrative regarding “taking over” and “expulsion”, Native Americans do indeed have legitimate rights which have been recognized through treaties with them. The Jewish people also have legitimate rights to the land of Israel that have been recognized through numerous international bodies and treaties.

Since we are on the topic, there is a world of difference between Native Americans and Palestinians. Native Americans have long ago rejected violence, their leaders do not reject the right of the United States exist nor do they try to undermine its existence. Perhaps the Palestinians could learn something from them? Of course that would mean having to compromise – something which has never been their strongest suit.

Augustus

Derek Blades has quoted from Lord Balfour's Delaration in an early post. But Lord Balfour is himself on record as having told a Jewish gathering on February 7th 1918: "My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state.
It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity."

And another thing: One reads a lot in the news about Jewish settlements outside of Jerusalem. But do you ever hear any references to Arab settlements there? Since 1950 more than twice as many new settlements have been built by Arabs in the West Bank as have been built by Jews, a fact totally ignored by the press. They fill them with Lebanese, Iraqis, Jordanians, and Egyptians, and (Hey Presto!) they suddenly become Palestinians.

David Guy

'Jordan is Palestine' is not in Israel or the Western world's interest. Hussein, later in his reign and then Abdallah have proved to be pragmatic and, as far as may be possible in a state filled with Islamists and Palestinians, Western in orientation.

At best a 'Palestinian' state, unless it is just a symbolic and therefore irrelevant name change would inevitably want to join war against Israel to recover what was lost in 1948. At worst it would be a branch office of either Teheran or Wahhabism.

daniel maris

I like Wilders and agree with a lot of what he says.

But this is semantic nonsense.

The fact that there was an area of land dubbed "Palestine" tells us nothing about the present conflict.

There are two destabilising factors in the area:

1. Islam - a totalitarian political ideology that cannot accept Israel's right to exist.

2. Israel's attempt to project itself beyond its UN approved borders e.g. its unjustified claim to the whole of Jersualem.

The first is by far the biggest barrier to peace, but the second is not insignificant.

Meanwhile, reports from Israel suggest there is a real danger Israel could tear itself apart as its Orthodox population seeks to assert itself through a demographic assault (a concept we are familiar with in terms of Islam as a minority religion).

Rip Van Winkle

Richard
June 23rd 2010 8:45pm

Sixth para 3rd line.

"k" opens a peephole into a nit pricking mind.

Bob, son of Bob

Spalding says above "With the western liberal morons its all lies, deceipt, disguised Jew hatred and fabrication. They are the real enemy...Their entire motivation is to destroy Israel"

The motive for the arabs is envy made worse by an inferiority complex and a incomprehensible concept of 'honour', but the motive for the liberals is hatred of the better. Some might end up with Jew hatred, but it is not their initial motive. They hate their own better countries just as much as they hate Israel. Remember how much they hated S Africa before they were able to set that country on the path to ruin? No Jew hatred there as a motive.

Seraph

Augustus raises an important point, i.e. the total invention of the Palestinian "people."

According to UNHCR and UNRWA, a Palestinian refugee is anyone who can prove that they were in the area of the Mandate between 1946-1948. This means that someone could arrive in 1945 and (presto!) they become a "Palestinian" and are considered the "original" inhabitants. More than than that, their children and great-grandchildren who have never stepped foot in the land are considered the indigenous (!) population.

On the other hand, even though my family have lived in Israel for generations and my mother was born in the Mandate in 1946, we are considered interlopers!

Seraph

@ Daniel Maris: Defend your assertion that there are "UN approved" borders to Jerusalem.

The only UN approved plan for Jerusalem was in UN Resolution 181. In that resolution, ALL of Jerusalem was to be a "corpus separatum" and neither Jew nor Arab was to have sovereignty over it.

The Palestinian side rejected this resolution and engaged in hostilities. At the end of the War of Independence the city remained divided.

In 1967, King Hussein of Jordan was duped by Nasser's propoganda machine and engaged in hostilities against Israel. Since the Israeli occupation is a response to aggression, it is hard to see how it is illegal under the laws of war (Arab propoganda notwithstanding).

(See UN Charter Article 2, Section 3 & 4 and Article 51)

Miranda Rose Smith

I've been saying for years that Jordan is Palestine; Jordan should have taken in the now-so-called "Palestinian" refugees in 1948; Jordan could solve the whole refugee problem by taking them in tomorrow.

trumpeldor

From Tom
"the core idea of a two state solution is the sensible solution, Palestinian cooperation (a big if) permitting"

Indeed Israel +Jordan=2 states
And arabs can be happy because 1920 San Remo protocols awarded the WHOLE "Palestine Mandate" to the Jewish People !
To such an extent that I am not so sure Bibi would be legally authorized to give away pieces of Judea and Samaria since San Remo protocols are still valid and binding !

mostly harmless

Geert Wilders - interesting bed fellow

Harold

trumpeldor
June 24th, 2010 10:29am

" San Remo protocols awarded the WHOLE "Palestine Mandate" to the Jewish People !"

More wonky history/myth. It reflects badly on Israel that its supporters rely on such stuff.

Harold

To Pompus Augustus,

Ave!

Can I suggest an interesting review of Efraim Karsh and his book "Palestine Betrayed" by Benny Morris. The pair have form, but Morris agrees with Karsh's political conclusions and wants to be sympathetic to his historical thesis - but he is an historian as well as a born-again political thug, and cannot avoid tearing the book to shreds.

Paul

Seraph - you seem to be making a mistake very common to Melanie and others that anyone who doesn't support a particular Israeli policy must inevitably a) oppose the existance of Israel b) support Hamas/Iran/Hizbollah c) be anti-semtic or a selfhating Jew or d) all of the above.

So let me make it clear. I suppport the right of Israel to exist. Legally its borders should be those origianlly approved by the UN but the Arabs rejected those and fought a war so they should lose all the territory up to the 1967 borders. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the subject of a UN security council resoltion and Israel should withdraw, but only as part of a peace settlement so that Israel can live in peace and safety with its neighbours.

The settlement of the West Babnk is unequivocably illegal. It is also futile and self defeating for Israel. It is a mistake, as some in Israel warned at the time it would be. Israel doesn't have the right to kick these people out of their homes and resettle them in Jordan (whatever its called).

The Arabs and Palestinians are the authors of much of their own misfortune. It was their unwillingness to compromise, refusal to accept the UN plan and their attempts to destroy Israel that have led to their current situation.

BUT it is unjust to inflict people's mistakes on their grandchildren and great grandchildren. Many of the Arabs now seem willing to compromnise and so Israel needs to think long term and make peace with them. Israel should accept the repeated Arab offer of peace based on the 1967 borders, with a bit of fine tuning in either direction. That would free it up to concentrate on the only real threat to its existance - Iran. Many Arabs would quietly support it in that.

Even if it is an imperfect perfect and some lunatics on the Palestinian side still talk about the destruction of Israel. It doesn't matter - they can't achieve it. If Britain had waited until every last Irish republican had been willing to make peace the Northern Ireland conflict would be going on still.

Israel needs to realise it has won. And as Churchill said

In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Good Will

Gloria Gross

Michelle, Do you think the Arabs or Muslims you mentioned who are not to keen living under Islamic law or Sharia law wherever they call it are going to be different then the ones we have here in Europe? Do you think they will integrate?

Augustus

Harold - Poor Adam B. is reduced to a squiggle (?), and I am a 'pompus'. One wonders who on this blog appears to suffer from self-importance and self-esteem.

Btw, how do you account for the supreme irony that, until relatively recently, the Arab world spent decades going out of its way to deny that there ever was a Palestinian national identity, and then for the last few decades the world cannot stop talking about Palestinians
as a seperate nation?

Never mind! I'll answer for you:
Politically motivated propaganda.

Ronnie

Miranda Rose Smith.

An essay please on the practical logistics to be applied by Jordan in taking in all the Palestinian refugees tomorrow.

You need not deal with the political, economic and social dimensions of this question as you are clearly ill-prepared.

You have forty five minutes.

Harold

Augustus
June 24th, 2010 1:10pm

Ave!

Supreme irony? That states, or rather ruling elites, look after their own interests, and no-one else's? Um.

Are you very quiet about Benny Morris because you have read him and don't want to talk about it because it shakes your faith in Efraim Karsh, or because you have not read him because you want your faith to remain blind?

Adam B.

Augustus, I think Harold reduces himself by wearing his lack of comprehension on his sleeve - hence "?".

His (other) posts have a way of using much verbiage to express very little.

Richard

Augustus

"the Palestinians came to Israel to work for the Jews and now claim the ownership of the land."

"Mainstream Zionism went out of its way to foster Arab-Jewish coexistence."

Can you tell me whether you do indeed consider these statements to be a true and fair reflection of the history.

And do you consider Mark Twain truly to be the best expert on the Ottoman Empire to quote on the state of the Holy Land in the 19th century.

And, when you say that the Palestinians should be deported to the east to make room for Israel, do you mean those who are Israeli citizens or just those in the occupied territories.

C.Gee

Paul:

"Israel needs to realise it has won. "

Fatuous. Why don't you say the Arabs need to realise they have lost?

As for you continued reference to "Palestine" as a geographical entity, albeit with shifting borders, this is beyond ridicule.

As I have said on many threads here, the Arab abandonment of their properties permitted its eventual forfeiture. There is no right of return applicable to the Arabs, unless one is created by the peace negotiations. ( Not going to happen). Claiming a homeland and national rights to a territory based upon forfeited property rights is also ridiculous, though even the Israelis are willing to pretend that it is valid in order to found a two-state solution. That solution is looking more and more like a option for permanent war.

Like so many wishful thinkers, you see the "Arab peace plan" as merely an agreement on borders i.e. a return some armistice boundaries. It is not. The Arab plan insists on the right of return. The Arabs in the region, most emphatically Hamas (now in control of territory evacuated by Israel), say that that right is not negotiable. In other words, the Arab peace plan is a poisoned pill.

The Arab plan may have been offered repeatedly, but it as been repudiated by Arabs just as often. Many Arabs might want peace with Israel, but unless their leaders want it, they won't get it. I am not sure that "many" even means a majority. Polls do not suggest it.

Your straining to contrive analogies across the globe ( your identifying the Serbs with the Jews is a beaut ) with the return of the Jews to some of their historic territory and the founding of the state of Israel, is a childish exercise. In order to rouse a sense of injustice, you have to have those who return "steal" the land, and expel the inhabitants. The Jews did not do this. So your
the sense of injustice that you think you have aroused does not prove your case against the Israel.

What some of us have been trying to get across is that there was no theft, and no national policy to expel the Arab population. War (in Israel's case a defensive war) changes boundaries and kills people. War causes people to flee and abandon property. Yes, there are atrocities in war and in peace ( see your Deir Yassin and raise you the Hebron massacre, the Jerusalem massacre etc.) Again, there is no right to return to their property of a hostile population in a continuing war (the Arabs - other than Egypt and Jordan which admitted defeat in war and signed a peace treaty with Israel - have never rescinded their declaration of war).

If you sincerely believe that Palestine was an Arab "homeland" - and not merely the land where some Arabs had homes - then why would you support the UN give away in 1948, or any borders "recognized" by international bodies? Like the PLO and Hamas, you would believe that Jews are not entitled to a square inch.

You should also come to grips with the fact that the Jews' claim to nationhood does not rest on the fact they had a continuing presence within certain boundaries that contained their historic national territory. They were a nation before they took the Promised Land in battle ( from a host of peoples) and they were a nation after they lost the Promised Land. They retained their nationhood throughout the centuries of the diaspora and, thanks to a friendly power grateful for Jewish invention, were allowed to reestablish a national home on part of what was the ancient national territory.

The continuity of Jewish presence is adduced, not to establish -like a flag on a land claim - rights to the whole national territory, but as evidence of unbroken links between the Jews and the land where they had a state. Other links - the attachment to Jerusalem in ritual, for example - are also adduced.

The Arabs and their supporters choose to pretend that the Jews rest their claim on a physical link to the land through an unbroken presence there, precisely so that they can claim their own rights to it based on their physical presence "from time immemorial" (though not quite as immemorial as they claim). In this way they believe they can finesse the Jewish national claims to a state on that territory.

As for that territory, peoples have come and gone, sovereigns have come and gone, but there has never been a nation of people identified with it other than the Jews.

You say, "Jews don't have any other home is the best argument of the lot." In light of your views about interlopers, this is astonishingly incoherent - until one realises that your politics is based on how you feel about yourself. Your moral vanity needs to pity the wretched. The Jews, once wretched, are winners now. The Arabs, once proud, are losers now. Your pity generates national rights and wrongs.

One of the benefits to Jews in having a state is that they may ignore international compassion for them, and dispense with gratitude for the condescension.

Augustus

Richard - I don't want hog the blog (lest I be accused of being pompous by some!) but I would just like to state that neither Geert Wilders, or anyone
I can think of, is advocating deporting Palestinians out of Israel, What Geert Wilders actually did was put forward a suggestion that, in order to solve the conflict, the name of Jordan should be changed into Palestine. He said that there has been an independent Palestinian state called Jordan
since 1946. Of course people like the Jordanian minister of communications are bound to make a fuss about such remarks.
But he has a point, and he should be congratulated for even daring to speak up. Can you imagine any of our present crowd of politicians doing so?

As far as Mark Twain was concerned, there are other writers who travelled throughout the ME prior to Jewish resettlement, and they have all said the same thing as Mark Twain. Here are two examples: The British architect
Thomas Shaw, writing in the mid-
Eighteenth century said: "The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil." And Count Constantine Francois Volney, an Eighteenth Century French author and historian wrote: "Palestine is a ruined and desolate land." So there must be some truth in what Mark Twain wrote, or do you have different evidence?

Seraph

@ C. Gee: Brilliant post!

@ Paul: While the Palestinians have realized a long time ago that they cannot win this war on the battlefield, they are focused on the delegitimization of Israel through propaganda, lies, lawfare, and witch hunts in international bodies such as the so-called UN Human Rights Commission (headed by the likes of Sudan and Libya.) If Von Clausewitz’s dictum was “War is politics by other means,” the Palestinians and their supporters have modified it to read “Propaganda and politics is a means to wage war.”

Which brings me to your heartfelt confession of “support” for Israel. Please don’t fool yourself - you are just a “useful idiot” who is providing aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies. You spout unsubstantiated pieties such as “The settlement of the West Bank is unequivocally illegal” and that Israel “should lose all the territory up to the 1967 borders.” Yet, you purposely obscure the fact that those “borders” were never internationally recognized “borders” and that Israel was he aggrieved party that invaded Judea and Samaria in self-defense – something which is entirely legal under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

You state that “It is a mistake, as some in Israel warned at the time it would be” to hold on to these territories. Yet you conveniently omit to mention the “three No’s” of the Khartoum Conference, thereby once again absolving Arabs of any responsibility for the "occupation." Frankly, you are delusional if you think that withdrawing to 1967 lines will result in the outbreak of peace. Much like in the case of the Gaza and Lebanon withdrawals, the Palestinians and their supporters will only read this as weakness and double down on their demands for the elimination of the entire country.

I too am a fan of Churchill and the “greatest generation.” Personally, I most identify with Roosevelt’s concept of “unconditional surrender” and the truism that there can be no peace without victory. Sadly, as long as the Palestinians harbor the belief that they are winning on some level, there will never be peace. Take a good look in the mirror, because it is precisely people like you who are feeding this belief.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Ky Harold and Thomas: what you "thin" of C Gee's post, then?

More "wonky history"?

Bob, son of Bob

Ronnie says "An essay please on the practical logistics to be applied by Jordan in taking in all the Palestinian refugees tomorrow....You need not deal with the political, economic and social dimensions of this question as you are clearly ill-prepared....You have forty five minutes"

--- As the Palestinians are probably the recipients of more aid per head than any other race in the history of the world, it should not be too hard to re-house them all on a fraction of what is now being spent on them and still have several millions left over to build a few mosques for the religion of peace.

I wonder how many of them (seeing as their average age is 15) realise that all this attention and concern for their 'rights' will immediately disappear if they ever get what they ask for and there will not be a BBC cameraman left in sight, as they will all have moved on to whichever country is the next target for the hatred of the left.

John.

Paul: What you say is true. Though, to be pedantic, the Arabs never had a claim on Spain -. the Spanish spent 700 years of relentless warfare getting it back under their original control and by 1000 A.D approx. half of the country had already returned to Spanish rule. By around 1250 only the enclave of Granada remained under Muslim rule. The borders of Israel will always be a source of contention - as has been said here already the Jews were originally promised all of the British Mandated territory and I suppose that I would be a bit miffed if I saw such a promise broken for expediency's sake.

Richard

Augustus
June 24th, 2010 8:49pm

I am struck by the coincidence of so many here quoting Mark Twain of all people when there is an extensive scholarly literature.

No-one "I can think of, is advocating deporting Palestinians out of Israel" - "the rational way, i.e. resettling the Palestinians in their own homelands, Jordan and Syria."

I am not clear whether you have answered my questions about population and co-existence.

Do you take Mark Twain and Joan Peters to show that the Holy Land was a land without a people?

Or is it that what you believe is somewhat closer to accepting reality, that there was a population but backward? The assumption then would presumably be that because the population was backward colonialists would be justified in taking over the land to civilize them.

And do you believe that the main thrust of Zionist policy was to reach an accomodation with the Palestinian Arabs? I agree that there were such efforts. What I am asking is whether you think the evidence supports the contention that it was the main thrust of Zionist policy.

Richard

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 24th, 2010 11:00pm

Your challenge to others suggests you think (thin - sorry about that) C. Gee's comment to be other than wonky.

I challenged him on precisely these same points some days ago. When challenged he abruptly left the scene.

I don't think we need devote any more time to what he says. It does not warrant it and he is very chary of defending it.

phil

Took a few days off,fed up with the nonsense repeatedly spewed out from those that care less for a future peace than an opportunity to denigrate Israel .-What did I see -yes Richard making stupid and sarcastic remarks about C,GEE ,a man with more sense in his typing finger than Richard has shown in all his silly attempts to educate us .How can anyone believe that the Arabs and Israelis can live in state together and make it work if there is a right of return ? -Do I really need to say that the Jews will be outnumbered? Does Richard and Harold etc think that all the Jewish citizens should be turfed out of where they have lived for over 60 years ?and that a government based on the democratic ways of Israel, could possibly be acceptable to Israel when they will be so outnumbered ,particularly in view of birth rates ? Richard and his pals produce a recipe for either intransigence or disaster ,so perhaps he can put his mind to some common sense rather than the insults he so enjoys ,maybe then both peoples will have a chance of a decent future life -yes a life with justice ,peace and prosperity for all, that almost all of the Jewish people want.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard: I do apologise in advance, but I have not yet seen a post of yours where you clarify your view of Zionism and what, given the history of the conflict in the Middle east since 1947, should be done now to achieve peace - if, indeed, peace is what you would like to achieve.

I realise you have a penchant for the minutiae of historical disputation (though your generous communication in this regard is only hindered by, inter alia, typos,malapropisms, and the intellectual "cowardice" of the likes of C. Gee) and, I am sure, many admire it. However, the main thrust of this article and most others on the this subject on this thread, is how to achieve Peace.

Your esteemed friend, Harold, has stated he believes the uni state is the only solution, though is not hopeful that this can be achieved (please correct me, given your apparent forensic memory of the points made in all posts on this subject on this site, if I have misconstrued this).

I am very interested for you to cut to the chase and let us know what you thin...sorry, think...

Linda Smith

Richard asks:

"And do you consider Mark Twain truly to be the best expert on the Ottoman Empire to quote on the state of the Holy Land in the 19th century."

Mark Twain didn't have to be an "expert" to write an account of what he saw on his 19th century travels. Are his crictics suggesting he was a lying Zionist? Perhaps they would like to suggest sensible reasons for Mark Twain to lie.

Linda Smith

Ronnie asks for "An essay please on the practical logistics to be applied by Jordan in taking in all the Palestinian refugees tomorrow."
Jordan can apply the same practical logistics as Israel applied for taking in all the Jewish refugees.

How about a rerun of Operation Magic Carpet for starters.

Augustus

Richard - Of course colonialists were justified in civilizing backwards peoples. That's what the British Empire was all about, wasn't it?

Rip Van Winkle

Richard June 25th 2010 9:31am

2 para, last sentence.

Wouldn't anybody?

Rip Van Winkle

Phil June 25th 2010 10:25am

I wholeheartedly agree with your "few days off" - I slept another week or so.

Now, this "nonsense repeatedly spewed out ... "?

How's about nit pricking? How's about Richard?
How's about his so-casual, flippant apology @ June 25th 2010 9:31am for a blatant insult @ June 23rd 2010 12:31am
"sorry about that".
I gather the prick was caught out pricking.

Richard

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 25th, 2010 12:34pm
I'm afraid it's even worse than it looks. In querying "thiner", I wasn't being pedantic. I genuinely didn't know what your paragraph meant.

"...though your generous communication in this regard is only hindered by, inter alia, typos,malapropisms..." I read this ruefully, recognizing the justice of what you say. However, it then struck me that you appear to be unaware that we are both similarly fallible: "You are a dangerous thiner, Harold. No concern for the mayhem you would cause in the name of expiating your overweening sense of self righteous indignation..." Are you so lacking self-awareness?

I will not pretend to know what Harold thinks. My faculties are too fallible. Your summary sounds so like my own opinion that I can't be sure it is his at all. A one-state solution would be wonderful, but given that the two sides hate each other so much, it isn't going to happen. The two-state solution which seemed the best we could hope for is now no longer feasible. All that is on offer is a few disconnected cantons for the Palestinians; and for Israel, whatever it wants.

I was puzzled by your comment that, "the main thrust of this article and most others on the this subject on this thread, is how to achieve Peace." On the face of it, the thrust appears to be how Israel can keep what it wants and the Palestinians can be persuaded to f*!@ off. I am slow-witted. I didn't immediately realise that this is what you mean by "Peace". I didn't immediately realise the significance of the falsehood that Jordan is the Palestinians' homeland. "Peace" will be achieved, not when the Palestinians are confined in their cantons, but when they are all deported to the east, to Jordan.

Thank you for enlightening me.

Richard

Augustus
June 25th, 2010 5:22pm
You have answered one of my questions.

You make the British Empire sound a noble enterprise. It is rare in history for an enterprise to be both noble and so profitable - and so fatal to so many of its native beneficiaries.

Your answer on the other two questions?

phil

Richard
June 25th, 2010 7:55pm -stop crying and wake up to what this world is all about -your pseudo intellectual clap trap is very boring ,your insults are not very good either ,in fact you are wasting our time,other than smacking your proverbial bottom for childish sarcasm .Peace may break out when those like you mind their own business and let the two parties sort things out for themselves -I certainly remember the playground fights with a ring of naughty kids egging on the unfortunate protagonists to bash each other up -does it ring a bell richard ?RVP seems to know what you are up to .

Augustus

Richard - Pass.

Linda Smith

Richard, running true to form, misrepresents the facts saying:

"A one-state solution would be wonderful, but given that the two sides hate each other so much, it isn't going to happen."

Actually Richard, a one-state solution isn't going to happen because the Jews don't want to live under Sharia law.

Would you?

revolution

Wilders to replace the unprincipled opportunist Tony Blair as special envoy?

Richard

Augustus
June 25th, 2010 10:21pm
You mean you don't know whether you believe that Palestine was a land without a people, or whether the Zionists made every effort to accomodate the Arabs whose native land they proposed to turn into a Jewish state?

You have form. You tried to upbraid another contributor by telling him Israel had (partially) eased the blockade on goods that present no security risk. He pointed out that this was to confirm that the blockade was not simply to prevent arms smuggling but to punish the population. You went silent. When prompted, you could only say that it was "tiresome".

"Pass",indeed. You should at least know what it is you were trying to say.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard wrote: "A one-state solution would be wonderful, but given that the two sides hate each other so much, it isn't going to happen. The two-state solution which seemed the best we could hope for is now no longer feasible. All that is on offer is a few disconnected cantons for the Palestinians; and for Israel, whatever it wants."

Oh Richard!You wont "pretend to know" what Harold says but that doesn't stop you knowing what everyone else says. Oh well, no matter. Perhaps, as you say, you are indeed "dim-witted". Anyway, I, for one, am basking in the joy that comes after extreme relief. Finally...FINALLY, dear Richard.... we can know that you are not being "pedantic"and - the ultimate joy of joys - your cards are on the table! Do you not feel the wooshing of the fresh air as take a deep breath! Open up the lungs, lad!! Inhale the wondrous the fresh air!!! Richard, have you any idea what a positive contribution you have now made to the "complexities"..nay..annals of history, not to mention the intellectual world of bivalence and countervalence?? Like all of us, Harold will surely be proud of you!!

Your aim IS, we now can understand clearly, the destruction of Israel and the total ignoring of the International Law so celebrated by Harold...Well, well..who would have thought it, hey?

..but you would settle for a "two state solution" if that's all that the fighting can yield...Well now, that really augurs well, too.....

...but it's still not clear what shape you feel that "solution" should take. Would this be just another "armistice" line, the rejigging of the one of pre '67 and, like pre '67, no full and final settlement of the conflict...and would you sanction a continuation of the fighting seeing this "solution" as a mere stepping stone to your ideal goal..? You know, would you be towing the hams, Hezbollah, Iranian, Turkish line - in the name not of Allah but some digest of moral strictures emanating from ...I dunno...Cherie Blair's sister, perhaps??? Allah meets the values of The Enlightenment as embodied by our mate, Richard or somefink like that?

Why should Israel be questioned by anyone over its policy towards Hamas and those it was "democratically" elected by if, like you, Hamas seeks its destruction and couldn't care less about Intenrational Law? Why on earth would any state end the blockade on Gaza, under these circumstances? Why would anyone expect Israel to feel morally obliged to give any succour to a people that would exterminate it...and, in the circumstances, why wouldn't Gert Wilders suggestion be more reasonable than anyone should realistically expect? You and your ilk don't do the "peace proposals" business much good, it seems...and it is truly bizarre that what you get in response to your agneda makes you froth at the gills so...

"I was puzzled by your comment that, "the main thrust of this article and most others on the this subject on this thread, is how to achieve Peace." On the face of it, the thrust appears to be how Israel can keep what it wants and the Palestinians can be persuaded to f*!@ off."

Of course, Richard, we all know the Palestinians didn't "f*!@ off" (i.e. make peace) even when they were offered a state by the UN, so I think you may be confusing prescription with what people know to be the reality. We do know, however, that the Palestinians tried to make the Jordanians "f*!@ off", but then came that fateful black September, so the Palestinians then had to "f*!@ off" - pushed out (not to mention killed in numbers which make Cast Lead seem like a kiddies picnic)at the hands of their "brothers", instead...A wicked world...and one you seem to promote with too much equanimity..

...and one which, according to your view of it, will of necessity remain so...War without foreseeable end, unless your dream of Israel, acceding to its own ultimate demise, is realised. Let's forget Resolution 242. let's forget Obama. Let's forget the UN. Let us, rather, begin the war of wars...inevitable, you imply..and you wish, by implication, to risk this by promoting the kind of position which is generating trigger after trigger for a general conflagration which promises to create a situation which will make Gaza today look like a luxury resort in the Bahamas by comparison?

Richard, your position on this dispute is part of a wider body of opinion which will continue to enable and promote only the destitution and "injustice" you claim to decry. At least Uri Avneri is wise enough to promote realistic compromise, grasping the real implications of the "complexities of history" as opposed to being driven solely by his own moral/ideological agenda.

You and Harold have joined the festival of hate. You are willing participants in it and you also encourage and celebrate it by design or default.

...and that is why you should put in a sock in it.

Rip Van Winkle

JOHN ROOSEVELT June 26 2010 10:22am

John, that was well put; all that now remains is to send the pricker to coventry.

Harold

C.Gee
June 24th, 2010 6:31pm

"the Arab abandonment of their properties permitted its eventual forfeiture. There is no right of return applicable to the Arabs, unless one is created by the peace negotiations. ( Not going to happen). Claiming a homeland and national rights to a territory based upon forfeited property rights is also ridiculous"

C. Gee is expert in the law.

"the Arab abandonment of their properties permitted its eventual forfeiture". "Forfeiture" certainly sounds well, it has a legal ring to it. "Abandoned" - there's a story behind that: the property was abandoned at gunpoint. Those who tried to return were shot. "Permitted" also has less of a legal ring to it. Permitted by whom? What legal basis was there for this permission? Permitted by those whose guns encouraged the abandonment of the property and discourged return?

"There is no right of return applicable to the Arabs" - if we are talking legal talk, this is simply untrue.

"Claiming a homeland and national rights to a territory based upon forfeited property rights is also ridiculous" - as an interpretation of the right to self-determination this is, well, ridiculous.

C. Gee should tell us more about some of the legalities employed to take the Palestinians' land. He should tell us about "present absentees", Palestinian refugees within Israel forbidden to return to their homes, whose homes, property, and even bank accounts were deemed therefore forfeit to the state because their putative owners were "absent" from them. Their property was passed to the Custodian, who passed it to the Development Agency, which classified it as "state land", and passed it to Jewish agricultural communities or the JNF. Or, with the imposition of martial law until 1966, all Palestinians required permits to travel around, and were thus on occasion unable to cultivate their outlying land, which became forfeit by reason of being uncultivated. Palestinians were also simply evicted from their land, for "closed military zones", which were then passed to Jewish communities, or for "infrastructure projects", but then passed to Jewish communities. The Bedouin were evicted from their land and "concentrated" in a "fenced-in" area. etc. etc. So successful were all these schemes that Palestinians are now in possession of 3% of Israel. The bulk of the rest was taken by the state and the bulk of that transferred to the JNF - which is another jolly legalism, because the JNF is bound by its charter to lease land only to Jews.

Methods perfected in Galilee have been applied with equal success in the occupied territories.

There are so many rules and regulations and procedures and prohibitions that no-one can keep track of them all, so "international opinion" remains in ignorance of the mechanics of expropriation. And if its victims appeal - who to? the Israeli civil and military courts - the courts can rule that the expropriations are indeed - legal!

And all this on top of the beating, imprisonment, wounding and killing - all - legal!

Augustus

Richard (attack dog, but a not very effectual one) -

I mean whatever it is you think you want me to mean. We've been through all this before, I never said that Palestine under Turkish rule was 'a land without people', but it certainly appears to have been a barren province. And what's this about 'Arabs native land'?
And what's it to you? And btw, I
didn't upbraid Harold about the
blockade, I simply pointed out to him that the Israelis had come to a decision to ease the entry of certain goods and commodities. Nothing to do with
punishing anybody. For Heaven's
sake man, grow up! Wherever did you learn such a childish form of discourse?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "There are so many rules and regulations and procedures and prohibitions that no-one can keep track of them all, so "international opinion" remains in ignorance of the mechanics of expropriation. And if its victims appeal - who to? the Israeli civil and military courts - the courts can rule that the expropriations are indeed - legal!

And all this on top of the beating, imprisonment, wounding and killing - all - legal!"

War's a bitch, aint it?

Do you really think, Harold, that any of your grievances warrant any redress whatsoever by those whom the Palestinian Arabs attacked incessantly since 1947, if not before, even though they had been given a state by the UN?

Where is your "logic" when you need it most?

It's all meaningless in the context of ongoing war, Harold, or have you no idea what war is?

Linda Smith

Harold the novelist writes:

' "Abandoned" - there's a story behind that: the property was abandoned at gunpoint.'

What a whopper! The Arabs themselves admit their own leaders told them to flee to safety while their armies slaughtered the Jews. It is all well documented from Arab sources with Arab eye-witness accounts. Plenty available online.

Can't be bothered to read the rest of his diatribe as it is obvious Harold writes fantasy not fact.

Augustus

Harold - In Art.6 of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine it states: The administration of Palestine...
shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish Agency referred to in Art.4. Close Settlement by Jews on the land, including State Lands and Waste Lands not required for public purposes.

In fact, this provision was never really carried out, and in fact the mandate government did the opposite, in most cases making available over half the state lands to Arabs and encouraging them to make claims.
And land that had been made available at only a fraction of its market value, land to which
Jews were excluded from contracting to, was later (first illegally) sold on to Jews by Arabs at much higher market values. Despite the British land regulations (1940)
officially forbidding land purchases by the Jewish Agency,
the Jews still managed to overcome the registration restrictions and the Agency continued to purchase land during the war years.

The whole area of Palestine didn't really begin to develop
until after the Egyptians were driven out in 1840, and the area came back under Ottoman rule. It was only after that that the coastal area became safe, and merchants settled there, and the traditional fellaheen smallholders in the mountainous regions of the east moved to the now safer western regions. Between about 1850 and
1900 about 400,000 Arabs in all appear to have lived in Palestine, of which about 50% lived in Ottoman Jerusalem.

I only mention all this to illustrate that the impression given that land was 'stolen' from Arabs is a false one. The Arabs of Palestine, whether they
had been small-holders, travelling tribes, or town dwellers, had never actually 'owned' most of the land. It had been for the most part Turkish owned government land belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and before that to long extinct empires. In effect, the British policy which favoured the Arabs, and the Arab land 'claims' amounted to saying
'we will take the Jews money, but we will not give them their rights under the law provided for them.

Richard

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 26th, 2010 10:22am
You do ineed show me up for a dimwit - I have no idea how you arrived at your conclusion. I said a one-state solution is utopian - nice but not going to happen. I said a two-state solution (to be clear, as understood by the international community, that is, based on 242 and the "Green Line") is becoming ever less feasible as Israel gobbles up ever more of the West Bank - which seems to me uncontroversial. From this you conclude, I know not how, that I seek the destruction of Israel and ignore international law. Explain, please.

You say that the article and the comments here are addressed to finding "Peace". Again, you show me up for a dimwit: I see no peace proposal here. What do you think a peace settlement should look like?

phil

Harold
June 26th, 2010 12:11pm ----- Have I missed your cry of horror regarding the murder of the Jews who went back to Poland after escaping the death camps in 1945 ,in fact to resettle in their old homes .I cannot find it anywhere,so perhaps you can point me in the right direction ,and then we can take seriously your pious proclamations .
----------------------------------
Both you and Richard not forgetting Tommy are as hypocritical as most of those who post here with complaints against the stance Israel takes when protecting the remnants of a decimated people .In fact I wish for a fair and just solution for both sets of people as I have said many times ,and I despise those hypocrites that only wish to point fingers ,yet never offer a pragmatic solution .JR AND CG et al quote both history and education to you all ,I prefer to say I do not give a damn what any of those of your persuasion think,but I do get a certain satisfaction in saying it .
---------------------------------
I do of course realise that usually you all choose not to answer me ,the reason being that you cannot ,JR ET AL give you a chance to squirm and deny the knowledge they provide for you ,and so it continues lies following lies ,twisting facts and inventing where you can -it is harder with me is it not ? You will stop soon enough ,but you will get no cheap wins here .

Richard

Augustus
June 26th, 2010 12:55pm
So there was a population in Palestine. "Native land": the land where one was born. You say that settlers can settle a land if they consider its inhabitants backward, but that this cannot be construed as "stealing" their native land from them, especially if the inhabitants do not have the correct paperwork and if the settlers have managed to acquire 6% of the cultivated land. This is what you have said. To flounce and say "Whatever" isn't really good enough. Similarly, "I simply pointed out to him that the Israelis had come to a decision to ease the entry of certain goods and commodities" is simply disingenuous. It was pointed out to you that slightly easing the embargo on goods that present "no security risk", is as good as to say that the blockade is not just about stopping arms running. If you disagree, then tell me why goods that present "no security risk" are embargoed.

"Whatever" "Oh, for heaven's sake" "We've been through all this before" are the tricks of evasion.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard: "You say that the article and the comments here are addressed to finding "Peace". Again, you show me up for a dimwit: I see no peace proposal here. What do you think a peace settlement should look like?"

Oh Richard, Richard….stop being obtuse! I am not necessarily supporting Gert Wilders's proposal, but it surely has to do with what he, at least, considers to be a road to peace, be it likely to succeed or not..

You said: "A one-state solution would be wonderful, but given that the two sides hate each other so much, it isn't going to happen."
No, Richard. Even if the Jews loved the “Palestinians”, as Linda Smith says, it won’t happen because the Jews don’t want to live under Sharia Law, not to mention give up their statehood. Funny that. Mysteries of the universe, I guess...
"The two-state solution which seemed the best we could hope"
Times, then have changed, Richard? No more hope amongst the arabs and moslems, in your view, of destroying Israel? Pull the other one and spread the word amongst the virgins on high.
"for is now no longer feasible."
It wasn't “feasible” to Arafat in 2000, Richard, just as it wasn't when the Arab Legion went to war against the Jews even when a state was offered by the UN to the "Palestinians" on a plate; just as it wasn't by Abbas when he rejected Olmert's offer.
"All that is on offer is a few disconnected cantons for the Palestinians; and for Israel, whatever it wants.""
You should clarify this, Richard, if you want to avoid me, or anyone else, drawing the conclusion that you may actually be referring to the settlement outlined in UN Res 242.
Look, I do apologise if my inferences re your view of 242 and International law are incorrect. You give the distinct impression, however - and I am now much relieved to know this is erroneous - that you think that in fact if it were not for the venal Israelis, we would have had a full and final settlement based on 242 years ago...We can assume you were not referring to 2000, and Barak's offer? If so, how do you square Arafat's rejection of it?

Your problem is that, in supporting the idea of a uni state solution, you clearly do not believe Israel should exist. You do seem to believe it was unjustly formed in the first place - either because of the heinousness of the imperialist powers, or the power of the Jewish lobby, internationally, or some other Jewish conspiracy theory..or..maybe......something else? The stupidity and self interest of the Arab moslem elites, perhaps?

In this regard, of course you are ideological bedfellows with Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. Again, funny that...and even funnier that Israel might deem it logical to respond in kind to you all. Not sure if that's anything to do with bivalence or countervalence or even the excluded middle, but it sure smacks of predictable behavior, if not commonsensical - to say the least. After all, why would Israel trust the likes of you and these lovelies you seem to be an energetic spokesperson for, unless collective national suicide was something this state pines for??

Anyway, the Arabs and moslems - historically - at the very least have miscalculated badly. They try and wipe the Jews off the map in '47 and they get thumped. Shame. No peace made as a result of that, of course. They continue to deny Israel's right to exist. They carry on the fight to redeem themselves after the Nabka. They go to war again and again and get thumped again and again. They loose more land to Israel as a result of their killing sprees ...and cause more killing... and more nabka... all in the name of redeeming themselves….and now, of course, it's all Israel's fault that no agreement has been found. But Richard, dear Richard, if Israel is at fault merely by virtue of it existing at all, then it can only get off the hook, I guess, if it capitulates and waves a fond farewell to its statehood. This isn’t about hating Palestinians, you see. This about not wanting to commit national suicide! Forgive me, Richard, but one does have to ask what planet you are on, mate, especially when you seem to have such an intellectual connection with our logician, Harold.

"You say that the article and the comments here are addressed to finding "Peace". Again, you show me up for a dimwit: I see no peace proposal here. What do you think a peace settlement should look like?"

“Should look like”? “Should” is of little interest to me whilst the Arabs and moslems - or as C.Gee points out - at least their leaders - don't want peace with Israel and don’t believe it should exist at all. Don't you get it? Don't you get that it is otiose for me to talk re the shoulds and oughts when - as things stand now and has always stood for the arab moslems - they dont want peace and they dont want Israel???

If the Arab moslems dont stop fighting to exterminate Israel - however realsitic or not that aim may be - there can indeed be no peace based on 242. This is not because of what Israel is prepared to offer or what I think - all things being equal - should happen - but it is because of what realistically has to happen. There is no reason why Hamas will ever be more conciliatory than the rejectionist Arafat...and no reason to suppose that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will change their current positions - for a multitude of reasons - as spoilers in the peace process. None of them have an interest in the Israel hot potato going away.

But what is also certain, Richard, is that peace wont be served in any way by vilifying Israel as you do and indulging I spurious disputations about history. It wont be served by supporting the flotilla flotsam, especially when they are supported, if not funded, by radical Islamist movements. This is the point. Your position/view merely exacerbates the current malaise and could easily contribute to the developing of situations which may well trigger horrendous death and destruction. If you are not conscious of this fact and proceed in this way unwittingly, wake up! If not........do the right thing…and put a sock in it!!!

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 26th, 2010 2:08pm

It is sobering to learn that Israel has been at war with its own citizens for over sixty years.

Augustus

phil - What are we to do with these clowns? It's a shame that stupidity isn't painful!

Richard

John Roosevelt,

"Avneri believes, as I do, that israel cannot be expected, realsitically to dissolve as a state. This just will not happen, just as it will not happen to Germany, France etc.. However, his vision of two states based on 181, both sharing Jerusalem , with a common market etc, at least gives real peace a chance and, with time and effort on both sides, is certainly thinkable and doable. In time, if the two cultures eventually absorb peace as a norm, who knows what can then evolve between these peoples?"

"You said: "A one-state solution would be wonderful, but given that the two sides hate each other so much, it isn't going to happen."
No, Richard. Even if the Jews loved the “Palestinians”, as Linda Smith says, it won’t happen because the Jews don’t want to live under Sharia Law, not to mention give up their statehood. Funny that. Mysteries of the universe, I guess...
"The two-state solution which seemed the best we could hope"
Times, then have changed, Richard? No more hope amongst the arabs and moslems, in your view, of destroying Israel? Pull the other one and spread the word amongst the virgins on high.
"for is now no longer feasible."
It wasn't “feasible” to Arafat in 2000, Richard...blah, blah, blah, froth, spume, spittle..."

Are there two John Roosevelts, one rational, one rabid?

I began here puzzled by your verbal incontinence and choleric incoherence. I am if anything even more puzzled, because very occasionally there are brief moments interspersed of clarity and calm reflection, which seem to promise at least the possibility of rational discussion - but then the clouds descend again and nothing is to be expected or hoped for.

phil

Augustus
June 26th, 2010 8:56pm

phil - What are we to do with these clowns? It's a shame that stupidity isn't painful!"

----

AUGUSTUS I think it is ,but they are so thick they do not feel how stupid they are .Why JR is wasting his intellect on them confuses me -most of the posters are so obviously more intelligent ,better informed and more caring than these stubborn opportunists ,so why they are fed with matter to dispute is beyond me -they do not ever want to agree on anything ,so as the saying goes offen yam is the place for them.,however they get there :)
----------------------
JR -Try watching the world cup ,boring I know ,paint drying ,second ,but corresponding with ricky and harold is a no contest winner ,if I can,t sleep I have thrown the night nurse out I just read something one of them wrote .15 seconds and I am out!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard:"Are there two John Roosevelts, one rational, one rabid?

I began here puzzled by your verbal incontinence and choleric incoherence. I am if anything even more puzzled, because very occasionally there are brief moments interspersed of clarity and calm reflection, which seem to promise at least the possibility of rational discussion - but then the clouds descend again and nothing is to be expected or hoped for."

lame. Richard..very lame.

Anyway, you now seem to support the two state solution along the lines Avneri has enunciated. Good. Now go out there and convince those whom you encourage in their murderousness by your vilification of Israel that they have to lay down their arms and sue for a genuine peace on this basis. That will be a positive first step.

Go now, Richard, in good faith. You have your work cut out for you...

Seraph

Some thoughts on the one-state "solution":

1. It is aptly named, because it will necessarily lead to one state for Arabs and ZERO for the Jews. In this sense it really is a Final Solution.
2. Before imposing a one-state "solution" on Israelis, why not test run it on Palestinians. I personally look forward to seeing members of Hamas and Fatah learn how to fly from tall buildings.
3. If the multi-national state is a doomed project in Belgium, then who would be so out off touch with reality as to think for even one moment that it would work in "Isratine"?

Seraph

Occasional Ostrich offers up this nugget:

"While we're at it, Melanie, can we challenge the sloppy restriction of the term 'Semite' to Jews. Just about aLL the ethnic and religious groups that called Palestine their homeland over the past 2000+ years years are Semites, are they not? It's an ethnic term, not a religious one. So where does that leave the usage of the word 'Antisemitic'?"

This is an old canard and typical of the Orwellian attempts of Arabists to degrade language to their own ends. The term "Antisemitism" was coined specifically to refer to Jew hatred (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism).

Only someone with an agenda and their head firmly ensconced in the sand would consider this term to be "sloppy." Antisemitism has always meant one thing and one thing only.

To argue that it could refer to hatred of other Semitic groups is as ridiculous as arguing that the term Anti-Americanism refers to a pathological hatred of Bolivians, since, after all, they too are Americans.

kate b

Yes and no.

Firstly no, because the original "Palestinian" is the Jew, the Faisal-Weizmann agreement was made by an Arab (who recognised the kinship with Jews and acknowledged the Jewish right to Jerusalem and Israel as was) and a Jew. This agreement was with the Arabs and the Jews who were then named the palestinians. The name never took as it would be like calling Jews Herodians or Pharoians - to nick the name of the Roman-renamed area is clever as it has fooled most people who are learning the revised history.

Now to yes, The aim of the 1917 agreement (note pre WWII) n Paris was to make 2 states, one for Arabs and one for Jews, a single homeland for the wandering Jew and a 57th one for Arabs. Incidentally, in 1934-39 the slogan 'Jews get back to Palestine' was going round, now it's 'get out!', make your mind up.

Trans Jordan IS the Arab Palestinian state with its capital Amaan and Israel with its capital of Jerusalem is the Jewish one - Faisal asked for the mosques to be under Muslim control, which Israel has honoured from this agreement.

And for the interested. This return was predicted in the Bible, the wandering Jew would return, that's not an accident e.g Isaiah 43:6, Jeremiah 23:3 and the very fact that there has to be an Israel for all the surrounding countries to come up against because of an 'ancient hatred' presumes a place called Israel would be re-established for people to come up against her: Ezekiel 35, look at verse 10 especially, Israel certainly isn't wanting both states, Israe's leaders don't have maps claiming all of the Arab and Jewish land as 'Palestine" as Mahmood Abbas of the 'secular' Fatah has ref PMW or MEMRI. The showdown in Psalm 83, look at those countries, especially 5/4 - 9/8 they've all got something in common, they all think they're doing their thing for god - well, not as far as the original one is concerned. Considering the Bible is to be laughed at and others' holy books are to be revered - I'd take a second look, seems after 3,500 years it's not so daft after all.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard: "I began here puzzled by your verbal incontinence and choleric incoherence. I am if anything even more puzzled, because very occasionally there are brief moments interspersed of clarity and calm reflection, which seem to promise at least the possibility of rational discussion - but then the clouds descend again and nothing is to be expected or hoped for."

Richard, you're unning scared..and so you should. Let me recap for you. Perhaps repetition will help you see throught dem clouds:

- you believe Israel has no right to exist.

- you would ideally like to see a uni state solution to the conflict but feel that is impossible because the two sides hate each other too much.

- you celebrate International Law and base your villification of Israel - the bolckade, treatment of the Palestinians - on its contravention of that Law.

- you believe Israel stole the land of the Palestinians, whom you believe have the greater right to a nation state than the Jews in the are of previously mandated Palestine.

- you think a two state solution is now impossible because of Israel behaviour, blaming Israel, only, for the demise of this peace plan.

Hope that just about sums it up.

My view of your opinion is this:

- your predilection for International Law is a sham. You merely allude to contraventions of it - as does Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, Syria, Iran etc - only when it serves your propaganda - the aim of which is the vilification and delegitimisation of Israel which you - along with Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran - would like not to exist.

- You are happy to promote directly or indirectly the goal of the delegitimisation of Israel and its destruction, whatever the direness of the potential consequences - even for those Palestinians whose living conditions and national aspirations you seem so fixated on.

- By vilifying Israel and not balancing your criticisms or contextualising them, you encourage the further isolation of that country and then bemoad - or want to appear to bemoan - the reaction which this isolation generates.

- you think it legitimiate that Arabs and moslems have for generations murdered Jews and attacked the Israel state - waging war after war against it - but insist on appearing shocked and outraged at the consequences of those attacks.

- You are content to behave like a moral "imperialist", insisting that Israel can do no right, when the Arabs and moslems, by implication and by omission from the discussion, can - by comparison - do no wrong.

In short, Richard, you - like all the enemies that surround Israel - want your cake and eat it both in practical and moral terms.

You are a sham and contribute absolutely nothing to the debate re achieving peace in the region. You think that pedantry is a compelling substitute for truth which is why you seem so at one with the world of Harold and the redundancy of his lamentable autodidactism.

You will not answer this post point by point. As always, you will accuse me of incoherence or incontinence....perhaps a hint of the culture you would encourage or allow in you idealised world with no Israel.

One can only feel very cynical at the prospects for any peace, knowing that you - and the likes of you - represent merely the froth on the Western sewer of opinion that the Palestinian governing elites and their supporters in the Arab and moslem world have managed to create - along with the continued destitution and repression of the people they claim to represent and whose interest they have at heart.

As such, your opinion stinks and will continue to fester as it feeds off the carrion of this region caught in the vortex of death and destruction.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard: in case you get too distracted and you cant get your head out the clouds, "unning" is Yiddish for "running"...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Richard: " Perhaps repetition will help you see throught dem clouds"..ooops..sorry, prof. Should read: "Perhaps repetition will help you see through them clouds"...Forgive me.

Harold

John Roosevelt,
As I said, it is sobering to learn that Israel has been at war with its own citizens for over sixty years.

Your belief that it is war is not universally held within Israel's elite. It is seen more as social engineering.

The head of the JNF in the 1950s thought the concentration of Arabs in Galilee represented a threat as it have proved a focus for nationalism that might have led the Arabs to press their claim to the territory. He thought it essential to break up this concentration of Arabs through Jewish settlements.

Shimon Peres in the 1960s explained that the purpose of military rule over the Arabs was to continue the struggle for Jewish settlement and immigration.

This is not war. It is a deliberate policy of taking land and resources from one set of people to give to another.

I have not mentioned the detail of the attempts simply to deport the Palestinian Arabs to the east, some successful, ridding Israel of thousands of its citizens, some shelved. The most ambitious, Operation Hafarferet, was intended to deport 40000 to Jordan, but was abandoned after soldiers killed 49 Palestinian men, women, and children at Kafr Qassem. Ariel Sharon had his staff draw up plans to deport all Israel's Palestinian Arab citizens if ever war provided a pretext.

This is not war. It is a deliberate policy of deporting an unfavoured minority of the country's citizens.

I am not clear how the 400000 individuals lost all rights because partition was resisted. Did they all sign in blood? Did they all vote in a ballot? There is no evidence from Israeli sources or Palestinian sources that these people represented any security threat to Israel. The problem was that they held property that Israel wanted for Jewish immigrants.

John.

Until Churchill broke the original promise to give all of Ottoman Palestine to the Jews, the Jews rightly expected to get just that. Does that not give them therefore a moral right to claim all of Transjordan, the West Bank and Gaza should they so wish? It certainly looks like that to me. So there is room for maintaining that Israel has been extremly forebearing up to now in not making any fuss about the broken promise.
Someone asked whether any people could claim to be living in land that their ancestors lived on 3000 years ago. This does have a slight bearing on the present discussion. Firstly the answer is yes and quite a few instances could be produced - our own islands, once unpopulated and attached to mainland Europe, were populated by the proto-Basque ancestors of the present indigenous British about 15,000 years ago. The first real threat to their continued autonomy has come from Muslims and their ideology both within and without the islands. The end of free speech has arrived now that their numbers have increased within the country and their prophet and the tenets of their religion have become impossible to discuss and criticize. The Tibetans have been in Tibet for at least 3000 years and likewise the Uighurs have, (probably) been around in what used to be East Turkestan, (now Xinjiang), for about as long. The Chinese are no longer just a threat to them: they have both been invaded and overwhelmed by enormous numbers of Chinese immigrants. The relevance is this: Israel has been threatened by Muslim states and ideology since its very inception and establishment. Many of the so-called "Palestinians" are recent descendants of Syrians, Egyptians and Libyans - (how did the sparcely populated place travellers described in the 19th century suddenly become awash with "Palestinians" in the 20th?) Like us the Israelis are now threatened by being overwhelmed by aggressive ideology-driven hordes, passively supported within their borders and actively threatening them from without. Were Israel to urge the absorption of disputed territory by what is now Jordan, it is unclear to me how that would now help the situation. It would be exptremely impolitic to risk the overthrow the Hashemite dynasty. The absorption of the lands into Israel would also be problematic but could possibly result in a better state of affairs than that now obtaining. It is really impossible to tell.

Augustus

phil- I totally agree with what you say, especially regarding JR's noble efforts.

PEACE, that much abused word in all the discussions about Israel
could be achieved overnight if Fatah would stop armed resistance against Israel and recognize Israel as a legitimate nation. Yet at the Bethlehem conference last August
Fatah leaders argued they would continue their armed struggle against the state of Israel and use whatever force is necessary to undermine the Jewish state. They also made it clear there wouldn't be any modification in their charter, thus at a stroke
avoiding any real possiblity of them recognizing Israel as a legitimate nation. That is the central issue, and it is unlikely to change since Fatah's effectiveness, its very coherence, depends on armed agression.

And yet Israel remains a wonderous happening. Both it's creation in the last century, as well as the 3000 years history of the Jewish people. But, as we all have noticed, as soon as the media reports about Israel, the whole world rushes about like wild bulls. No other world conflict, whether war or natural disaster, gets as much attention as Israel versus the Palestinians. If hundreds of thousands are killed in Darfur
(men, women, children, old people), or millions of deaths over the years in the Congo (not to mention the untold tortures, rapes, and the terrible plight of child soldiers), the world just watches, or even looks the other way. When generations of people are killed by terrible dictatorships in Africa, or die in droves of Aids, or are killed
because they are unbelievers, hardly a comment is made. But Israel is where all the journalists and their camera crews are. That's where the outside broadcast vans of the BBC and CNN are. Every move that Israel makes is there in sound, vision, and commentary. It sometimes seems there is no other news than Hamas, Israel, and Palestinians. And all because Israel, the arch-enemy of Islam is founded on Islamic
territory, and whichever way you want to put it, Muslims have been given instructions by God to murder Jews. But Israel is really just a useful lightning conductor to ward off the grievances of their own people.

Linda Smith

Harold - let's have your comments on the 900,000 blameless, innocent Jews expelled, shorn of their assets, from Muslim countries since 1948 and your recommendations for a just resolution on their behalf.

Either put up, or shut up. Anything less confirms yhour stonking bigotry.

Richard

john Roosevelt,

"you - and the likes of you - represent merely the froth on the Western sewer of opinion"

Can I recommend to you the example of Jonathan Levy, who disagreed utterly (and forcefully)with what I said, but was perfectly courteous throughout. This silliness serves no purpose.

Harold

Augustus
June 27th, 2010 1:56pm

Ave!

In full flow again.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: it matters little what crimes you believe he Jews commited against the Arabs in war. The reality is that Israel is here to stay whether it pains you or not.

You want war to continue? Seems so..and even if you want to define this war as Israel's internal one, good for you. Tell that to your Porf. of Logic, but it has no place in the reality of negotiations.

Simple as that and Avneri, I am pretty confident, would agree with me.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 27th, 2010 8:59pm
An odd response, as if you hadn't read what was written to you.

I do not believe that the state of Israel would be willing to say that it has been waging war on its citizens these last sixty years and more. Those who speak for it certainly do not say so. They prefer to admit to social engineering or at most a wish to complete the deportation begun in 1948.

To suggest that I want to call it "internal war" is indeed logic chopping. It is not war. I have not said it is war. These are Israeli citizens. They posed no security risk at the time of the actions against them I have described.

And where it was war, or rather the aftermath of war - in the occupied territories - the position is every bit as clear. War does not warrant what is being done - by the rules Israel has signed up to and claims to observe.

Neither within Israel, nor in the occupied territories, does your pat excuse hold up to scrutiny.

It remains astonishing to me that you are so cavalier in approving what you certainly would not if any other state were the perpetrator. - Oh, that's what happens in war, don't you know, even if it's not war - we'll pretend it is, because in war these things happen.

You must believe that you gain some advantage from the otherwise mindless reflex to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of willing Israel's annihilation. I suppose you hope to gain some moral advantage. It looks unsavoury and unbalanced. Try to rid yourself of it.

You should read more of Mr. Avnery's writings before you bandy his name around.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote:
"June 27th, 2010 10:14pm

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 27th, 2010 8:59pm
An odd response, as if you hadn't read what was written to you."

Really, Harold? Rich coming from you who felicitously has ignored everything I, not to mention most others, have written to you in this thread...unless your idea of an answer (logician of note that you think yourself to be) is to change the subject.

"I do not believe that the state of Israel would be willing to say that it has been waging war on its citizens these last sixty years and more. Those who speak for it certainly do not say so."

Umm..perhaps you got that right about that, Harold. Well done, lad! Bright stuff.

"They prefer to admit to social engineering or at most a wish to complete the deportation begun in 1948."

Ok. Now what? Israel is bad. The Arabs and molsems good? Is this your contribution to the peace process?

You really want to hang onto this social engineering/ethnic cleansing/apartheid/crimes against humanity theme, don't you? Why? You think it will help you in your quest - not to mention that of Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah, Fatah, Syria - to keep the fire of hate against Israel burning? What's your motive? I can guess at Ahmedinejad's. You're the real flag waiver for Justice, right? Like Gorgeous George? You give a sh*t about justice for the Jews with regard to how they have been treated by Arab and moslem states?? I wonder...

The point is, Harold, as I have said many times and you keep ignoring, this lust you have for criminalising Israel, and the constant implication that the Arabs and moslems can do no wrong, is just a useless howling in the ideological wind and will do noone any good. I know this is hard for you to accept, but it is true - whoever you want to have a love fest or hate fest with.

"To suggest that I want to call it "internal war" is indeed logic chopping."

Oh dear….not your bivalence b@!sh*t again...You obsess with your logic as if it were crack! Give it up! Go into rehab!!

"It is not war. I have not said it is war. These are Israeli citizens."

What is not war? Who has said you have said it is war? Who are Israeli citizens? Hamas? The Republican Guard? Hezbollah? Harold! Settle! Go see a therapist!

"They posed no security risk at the time of the actions against them I have described."

Who? When? What are you on about???

"And where it was war,"

Like?

"or rather the aftermath of war - in the occupied territories - the position is every bit as clear."

????

"War does not warrant what is being done - by the rules Israel has signed up to and claims to observe."

But you couldn't care less about rules that are signed up to unless they suit your agenda, Harold. We have already established that clearly enough. So what does that matter and how does it affect a peace that will accommodate Israel - accept its right to exist etc? What difference does it make to you or Israel's enemies? You all think Israel can do no right and the Arabs and moslems can do no wrong. You do little else but vilify Israel but say absolutely nothing re how the Arabs and molsems have behaved towards it and the Jews before the state was formed. It’s a one way street of Arab and molsem victimization…Very convenient…but utterly useless except in your propaganda war. It’s all Israel’s fault…. and always has been, though now the narrative works – at last – for you because you can attach a Goliath image to Israel. This ruse doesn’t work so well for you for the unarmed Jews of ’47 attacked by the Arab Legion; or ’48, when Israel was attacked by the Arab League; or ’67, when Israel had nothing to do with the land International Law now wants it to evacuate - though you ignore this when pointed out to you or deny it - like Iran is denying weaponising its nuclear program. Deny, deny, deny, but make no effort whatsoever to prove otherwise.

"Neither within Israel, nor in the occupied territories, does your pat excuse hold up to scrutiny."

I have made no excuses, let alone "pat" ones. I have merely indicated why you are a liar and a sham and pointed you in the direction of the kind of practical approach to peace that even a virulent critic of Israel knows to be the only way forward i.e. Avneri. You ignore what I say and resort to accusing me of not having read enough Avneri. Avneri, at least, has the integrity to want to avoid more blood letting. You, like the flotilla for “peace” are quite happy to promote the killing in the name of your twisted notions of justice.

Why do you never dwell on the Arab and moslem progroms against Jews and the ethnic cleansing, expulsions, murders of Jews at the hands of Arab and molsems..or do you deny they are guilty of any of this? I just don't get how a man of Justice (dare I say a man of God), like you seem to think you are, can be so partial and of such monocular moral vision. ..It wont change anything. Israel will remain. No peace will be achieved by ignoring this fact. Get used to it.

"It remains astonishing to me that you are so cavalier in approving what you certainly would not if any other state were the perpetrator."

Poor Harold. You ignore everything I say. Change the subject. Then accuse me of approving something I have not even alluded to. The perils of an autodidact, I guess(?).

I have just tried to make you understand why propagandists like you only help perpetuate this (non) war between the Arabs and moslems and Israel. Nothing will ever come from your vilification tack, especially as your agenda/ideal is a uni state and nothing more.

" - Oh, that's what happens in war, don't you know, even if it's not war - we'll pretend it is, because in war these things happen."

For you it happens because it is part of the Israel's political dna? Mmmm, you're not being racist about Israel, I hope....
I wonder if you think Israel would have done all this to its "own citizens" if the Arabs had accepted 181...But of course you would have. Silly of me to wonder so... The Jews are racist pigs and the Arabs and moslems quite the opposite! You're a joke, Harold. A nasty, bitter joke.

"You must believe that you gain some advantage from the otherwise mindless reflex to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of willing Israel's annihilation."

In your case, Harold, it is perfectly true. If you don't see that, you surely must see that at least you give support to those who do so? Or do you just want to see Israel exist but "play nice" with those who wish to exterminate it and have tried to do so since it was formed and even preclude its formation by attacking the Jews? Who are you trying to kid? You're suddenly a friend of Israel? You want us to believe Hamas just wants some justice or you actually do think Hamas wants to exterminate this state? Come clean, Harold. Stop the flip flopping. You're making us all dizzy.

"I suppose you hope to gain some moral advantage. It looks unsavory and unbalanced. Try to rid yourself of it."

I don't need to try, Harold. You lend me the moral advantage just by writing the nasty piffle you do, flip flopping as soon as someone challenges you.
Wanna justify what I guess you assume to be your moral high ground? Then answer Linda, for example. Gather, gather...courage..courage..a little integrity...and now respond to what she asks you in her last post.

"You should read more of Mr. Avnery's writings before you bandy his name around."

Stop being the patronising little nasty that you are. I have referred to Avneri as a prime example of one who may not agree with everything Israel has done but knows the only way to peace is to bring both sides in this conflict together in conciliation and mutual accommodation...not your spirit of wanting nothing else but to vilify one side and whitewash the other - and give succor to those who believe they must eliminate Israel in God's name. To this extent you simply ignore what Averi says because it doesn't suit your prejudice. Didoms. With your approach, you wont achieve what you dream of and you also will never achieve peace or redress for what you deem to be injustice. It's nothing but a recipe for the guaranteed continued misery of all concerned and the you're the one (amongst many others) who should be vilified for that.

Leon

Anyway - the land of ISRAEL is ISRAEL. all any other names came while the pepole of ISRAEL was abrod. there was no Palestiniens befor 1967 but arabs in the land of Israel (or the teritory of Palestin) they did not have nation and even not mutual cultur.

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 28th, 2010 1:43am -I know you are aware of my admiration for your efforts with the time wasters Richard and Harold ,but it is exactly that -they are not here to find solutions or pour oil on troubled waters ,but merely to cause aggravation ,If England had a midfield like those two with the ability to swerve and avoid ,we would be playing Argentina in the next round .
------------------
Richard alluded to Jonathan,s politeness in previous threads and he was right ,but Jonathan totally wasted his time with him ,you are all providing a vehicle for a set of untruths and the twisting of facts by answering them -they never answered me because I do not debate with them ,I just give them facts ,and they cannot refute them -You will have noticed they did not reply to the the question I posed on the Jewish return to Poland after the war,that ball went over the top of our two man midfield-Thomas appears to have gone to S Africa to train our defence and like him and his pals ,they missed everything .
----------------------------------
I suggest you leave them where they deserve to be -in the wilderness.Then we can start a useful debate on how to rebuild our soccer team -those two would make useful goal posts , maybe even linesmen ,although they would never have seen "the goal",the obvious being beyond either of them -btw ,well done to the Germans who beat us deservedly.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 28th, 2010 1:43am

Take a deep breath now. Recall what this conversation was about. The resident legal expert, C. Gee, said, "the Arab abandonment of their properties permitted its eventual forfeiture. There is no right of return applicable to the Arabs, unless one is created by the peace negotiations. ( Not going to happen). Claiming a homeland and national rights to a territory based upon forfeited property rights is also ridiculous". Remember? I replied. Richard replied. Your rants are meant to be in response to those replies - about how Israel transferred land from Palestinian Arabs to Jewish immigrants and transferred Palestinians out of Israel. Other than trying to claim that this was "war" or that I wanted to claim that it was "internal war", you have addressed none of the relevant points but careered off yet again on your trademark rant. For entertainment you are almost as good value as Dixon. However, life cannot always be fun and entertainment. I will leave you to it.

phil

Harold
June 28th, 2010 10:31am-I hope JR has enough sense not to answer you or your mate ,particularly when you do not provide answers to questions that are raised ,but only obfuscate and waste our time -vaya con dios harold ,whoever that might be and do not forget the Polish question when you lay your head upon the pillow to say your prayers -it will not go away ,so he may not be too pleased with you .

Linda Smith

Harold, take a deep breath now, and respond to my last post.

Augustus

Unfortunately, Israel has been led by leaders whose policy 'land for peace' belies the truth that Israel is engaged in a religious conflict
with implacable foes whose only real definition of peace is the
destruction of Israel itself.
In fact, this futile and fatal policy of territory for peace
contradicts the Torah - Israel's
raison d'etre. This inane and ignoble policy only serves to magnify Arab (as well as Western) contempt for the Jewish state, and encourages Muslim despots to wipe Israel off the map. Israel cannot avoid this conflict as long as she is led by ministers who fail to include the God of Israel in the domain of statecraft. Israel's territorial retreat is unprecendented in the annals of history. This territory was not only repossessed in 1967 by Israel in a war of self-defense, but eminent prfessors of law and jurists also affirm Israel's right to this land on the basis of international law.
Yet no Israeli leader has made a point of emphasizing this right, either against its enemies, or even with the United States. If legal reasoning is not enough for Israel, it should recall that after the six-day war the US joint chiefs of staff acknowledged that the Judean and Samarian hills, the Golan Heights, and even parts of the Sinai, were essential to Israel's security. A strategic assessment valid to this day.
So what induces them to yield the rights of the Jewish people to Arab despots whose state-controlled media constantly spit
out the most obscene hatred of Israel and Jews? The conventional answer is because of Israel's desire for peace, and perhaps from American pressure. But the truth may lie in simple fear and dread. Fear of war, and those that fear a violent death will indeed seek peace at any price. And yet, only fools would expect a genuine peace by surrendering strategic territory to Arabs, who cannot even live in peace with each other, much less with Jews.

In Exodus, God was going to guard and protect His people and make sure they got to the place He had prepared for them.
There would be much opposition on their journey, but the Lord
would guard them and bring them to the Promised Land. God delivered them from the tyranny
of Egypt and was bringing them to a land flowing with milk and honey. But the Jews did not merit this land because of virtue or valor. Rather, it was entrusted to them by God on condition of their living by the
laws of the Torah. Israel must not betray the God of Israel, because to do so is a covenant
with death.

Drakken

Harold and Richard if you two hunyuks think that by giving the arabs land for peace there wil be peace are completely and utterly delusional. There will never b peace between muslim and jew untill one or the other is completely and utterly destroyed period. The wishful thinkers on the left think that by bashing Israel that they will get what thy want, as for your cheerleading of international law I have this to say. Take that nonsense and pound sand. As for me My bets are on Israel to survive and prosper.

Adam B.

Harold, there is no "right of return." How can someone be a refugee from somewhere they've never been? Almost none of the so-called Palestinian refugees have been inside what is Israel today. Let's call it a swap, 900,000 Jewish refugees had to leave the despotic Arab dictatorships in which they lived as dhimmi second class citizens, for the lesser number of Arab refugees.

It's like saying every Jewish person with a Russian grandparent is now a "Russian refugee." Grow up.

I wonder if you feel so aggrieved about the millions of Germans expelled from what is now Poland, the Czech Republic and the Soviet Union in 1945. They worked hard and built a successful state. The Palestinian Arab leadership has never been interested in this route, preferring to expend all energies on destroying Israel. Palestinian nationalism was invented in 1967, and only as a means to attack Israel. It has no roots whatsoever.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Sorry, folks...Richard and Harold are off line for a while. The word on the street is that they do not have access to the net, since they are ensconced on one of the "peace" ships about to leave Iran for Gaza.

The three US carriers off the shores of Iran, howver, are causing some delays in the iranian "peace" flotilla's departure, so noone is quite sure when these two will be back to answer all questions.

Lindsay

Linda Smith
June 28th, 2010 5:25pm
Should Israel not help those who were expelled seek redress from the states that expelled them? What has this to do with Israel offering redress to those it expelled? The Palestinians should not be held accountable for the actions of others; but Israel surely should be accountable for its own actions.

Augustus
June 28th, 2010 8:46pm
Do you not worry when someone uses religious arguments to justify political and military action?

Adam B.
June 28th, 2010 11:52pm
Should you not appeal to the legal authorities instead of making up interpretations of the law to suit yourself? Is that not how the law works?

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 29th, 2010 11:33am
That this passes for wit passes understanding. Did you simply not understand what was said to you and thought this your best means of escape? I would have been interested in your thoughts on C. Gee's legal opinion and the counter-arguments from Richard and Harold. How Israel kept the refugees from returning, both from beyond its undefined borders and within, and how it went about relieving them of their property, is not much discussed - another of those faits accomplis or facts on the ground, buried like a Palestinian village. The way the subject is avoided suggests a certain amount of shame or embarassment.

phil

Lindsay
June 29th, 2010 3:58pm have you taken over from the boychics in spouting nonsense -when did Israel expel anyone ? The Arabs ran away on instructions from the "incoming" Arab armies -even the Arabs would admit to that .They were supposed to come back after the Jews were slaughtered .Go away and learn some history before you lecture us on a subject you obviously no nothing about .

Augustus

Lindsay - In your question to me you imply that my argument is somehow unethical. But when one tells a lie often enough, people can eventually begin to believe it. It was the Arabs who turned the conflict into a religious war. That is the realpolitik Israel is engaged in. So, yes, as far as Israel is concerned, the end justifies the means.

Adam B.

But Lindsay, what legal authorities would that be? The UN? Please don't get me started on them. The example I cite shows that there is no such thing as an equally applied and impartial international law, it is ALWAYS politically driven.

I disagree with your view that the Palestinians are blameless - Jews from Jerusalem were subjected to a siege in 1948 and starved. The Palestinian Arab and Jordanian forces then ethnically cleansed the Old City of Jerusalem of Jews and systematically destroyed the ancient synagogues and vandalised the Mount of Olives (Jewish cemetery - ancient Jewish gravestones used for roads). Jews were then expelled from Hebron and other locations in Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian forces also slaughtered every man woman and child in several kibbutzim and settlements in that war. So your view (currently fashionable) that the Palestinians are entirely blameless and paying the price for someone else's crimes is groundless. Have you ever heard a Palestinian leader bemoan the expulsion of Jews from these areas, or the wider Arab world?

Get real.

Adam B.

Lindsay, I think your concern about religious arguments should be directed to the fundamentalists of Hamas and Iran.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lindsay wrote: "JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 29th, 2010 11:33am
“That this passes for wit passes understanding. Did you simply not understand what was said to you and thought this your best means of escape? “

Well, I have to say that I thought their obnoxious moral opportunism well worth parodying….but “escape”? From what? I was never involved in the debate over who stole what from whom, Lyndsay. Clearly you haven’t read my posts and you are simply ignoring the indelible pattern of response from these ninnies…never answering a question once they have been exposed or merely changing the subject completely, answering the question with yet another question that had nothing to do with what they were supposed to be responding to etc…in the vain hope that being pedantic might just do the trick for ‘em….

“I would have been interested in your thoughts on C. Gee's legal opinion and the counter-arguments from Richard and Harold.”

I haven’t been involved at all in the discussion of the actual legalities of movements of people as a result of Arabs murdering Jews or vice versa; nor pretended to have forensically followed the history of property purchase in the Ottoman Empire or the Mandate – at least not sufficiently to pass legal judgment upon specific cases or draw general legal inferences which should now translate into legal sanction against one party or another.

“How Israel kept the refugees from returning, both from beyond its undefined borders and within, and how it went about relieving them of their property, is not much discussed - another of those faits accomplis or facts on the ground, buried like a Palestinian village. The way the subject is avoided suggests a certain amount of shame or embarassment."

Clearly you think there is no need for legal disputation…no due process necessary. Open and shut case, right? The allusion to a “ buried Palestinian village” just a page of you digest of juris (not jewish) prudence? I have to say that you should be a little better prepared if I or some other Israeli lawyer decides to take you on. In the meantime, I am sure C. Gee and several other excellent poster will manage you very well indeed.

In any event, I think you may find this subject has in fact been discussed and written about ad nauseam, Lyndsay, not least within Israel itself where its critics, even those who believe it has no right to exist, are largely tolerated and given freedom of expression – certainly infinitely more than any dissenting voice is allowed to be heard in Gaza or most other Arab or molsem states and organisations. But that is an irrelevance to you, no doubt, frothing,, as you seem to be, at the prospect of adding to the demonization ONLY of Israel and absolutely not others in the region…or so it would seem. This is unequivocally the case with both Richard and Harold. God help us if the mores of Jews and Israel or Zionsits are discussed in the context of those of the Arabs and moslems. God help us if we so much as mention the recent speech by Erdagon, for example, in which he on the one hand feels Gaza should be free of Israel’s blockade in order to arm itself to kill Jews but, on the other,wants the US to support Turkey against those “terrorist” Kurds. Or the Minister of Justice in Indonesia, who wants to behead the terrorists active in his own country, but pay them and their families to go kill Jews in Israel. This is the political and moral ethos which cause the heart of the moral flip flopper to leap, Lyndsay. Is this what gets your toe tapping, too?

No, Lydnsay, you have missed the point entirely: my posts, to which those moral tap dancers "responded", were only meant – and explicitly so - to address the implications of some of their arguments. I never addressed the detail of these two charletons’ legal and moral rulings on this article but rather the true nature of the intent which underscored them. They could easily have responded point by point to that. They didn't and neither have you. Only when they were trying “to escape” my arguments did they change the subject and try and press gang me into commenting on C. Gee’s points.

Having said that, I do actually believe that the injustices that occurred on both sides during the Mandate and as a result of the Arabs attacking the Jews after resolution 181, are a fait accompli. The best that will ever happen, in my view is that, once peace takes hold and becomes a rooted part of the Arab and moslem culture and Israeli culture, there can be a form of Desmond Tutu's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Maybe compensation form both sides and other Srab states will follow. Apart from the bullsh*t legalese spouted by Harold and Richard - as if they cared less about the Law (and this is a point I elaborated on at length in my posts) - I think their singular motive for the defense of the Law and their sense of Justice - whatever the genuine claims of any Arabs may be - is TOTALLY spurious. Why? Because they will never admit any wrong doing of, or call for an investigation into, any wrong doing on the part of the Arabs and moslems because it’s “anything goes as long as Israel does not address their grievances, right or wrong”; and they will never admit that by encouraging the ethos of delegitimisation of the state of Israel, they not only make a nonsense of the Law, anyway, but enable the continuation of the death and destruction they want us to believe they decry. In other words they are liars and very nasty ones at that.

You cannot pretend to uphold the Law but at the same time make it crystal clear that the Law doesn't apply to anything you find ideologically unpalatable. That's a recipe for utter chaos and violence. Unfortunately, as it is for the PM of Turkey or the Justice Minister of Indonesia, if one does this the Law becomes merely an expendable weapon to be used when it suits an ideological agenda. That maybe true in fact but, even if so, it doesn’t justify the pretence that it’s any different - one at which the flip flop boys are masters - and expect nothing less than derision and a total conviction that this crap will not be accepted by those these pumped up, nasty moralists are trying to destroy.

You should some new friends, Lyndsay, or get back in your box.

Lindsay

Augustus
June 29th, 2010 6:31pm
I would be interested to know what you mean: I know Zionism was in the main secular, but is it true that there is nothing religious about the Zionist claim to a state in the "Holy Land"? Is the claim then simply that there was a Jewish state 3000 years ago, so there should be one now? "...territory for peace contradicts the Torah - Israel's raison d'etre." "the Jews did not merit this land because of virtue or valor. Rather, it was entrusted to them by God on condition of their living by the
laws of the Torah." - As I say, I'd appreciate an explanation.

Adam B.
June 29th, 2010 7:14pm
I was puzzled so I checked what I said: I am pretty sure I didn't say the Palestinians were entirely blameless. Why do you say I did? Is this a diversion to avoid answering? Is this how you operate?

Could you also talk me through the legal authority passed from the League of Nations to the UN.

graham

so now Israel will move out?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lindsay: would you kindly explain your position on Israel clearly?

Are you saying:

- it has no right to exist because its claim to statehood are illegal or morally wrong or both?

- that the Jews stole all the land they inhabited during the Mandate from the locals or just some of it?

- that you think that Israel, irrespective of the violence meted out to it by the Arabs and moslems throughout the Mandate and as soon as the UN passed Resolution 181, even if it had had a policy of increasing the land that the UN assigned to it in 1947, and of vacating what land the had and gained of those who they saw as the enemy, should now be punished?

- that you believe that Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah want anything less than the eradication of the state of Israel and to replace it with an Islamic state?

- that you would you be comfortable with the kind of state model like that of Iran or Gaza?

- that you feel that the Palestinians should not be held accountable for their actions to others just as you expect of the Israelis? Indeed, are there any actions in your book for which they should be held accountable?

- that you really think it anything but potty to expect Israel to account for its actions against its enemies whilst there is no peace? Perhaps Hitler should have put himself on trial before the world - for crimes against humanity whilst Dresden was being fire bombed by the Allies or the Iraqis - for their pogrom against the Jews in 1941, whilst they were fighting Israel in 1948-9?

My point is, Lyndsay, what are you trying to achieve by your apparent celebration of some notion of Justice?

In the circumstances, how do you believe your continuous attempts to delegitimise Israel and single out only their purported crimes for your summary judgement will lead anywhere except more of the same siege mentality, mistrust of fundamentalism and so-called Palestinian nationalism as represented by the Islamists?

Randy McDonald

It's worth noting that the famous passage "proving" Palestine was empty proves no such thing, as this 'Aqoul blog post mentioned.

http://reviews.aqoul.com/2010/03/the_innocents_abroad.html

Twain was satirizing _everything,_ talking about the silly locals and their lack of accomplishment on the ground as is the wont of the ugly American. Besides, as he said in chapter 49 of his book, the area wasn't empty:

The view presented from its highest peak was almost beautiful. Below, was the broad, level plain of Esdraelon, checkered with fields like a chess-board, and full as smooth and level, seemingly; dotted about its borders with white, compact villages, and faintly penciled, far and near, with the curving lines of roads and trails. When it is robed in the fresh verdure of spring, it must form a charming picture . . ..

Augustus

Lindsay - OK, I am simply leaping back further than the birth of Zionism in 19th Century Europe, Jewish immigration into Palestine, and subsequent conflict with Arabs. The Jewish heritage stems from the Land of Israel, which it ruled on and off for thirteen centuries before the Romans crushed the last brief bid for independence in the second century AD. By the mid-nineteenth century Palestine was an impoverished backwater -
abeit one where Arab tribes outnumbered Jews. But the underlying point is the ancient homeland, the Promised Land to which the Jews then later returned, first as settlers during Turkish rule, and later
under the British Mandate. In contrast to all that, the counter claim that Arab-Muslim Palestinians were emotionally tied to their plot of Palestine
based upon a consistent presence
for thousands of years is simply
recently fabricated mythology. It served as a new tool to counter the continuing battle against Israel. You see, religion and politics are inextricably linked because it is only politically that the defeat by Rome, and the subsequent scattering of the Jewish population made a decisive change in the history of the land. That which had been
created out of Exodus more than a thousand years before 135 A.D.
remained (as did that which was beginning to be created in the teachings of the young Christian Church as well).

Mal Tucker

Melanie, you are right. Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan, which is exactly why Israel should now hand back the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - to Jordan. I am sure you agree with the logic of your position!

phil

Augustus
June 29th, 2010 11:44pm Once again we waste our time with this person calling herself/himself Lyndsay ,who may well be one of the boychics in disguise .She never answered my comment ,,just the same style as them --because no doubt I just present facts and do not debate with those who only wish to accuse.JR destroys their myths on a regular basis and yet like flies they return on the same mission ,bite suck and run -not for me !Lies are lies and do not deserve debate .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Mal Tucker
June 30th, 2010 6:58am
Melanie, you are right. Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan, which is exactly why Israel should now hand back the West Bank - including East Jerusalem - to Jordan. I am sure you agree with the logic of your position!"

...and how could there possibly be a problem with that, as long as the Palestinians arabs and their arab and moslem backers recognise Israel's right exist, the new boarders in full and final settlement of the conflict; agree to an indefinite renunciation of violence; to an accommodation over the issue of Jewish refugees as well as Arab refugees; a settlement which all Arab states adhere to; and an international guarantee which satisfies Israel's security needs i.e not one like that which pertained to the disarmament of Hezbollah after the last war with Israel.

Then, I'm sure, we can all have Peace in our time and Gaza will return to its glory days, when Israel have nothing to do with it i.e. before '67, when Palestinians lived in peace and harmony with all their brothers in the Arab and moslem world. Jusy imagine, moslem women would enjoy equal rights again; there would be freedon of expression in the moslem lands; education would rid itself of anti semitism and, finally, the publication of that bestseller - "The Protocols of The Elders of Zion" - would be banned in Arab and moslem lands, too; the Jews would no longer have to behead those responsible for vilifying them in cartoons; and even the first name - "Hitler" and "jihad" would wane in popularity in Arab states.

Uri Avneri would be happy. Galit would be freed. Obama would be a hero and return for a second term because of the US Jewish and Arab vote. Nisrallah might shave his beard in celebration; Ahmedinejad would go out of his way to show the inspectors that indeed he has been misunderstood and is NOT tryong to weaponise his nuke program and would - in the spirit of love that will surely begin to envelop the region - even stop killing his own citizens in the name of Iranian democracy!

Oh lordy, lord!! I can't wait...

Ooops..I forgot Ilan Pappe...and..zzzzzzzzzz

phil

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 30th, 2010 10:18am :):) Like MLK .we have a dream !!!Meanwhile Israel needs to look after its problems without expecting help from fum duckers like some of those that write here.:)

Lindsay

Augustus
June 29th, 2010 11:44pm
I don't want to be the annoying girl at the school debating society making oh so clever points that are beside the point. I want to know what you are saying. Is it that the Jews have sole claim on the Holy Land (I hope that is a neutral term) because God promised it to them? - Is this not religion justifying political and military action? And is it that the Palestinian Arabs (who as I understand it from ethnographers are likely to have inherited a complex mix of everyone who has lived in and passed through the land in the last several thousand years including in all probability ancient Jews) make a claim that they and their forebears have lived on this land for centuries which is a myth? - In what sense a myth?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lindsay wrote:"
June 30th, 2010 11:53am
Augustus
June 29th, 2010 11:44pm
I don't want to be the annoying girl at the school debating society making oh so clever points that are beside the point. I want to know what you are saying. "

But Lyndsay, why do you are so much, unless your concerns ARE indeed those of the " annoying girl at the school debating society making oh so clever points that are beside the point"?

What difference would it make to you? This important to know because we not in the classroom now. Israel is astate with 6 million people. The Palestinians want their own state. Many moslems - ncluding most of the governing elites amongst the Plaestinians, the Iranian, Syrians, Hezbollah - and tohers - dont want to see an end to this conflict or any accommodation with israel at all. Not kiddies stuff, you see.

Your ethnologists may hold the key..but, if so, don't hesitate to tell us. I will get on the phone to the Quartet right away, I promise.

phil

Lindsay
June 30th, 2010 11:53am

Augustus
June 29th, 2010 11:44pm
"I don't want to be the annoying girl at the school debating society making oh so clever points that are beside the point."
------
Well you are doing it rather well and picking what you can,where you can to be obtuse ,do you really think everyone here is stupid ? ok I know what you would like to say so we will take it as read .

Augustus

Lindsay - I agree with both JR and phil, but OK, I'll take the bait and respect your 'need to know'. The myth, of course, isn't the fact that people were there scurrying about for centuries, the myth lies in the claim that Zionists
'dispossessed' Arab owned land
from shall we say the end of the
Ottoman rule to the foundation of Israel. And not only that; that by 1948 the Zionists had purchased only between 6-10%, while the Arabs owned about 45%,
the rest being government land.

Firstly the Arab lands were probably much lower, and the government lands much higher because there was never a systematic survey of Palestine land. also, the Mandate government violated its own conditions and tended to make government land available at cut-rate prices to Arabs rather than Zionist purchasers. They also counted all village and town land and other dubious claims as 'Arab land', though under the mandate terms both parties should have had a share in ownership of public land. and none of this land was ever purchased by any Arab, it was simply assigned as Arab land. The registration policy was also chaotic, counting land as 'owned' which was in fact leased. Most of the land registered in the names of individuals was registered as 'Miri' holdings that gave the user the right to a lifetime tenancy, the land itself rwemaining the property of the government. And if the land was fallow for three years it should have reverted to government, but in fact Mandate personal went out of their way to please Palestinian Arabs.

In fact, the Arabian peasant or smallholder (fellah) had been steadily displaced from the land before the Zionists came on the scene. The beginnings of industrialization and urbanization was taking place throughout the ME and was accelerated by Zionist settlement. By 1948, The Jewish Agency and others had purchased
perhaps between a third and a half of available agricultural land in the area to become Israel. It is difficult to argue that Jewish immigration and land purchased affected the Arabs of Palestine adversely. Their standards of living increased steadily, except for drought years and their own self-inflicted misery of the General Strike. When Arabs left
it was certainly not for economic reasons.

So there you have it, Arab dispossession was a myth, elevated to a dogmatic claim by people even today. A claim for which there is no direct evidence whatsoever.

Seraph

Lindsay States: "Is it that the Jews have sole claim on the Holy Land (I hope that is a neutral term) because God promised it to them? - Is this not religion justifying political and military action?"

Since this article is ostensibly about Jordan, I would appreciate it if you would share with us what exactly is the Jordanian "claim" that "justifies" its "right to exist"? For that matter, I would like to know what is the raison d’être of Syria and Iraq?

Could it be that all four countries (Israel included) were created after World War I by the League of Nations under the Mandate system? Unlike these countries, Israel's creation was reaffirmed after World War II by the United Nations. If Israel's right to exist is in question, then so is the right of all of these other countries.

Of course, you could argue that the difference here is that the Jewish people are interlopers. In that case, Bible (Old and New), the Koran, and much archaeology prove otherwise. Whether you read the Bible as God's word or as an enthnohistorical document (since you are so fond of ethnographers), the fact remains that it unequivocally proves that the Jewish people are an indigenous people with an over 3,500 year connection to that land.

Until you and your Arab friends wrap your heads around this fact, there will never be peace.

Lindsay

Augustus
June 30th, 2010 2:05pm
You are, surprisingly enough, both snotty and evasive.

It seems to me reasonable to want to understand what you are saying. There is little point you pontificating if your pontifications are not comprehensible.

First of all, you have failed to clarify your repeated references to God and his covenant with the people of Israel which you appear to think justifies the political and military actions of the Yishuv and the state of Israel. Should such religious beliefs intrude or not?

Secondly, what you said about the Palestinian "myth" was, "the counter claim that Arab-Muslim Palestinians were emotionally tied to their plot of Palestine
based upon a consistent presence
for thousands of years is simply
recently fabricated mythology". Meybe not thousands of years (except those of them who turn out to have ancient Canaanite or Jewish genetic traces, if there is such a thing!) - but well over a thousand years - or are you saying there is no such continuous presence? When asked to clarify, you talk about property rights in the late 19th century and early 20th century, what was owned, what leased, what reverted to the state (Ottoman or Mandate) etc. You talk about the 6% or whatever of the cultivated land that Jewish immigrants had purchased by 1947 - and as I understand it, you argue that this is a myth, or perhaps of no relevance, or - I'm not sure.

So, it is reasonable to ask you what you meant. It is fair to say that you have not made yourself clear. You have not earned the right to be snotty.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lindsay: if you are claiming that anyone besides the Jews have a claim to Palestine can you tell us on what basis you make such a clai?

Adam B.

Lindsay, you wrote the following:

"Should Israel not help those who were expelled seek redress from the states that expelled them? What has this to do with Israel offering redress to those it expelled? The Palestinians should not be held accountable for the actions of others; but Israel surely should be accountable for its own actions."

You are indeed implying that the Palestinians are blameless, paying for the crimes of others. My post showed you that far from being innocents caught in the middle, the Palestiniansd are active participants in these crimes, and I listed some of them. You just haven't absorbed it. That's your problem, not mine.

Lindsay

Seraph
June 30th, 2010 3:12pm
I think you mistake what I said. I was asking for an explanation of how talk of God could justify military and political action. I was not saying that Israel has any more or less of a "right to exist" than any other state. I was not asserting that Israel is any more or less artificial than Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or any other creation of Great Britain after the Great War. I would be interested however in how evidence of ancient history provides support for any of Great Britain's state-building.

Lindsay

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 29th, 2010 7:31pm
You have taken the trouble to answer me at great length. You appear to like to have all your points answered. So I may go on a bit. You can of course switch off.

One small correction: You say "I haven't been involved in the discussion of legalities." You have - it's just that your involvement was brief and dismissive: "these things happen in war". But it wasn't in war. So you haven't "answered the question"

Also: I gave some facts accepted by all - refugees were stopped from returning and their property was taken. I said how this was done is buried like a Palestinian village i.e. we pretend it isn't there. - How can you conclude from this that I think no legal deliberation is required? You say you're an Israeli lawyer, but you avoid the question. You say C. Gee will set me right, but I've read what he said.

You say you prefer to think of the crimes of the past as a fait accompli. You are probably right, but it is easier for the winner to say so. Better would be if both sides acknowledge the crimes, as you suggest later.

The rest of what you say I think has a lot of good sense - but also something I've noticed in my brief acquaintance with this blog - someone used the word "wonky" which is wrong - I'll be more high fallutin' and say there's an "asymmetry".

A trivial example: This blog and its followers will allow nothing to be said against Israel, which is fair enough - it's seen as under unfair attack and it'd be disloyal to criticise - but it seems to me also fair enough that others should redress the balance by pointing to Israel's faults. I haven't seen any who say because Israel is at fault it shouldn't exist or that Palestinians can do what they want - yet such attempts to redress the balance get screamed off.

There's a similar thing in what's demanded of Israel and of the Palestinians. Israel has 80% of the land and occupies the rest. It has armed forces of stupendous power. The Palestinians live on sufferance on the margins armed relatively speaking with peashooters. Yet it is the Palestinians alone who are to stop the (obnoxious) insults, to admit that Israel had every right to take 80% of the land and occupy the rest, to recognize Israel's "right to exist" with undefined borders and intentions toward the Palestinians that are admittedly threatening. Surely it is Israel that's well placed to be magnanimous in its own interest.

You say "once peace takes hold" - this is very sensible I think - but the question is, where are the Palestinians while peace is taking hold? Are they still on the margins of an Israel with undefined borders, trusting to Israel's eventual magnanimity? It seems to me this demand for absolute surrender and absolute trust in the victor's justice is as much an obstacle as the obscenities of Islamist ultras (who can cause trouble and kill innocents but can't destroy Israel). What do you think?

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 29th, 2010 11:09pm
This batch of questions is an example of the asymmetry I talked about. You demand answers to a standard list of slanted questions. If you don't get the answers you want, you resort to vituperation. But you will answer no such questions yourself. I was particularly struck by one example. You were asked what a peace deal should look like. Your answer was it's not your job - first the Islamists must change their ways. Which gets us nowhere and absolves you of saying what sort of peace you think possible.

Anyway I'll try to answer your questions (however impertinent many would find the manner of your demand).

I don't think states have a "right" to exist. They exist or they don't exist. I think Israel has the same right as any other state to full diplomatic recognition. And I think it has the same right of self-defence. It is a state like any other state in this regard. I don't see that it can be given less and I don't see what more it can demand. You will tell me if I'm missing something.

I don't think Jewish immigrants stole any land in the Mandate.

I don't understand the third question. Are there some of the typos we're all prone to? I can say that I don't think Israel should be punished. I think it should reach an accomodation. (For the record, the Jewish population meted out its share of violence in the Mandate. And Hagana et al. were expecting war and expecting to benefit from it in terms of territory.)

I believe Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran want rid of the Israeli regime or state. Their statements are in equal measure obnoxious, absurd and (I think, if I were on the receiving end) terrifying. (It would be no help to know that Hezbollah arose to defend the Shias of South Lebanon from Israel's brutal occupation; and Hamas likewise for the Palestinians). What might help, or at least be worth exploring, is the fact that these are idealogues who have to survive in the real world. Iran is a regional power threatened by the US and Israel. Its actions are to further its survival. Hezbollah and Hamas exist to protect their peoples' interests as well as to further their ideology. If their peoples' interests are met by other means, their leverage is diminished.

Of course not - a liberal mixed-economy democracy is the best system so far devised.

Of course not. I've said no such thing. I've not noticed anyone else who has said any such thing.

Of course Israel should be held to account and should hold itself to account. We cannot just say "it is war" so anything goes (although I know as well as you that all too often that is what happens and the victors decide what counts as a crime).

I have tried to answer your questions. I've left out the ifs and buts.

Your final question starts badly and ends well. I have made no attempt, let alone a continuous attempt, to deligitimize Israel. - But how do I think pointing out its crimes and misdemeanours will help break the siege mentality? I think the mistaken conviction that Israel is always a victim and its actions always justified - such as is promoted here - does nothing to encourage compromise. Likewise the litany of others' crimes against Israel. Israel is sinning as well as sinned against. If I concentrate on Israel's sins here - as I think a few others have tried to do - it is to help offset the highly biased version given here. It is best to realise that there is another side to the story. And yes this does apply both ways. In other words, there is no excuse for justifying suicide bombs or indiscriminate rockets, nor for winking at the hateful and often anti-Semitic propaganda prevalent in the Middle East and elsewhere.

phil

Guys why not let this ridiculous lyndsay do her own dirty work and find out what the hell she likes -she is here to insult as she has to Augustus -tell her nothing ,she is only twisting what you say every time -and by the way ,answering nothing.There are enough history books for her to read-just let her do it . Augustus is altogether to polite to her ,so if nobody minds I will tell her to get ----- ,he is a gentleman and she is no lady .

Augustus

Lindsay - My starting point was when I posted that Israel's right to their land was on the basis of international law. I then proceeded to argue that its leaders have often been too willing to yield the rights of the Jewish people to Arab despots, and too easily influenced by world propaganda
by sacrificing strategic territory for the desire for peace. The religious element was included more as an entreaty, a cris de coeur to remember the warnings of the Bible in Isaiah. You then pop up
in a series of questions (questions only nota bene, no counter arguments), one of which
you ask of me, whether I worry if someone (presumably me) uses religious arguments to justify political and military action. The short answer is no, because one big happy multicultural society including Jews in an Arabic or Muslim state isn't much of a success either.

No doubt you think it scandalous that Jews have been so elevated since 1947 and that a UN majority voted that they had a right to the half of one fifth of the original mandated
area of Palestine, an area where
they had once had their own country and where Jews have always been represented throughout the centuries. No doubt you are happy that there isn't a people who get as much international goodwill and aid, both moral and financial, as the Palestinians, and who are so
elevated by the present UN in affording them special institutions, refugee status and
organizations with double the budget of other refugees.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: I dont believe, as you seem to, that if only Israel wasn't big and strong and the victor, and would be more humble and self critical, all would be well with the Palestinians.

I don't believe that because the relationship with them - by and large, has never been well, even when the so-called Palestinians were killiing craven, defenseless Jews in their midst; even when their leadership rejected institutions in which they would have majority vote and the UN offered them a state. This people have to address their historical folly or, more to the point, that of its leaders. Life's a bitch but that is how it works whether we ant it to or not.

You talk as if the Jews has not endured over 100 years of consistency in the Arab and moslem attempt to annihilate them. This is crassly irresponsible, especially when one is talking to such a powerful, venal, arrogant people..

So, please stop the this nonsense once and for all.

Israel has fought off the Arab and moslems for generations - not for sport, but because these peoples have been intent on their extermination, just they are today.

This is a problem. Magnanimity doesn't come into the reality, now. It has to be a mutual accommodation or nothing. Simple. That's subject to the reality of negotiations. If the Palestinians want their end game in place before the negotiations have begun, to hell with negotiations. They wont happen and neither jesus nor Mohamed not any other God will make it happen.

Seraph

Lindsay States: "I think you mistake what I said. I was asking for an explanation of how talk of God could justify military and political action. I was not saying that Israel has any more or less of a "right to exist" than any other state. I was not asserting that Israel is any more or less artificial than Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or any other creation of Great Britain after the Great War. I would be interested however in how evidence of ancient history provides support for any of Great Britain's state-building."

Lindsay, thanks for the good laugh! Clearly, you have never been to Israel. Unlike the large swathes of the Middle East that are ruled by Sheikhs, Imams, Ayatollahs, and other assorted despots, Israel is a secular (yes, secular) democracy. Then again, if it is a theocracy that you are trying to ferret out, you are in luck. The leadership of Gaza (i.e. Hamastan) makes the Taliban seem like a bunch of beatniks. Even they are not wahhabi enough for the Salafists in their midst.

In any case, I think you would be hard pressed to find any country that does not have at least some religious undertones – In God we Trust, God Save the Queen, God Bless America, the Church of England, etc. There are also quite a few countries around the world created specifically for a particular religion (e.g. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ireland) as well as a great many who justify their political and military action on religious grievance and a belief that God is on their side (e.g. Catholics in North Ireland, Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, and Moslems just about anywhere in the world.) If you were honest, I think you would ask yourself why you only noticed this prosaic phenomenon where it concerns Israel.

As for your other questions, if you take the time to read through this thread, you will see that I have already addressed them above.

phil

On june 29 at 4.58 I asked this person lyndsay who I think has had a sex change and is in fact harold ,a simple question after an accusation as ridiculous as most of the nonsense she has written ,and I WILL QUOTE IT ."Lindsay
June 29th, 2010 3:58pm have you taken over from the boychics in spouting nonsense -when did Israel expel anyone ?"
----
she or he has not answered ,so why on earth are you all trying so hard to convince someone who does not want to be convinced ?Do any of you think it will advance the cause of Israel to explain to this person what is true and what are lies -she is patently not interested and I am afraid she has you on the end of a fishing rod -
---
You may turn this thread into a record number and will get nowhere -for my part the likes of lyndsay ,tommy ,harold and richard (who maybe are one )can think what they like -I do not give a damn and can I suggest ,nor should you .Israel and the Jewish people will continue to do what we pray is right and and those like the above can continue to try to put us down ,it is not something new is it ?

Lindsay

Augustus
June 30th, 2010 9:29pm

"The religious element was included more as an entreaty, a cris de coeur to remember the warnings of the Bible in Isaiah."

Let me remind you what you said that prompted my question:

"this futile and fatal policy of territory for peace
contradicts the Torah - Israel's
raison d'etre... Israel cannot avoid this conflict as long as she is led by ministers who fail to include the God of Israel in the domain of statecraft... the Jews did not merit this land because of virtue or valor. Rather, it was entrusted to them by God on condition of their living by the
laws of the Torah. Israel must not betray the God of Israel, because to do so is a covenant
with death."

Not quite consonant with your latest re-interpretation, but I would say quite enough to merit my request for clarification.

Lindsay

Seraph
July 1st, 2010 5:47am
My questions were prompted by an assertion made by another contributor. You appear to share my unease about theology informing political and military action. It makes me uneasy in Islamic states. It also makes me uneasy in the US when fundamentalists enjoy significant political power in alliance with thuggish nationalists like Cheney. And it makes me uneasy in Israel where fundamentalists have significant political power and a significant presence in the military. However, as I say, my question was prompted by someone here asserting that Israel's rights came from God, which presumably means they trump anyone else's.

Lindsay

JOHN ROOSEVELT
June 30th, 2010 10:10pm
Again, I'll try to answer you paragraph by paragraph since you tend to suspect the more condensed way hides evasions.

I've not said "all would be well". Isn't this a "straw man" type argument?

You're right that all hasn't been well since very early in the Jewish immigration. (As an aside, Arab peasants got on with tilling the soil when their new Jewish landowners made no attempt to evict them and turned violent only when cleared from the land - reprehensible but human. Also, violence in the towns, the British and the more clear-sighted of the Zionists acknowledged, was as much the fault of the Zionists as of the Arabs. Also, in 1948 the Israeli high command - Ben Gurion et al. - were concerned to find the Palestinian peasants getting on with their way of life as they had since time immemorial under the various different imperial powers - and ordered some military actions in a few villages to persuade them to do otherwise.) You're right that the Arabs, when faced with immigrants who made clear they intended to form the majority and establish their own state in Palestine, went against their own interests in trying to resist both politically and militarily since their efforts were always doomed as Britain and the US for their own reasons supported the Zionists. And you're right that they've to live with the consequences of their mistake. But what I'm saying is that there are two populations of more or less teh same size size (more Palestinians) effectively in one piece of land and it's in the victor's interest to reach some sort of accommodation (which is inevitably going to be hugely in the victor's favour).

You talk as if Israel hasn't made consistent efforts usually very violent to oust the population from the territory it wants - which surely gives that population the right to resist. The point surely is to halt the violence between two sides that both feel they've justification.

Israel has from its inception been very clear about its military superiority and ability to take on all comers (in the circumstances an obvious and justified precaution). The only time the military planners got a real fright was in 1973 and even then Sadat was well aware before he attacked that the only realistic purpose could be to improve his position in negotiations. To say that Israel has been under attack is no argument for intransigence.

Your final para is an example of "asymmetry". Israel can insist on getting all the concessions it requires before it'll negotiate. - The Palestinians must cease their resistance and accept all Israel's demands before Israel will consider whether to give them anything - but once the Palestinians have surrendered, why bother to give them anything?

I see you're loudly indignant and, as I said, vituperative when you think a critic of Israel hasn't answered every point you think you've made, yet you allow yourself a much more cavalier attitude.

Anyway, I accept I've had all the answers I can expect.

phil

Anyway, I accept I've had all the answers I can expect.

Lindsay
July 1st, 2010 3:55pm

Praise the Lord !!!! hope she /he keeps that"promise"-I am sure we will all wish her/him bon voyage and great success in a new career -try Zimbabwe or Burma ,maybe Sudan ,but please leave my friends in peace they are nice people ,filled with a desire to tell the truth and seek the real peace .Oh and you need not answer my question ,I do realise it is the way of the weak to address everyone else and ignore the one who really hurts .

Augustus

Lindsay - Now that you have expressed yourself to me and others in an undoubtedly educated fashion, I can only say
for my part that you would have your work cut out to convince me that you are right that all fundamentalists, from whatever calling, are cut from the same cloth. Perhaps you are on the young side and see religion as not a very cool thing. For my part, I deeply respect the Judeo/Christian heritage, for all its historical faults and foibles, and so also have many leaders of societies which have
developed throughout the world based on faith in the Almighty. Whether an individual or a nation, there is no real hope for a bright tomorrow without such faith. Of course, I know that government-wise Israel is a secular democratic country. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a unique religious
setting, as well as being not only the mother country for Jews
all over the world, but also the first line of defence against a foe that also very clearly threatens our civilization in the Western world.

If I believe that a rejection to be dominated by their Muslim foe would be boosted by Israeli leaders forsaking their policy of weakly submitting to demands of relinquishing control of stategic and re-conquered areas and doing so in the spirit of their Biblical status, then I feel it a perfectly worthy argument to make. But you do not
feel that it is politically correct, fair enough, that is your right.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote: "But what I'm saying is that there are two populations of more or less teh same size size (more Palestinians) effectively in one piece of land and it's in the victor's interest to reach some sort of accommodation (which is inevitably going to be hugely in the victor's favour)."

Well there's a piece of wisdom for you, but how does it square with your plea that the victor ought to be magnanimous?

Don't you think it in in the interest of the vanquished and those you surely feel are the unjustly downtrodden by war and pestilence to elect some leaders who want to make peace - based on International Law, at least? Even your doppelgangers - Harold and Richard - want us to believe they want nothing more (liars of course, but are you, too?)?

"You talk as if Israel hasn't made consistent efforts usually very violent to oust the population from the territory it wants - which surely gives that population the right to resist."

Except that, even if true(and many would argue to the contrary), you talk as if Israel and the jews, having been attacked ad nauseam even when they were unequivocally obeying International Law, were unjustified in doing anything they deemed fit to save themeseves and fortify their future. You talk as if the Arab and moslem mayhem has been inocently reactive only.

"The point surely is to halt the violence between two sides that both feel they've justification."

Indeed. Welcome to the Peace Movement, dear.

"Israel has from its inception been very clear about its military superiority and ability to take on all comers (in the circumstances an obvious and justified precaution)."

Boll&8cks.Start from November 1947. Think. gather. Focus. Read..and then try and write.

"The only time the military planners got a real fright was in 1973 and even then Sadat was well aware before he attacked that the only realistic purpose could be to improve his position in negotiations. To say that Israel has been under attack is no argument for intransigence.

Your final para is an example of "asymmetry". Israel can insist on getting all the concessions it requires before it'll negotiate. - The Palestinians must cease their resistance and accept all Israel's demands before Israel will consider whether to give them anything - but once the Palestinians have surrendered, why bother to give them anything?

I see you're loudly indignant and, as I said, vituperative when you think a critic of Israel hasn't answered every point you think you've made, yet you allow yourself a much more cavalier attitude.

Anyway, I accept I've had all the answers I can expect."

I am very confused by the logic of you argument, Lyndsay.

It seems, for you, the Arabs and moslems - forever justified in their belief that "their" land was being stolen, from 1922 onwards have merely been justifiably reacting to Jewish and then Israeli transgressions against them.

Thus, it was a mistake , but understandable, that the Mufti rejected the Palestine Constitution in 1922, in which moslems would have held the majority vote and thus likely have precluded any further Jewish "transgressions" against them, let alone the "stealing" of arab land or the insitution of a state.

It was a mistake, but justified, that the Arabs rejected the offer of a state for Palestine in 1947.

It was a mistake, but justified, that the Arab Legion then attacked Jews who had no legal right to bear arms - in contrast to the states which the Legion comprised which also were backed militarily by Britain.

No doubt you think it would have been a mistake, but justified, if the Arabs had defeated the Jews and pushed them all into the sea. No doubt it would have served them damned Jews right!

In the event, the Arabs didn't succeed in their decades old quest of exterminating every last Jew, despite trying again and again and again...

And, God help us all, wicked Israel got pissed and did what it deemed right for its future security. Perhaps awful. Perhaps to be judged by God as deeds to warrent eternal fire and damnation. Nevertheless, you have to be some dingbat to be surprised; and really a huge dingbat to think that a state will listen to demands that it treats its attackers with the magnanimity you prescribe - as wonderful as it may be.

Furthermore, no doubt it was a mistake, but justified, that Arafat rejected Barak's proposal - based on 242 - in '2000.

...A mistake but justified, that Abbas did the same with Olmert's offer...

A mistake, but justified. israel can do no right..but it is the victor and oh so strong..so the shoolyard bully and it is not magnanimous enough, to be sure..

But can it ever be, in your book, Lyndsay, given its a priori guilt, according to you?!!

Now, those who have waged this ceaseless violence you think are justified in expecting the objects of the violence to be even mor magnanimous than they have been....

..and what would you deem permissable, Lyndsay, and what would consider unjustified - in terms of a Palestinian response - given that they cannot be considered wrong in whatever their expectations because Israel and the Jews are a priori wrong.

And this is the basis for "negotiations" you genuinely feel can work or, in fact, some conflation of wishful thinking about somehow achieving what these Arabs have always dreamed of i.e the destruction of the Jewish state - or to change mankind in a way never witnessed in the history of the universe?

Well, Lyndsay, I fear that your position stands no chance of acceptance. If its the wishful think position, tread very carefully, is my advice. If it's the latter, I just cannot imagine either side ever inviting you to take your place at the negotiating table.

It really is as simple as this. When reality bites - especially in the Middle east - where even if the Palestinians unite and make peace based on 242 - you would still be left with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria as the main spoilers - your kind of light headed piffle will almst certainly dissolve.... in the blood of the innocent victims on all sides of the conflict.

Seraph

Lindsay states: “You appear to share my unease about theology informing political and military action. It makes me uneasy in Islamic states. It also makes me uneasy in the US when fundamentalists enjoy significant political power in alliance with thuggish nationalists like Cheney. And it makes me uneasy in Israel where fundamentalists have significant political power and a significant presence in the military. However, as I say, my question was prompted by someone here asserting that Israel's rights came from God, which presumably means they trump anyone else's”.

There are many varieties of religious pieties out there. The secular, socialist labor Zionists who played a central role in the founding of the State of Israel were no less religious in their worldview than those who believe that God is on their side. The same, by the way, can be said for the modern-day, secular, multicultural, and liberal universalist “progressive” who is convinced that they are correct in their assessment of the world around them. I think it would behoove them (and pretty much everyone else) to be a tad bit more self-reflective before they assume that they are not the products of deeply held and socially constructed beliefs. In this sense, there really is no unproblematic “view from nowhere.”

In any case, it is an unfortunate truism that someone’s rights are always being trumped. As far as this sliver of Eastern Mediteranean land is concerned, Israel has, by far, the strongest claim and most legitimate rights. Among others, this includes religious, historical, legal, moral, demographic, possessive, and self-determination rights. Most countries in the world are recent constructs that lack even a modicum of these rights.

Since Jordan represents 77% of the original League of Nations Mandate and it’s population is about 70% Palestinian (self-described), the most equitable two-state solution is the one that is the subject of this article. As I mentioned above, this would not necessarily have to be violent solution. All it would take is free and fair elections in Jordan. If the past is a predictor of the future, I have no doubt that the Palestinians in Jordan will vote based on their enlightened self-interest and remove the Hashemites from power. Indeed, the Hashemites are so worried that they might actually do this that, at present, they are systematically stripping the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians living in the country. (Even Human Rights Watch has woken up and taken notice: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/02/01/jordan-stop-withdrawing-nationality-palestinian-origin-citizens)

Dagagen

Now someone needs to update/correct the wikipedia entries to reflect the true definition of Palestine and the Palestinian people.

Harold

Phil,
Malvolio: Besides, you waste the treasure of your time with a foolish knight -
Sir Andrew: That's me, I warrant you.
Malvolio: One Sir Andrew.
Sir Andrew: I knew 'twas I, for many do call me fool.

Twelfth Night

Lindsay

Seraph
July 2nd, 2010 4:06am
What I wanted clarified was this:

"this futile and fatal policy of territory for peace
contradicts the Torah - Israel's
raison d'etre... Israel cannot avoid this conflict as long as she is led by ministers who fail to include the God of Israel in the domain of statecraft... the Jews did not merit this land because of virtue or valor. Rather, it was entrusted to them by God on condition of their living by the
laws of the Torah. Israel must not betray the God of Israel, because to do so is a covenant
with death."

I have no objection at all to Israel or any other state as a secular state, nor as a state where a significant portion of the population has deep religious convictions. I can understand that fundamentalists can be entirely sincere and consistent, but they are by definition unable to compromise, and they are easily carried beyond reason by their convictions. I think this makes them particularly dangerous in control of the state apparatus (or indeed in a position of influence), especially in alliance with extreme nationalists. I think this quite a specific point, not susceptible to your otherwise very sound comments on "progressives".

Similarly, I understand that interests may always be trumped by someone or other - although compromise is possible and sometimes happens. What I queried was the idea that interests should be trumped by a claim that is claimed to come from God and thus indisputable.

"Israel has, by far, the strongest claim and most legitimate rights. Among others, this includes religious, historical, legal, moral, demographic, possessive, and self-determination rights." Most of these are highly contentious, but beside the point. No-one here is questioning the existence of Israel as a state with the same rights and obligations as any other state. I certainly am not. What is being questioned is Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinian Arabs.

The notion that, because Jordan constituted three-quarters of the Mandate territory, and because the bulk of its population think of themselves as Palestinians, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel should be deported there, is absurd. You are saying that the deportations of 1948 should be completed to allow Israel to take over the whole of what used to be the Palestinians home or native land. Why?

Paul T Horgan

...except that the Hashemite rulers of Jordan may disagree. These aren't Palestinians. What would become of them? A few floors in a New York hotel?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote: " I can understand that fundamentalists can be entirely sincere and consistent, but they are by definition unable to compromise, and they are easily carried beyond reason by their convictions"

At last you hit the nail on the head, Lyndsay. I guess this doesn't augur well given the the fundamentalist Islamism with Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah whoever is deported where or not.

There will never be Peace in the Middle east unless there is a change of direction from fundamentalism, Lyndsay - what ever magnanmity - save national suicide - Israel shows the Palestinians.

Call in your ethnologists, do...See how they fare when the bombs keep dropping.

Harold

"I believe Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran want rid of the Israeli regime or state. Their statements are in equal measure obnoxious, absurd and (I think, if I were on the receiving end) terrifying. (It would be no help to know that Hezbollah arose to defend the Shias of South Lebanon from Israel's brutal occupation; and Hamas likewise for the Palestinians). What might help, or at least be worth exploring, is the fact that these are idealogues who have to survive in the real world. Iran is a regional power threatened by the US and Israel. Its actions are to further its survival. Hezbollah and Hamas exist to protect their peoples' interests as well as to further their ideology. If their peoples' interests are met by other means, their leverage is diminished."

It would appear that some don't read what is written to them, which is why, "Lindsay", you should save yourself the trouble here.

Seraph

@ Lindsay. You quote a comment that advocates greater adherence to the Torah in the statemaking practices of Israeli leaders while warning of dire consequences should this advice not be heeded.

I agree that, at its core, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not a religious conflict, but primarily a territorial one. Of course there are elements on both sides who seek to turn this dispute into a religious conflict, since, for the most part God is silent and anyone can claim that they know what God wants them to do. Those who insist on making the conflict religious ensure that it will never be resolved.

Nonetheless, I would point out a few things that you may not have considered:
1. The person who made this comment is lamenting the fact that Israel’s government is NOT basing their statecraft on religious principles.
2. The same cannot be said for the democratically elected Palestinian government.
3. By rejecting all attempts at compromise, normalization and reconciliation, the Palestinians only strengthen these fringe voices on the Israeli side.

I find it really interesting that there is such sensitivity and opposition to military action against Muslims because it “only serves to radicalize” them and acts as a “breeding ground for terrorism” yet no sense that Israelis have been radicalized by the failures of the peace process. Frankly, it does not surprise me that there are many Israelis who are turning to those who tell them that the only solution is to embrace a fundamentalist approach to the conflict i.e. one that includes dramatic eschatologies and the mythologization of enemies.

From my perspective, by choosing to reject all attempts at reason and compromise in favor of staunch rejectionism and terror, the Palestinians have no one to blame but themselves for the increasing cachet of this message. A depressingly similar situation exists in Sri Lanka where Tamil terror and nihilism managed to spawn what is known in the scholarly literature as “Buddhist fundamentalism” among the Sinhalese population.

As for your second point. You state: “The notion that, because Jordan constituted three-quarters of the Mandate territory, and because the bulk of its population think of themselves as Palestinians, the Palestinians in the West Bank and Israel should be deported there, is absurd. You are saying that the deportations of 1948 should be completed to allow Israel to take over the whole of what used to be the Palestinians home or native land. Why?”

I would greatly appreciate it if you showed me where exactly I ever wrote that the Palestinians living in Israel would be forcibly deported.

The only thing I advocated for was free and fair elections in Jordan (quelle horreur!). I have no doubt that the majority Palestinian population will vote themselves into power. Once that happens, I see no reason why Palestinians living in refugee camps would not want to exercise their “right of return” to Jordan/Palestine. Since Jordan comprises two thirds of the original Palestine Mandate, I would argue that this should definitely count as them returning to their native land.

And what of the Palestinians living in Israel and the West Bank, you ask? Let’s try a little thought experiment.

Those living in Israel are citizens and will continue to be citizens. Those in the West Bank and Gaza can choose whether to live under Israeli sovereignty or move to Jordan. As for those who choose to stay, their fate should be determined based on what I would call the “Principle of Parity”.

Recall that, historically, large swathes of present-day Jordan were under Jewish sovereignty for hundreds of years. This fact was recognized under the original League of Nations Mandate, which did not distinguish between the East and West Banks with regard to Jewish settlement. Prior to 1923, several Jewish settlements were established in what is present-day Jordan.

If Jordan/Palestine is willing to recognize a Jewish “right of return” and allows Jews to establish their legitimate property rights in Jordan, then Palestinians west of the Jordan River should have similar rights. Otherwise, doesn't it seem only fair that Palestinian lands on the West Bank should be traded for the confiscated Jewish lands on the East Bank? After all, wasn't this what the British claimed they were doing when they artificially carved out Jordan from the rest of the Mandate? Certainly, this is the only reason the Jewish movements of the time acquiesced to this injustice.

As both you and I know, this scenario will never happen. If there will ever be a Jordan/Palestine it will continue to be Judenrein and the legitimate Jewish rights to those lands will in no way be recognized. If any Jew tried to live in the East Bank they would be forcibly deported if not murdered outright. Why?

phil

Harold
July 2nd, 2010 1:10pm You do not need to wait twelve nights -one will do " a fool is a fool, is a fool" phil 2010-,and your friend lyndsay who promised to withdraw is back again .

Harold

It appears there is broad agreement that the combination of religious idealogues and brutish nationalists is toxic. A proudly "secular" population does not provide an antidote when it is happy to have its way of life and standard of living sustained by the oppression of others (as we in the West should all be aware, not just in Israel). The further question is whether one combination of idealogues and nationalists is more toxic than another in practice. A simple test is which of them have been willing to devastate their neighbours to further their God-given or national interests. A further question is how the clash of idealogues can be neutralised. Surely not by insisting that our idealogues are better than theirs and our God will prevail, but by the unheroic shifts and compromises of civil society and trade that will reduce the hold of idealogues on the general population. And surely not by insisting that their idealogues should surrender to ours before we try to persuade their current consituency that there is a better way to some share of liberty.

phil

harold .I know you like to write,but it is also necessary to think first .you say today "A simple test is which of them have been willing to devastate their neighbours to further their God-given or national interests. A further question is how the clash of idealogues can be neutralised." -Have you considered where we Brits stand on this -you do not have to go back to the Empire either -try the nazis.or the mau mau ,even cyprus ,plenty of food for thought for you there .You may eventually start to consider Ireland too -oh dear have I started something?

Lindsay

Seraph
July 3rd, 2010 5:57am

I think your first two and a half paragraphs very sensible. But the notion that the rejectionists have been the Palestinians I think is not borne out by the historical record. Camp David in 2000 is an example where the official US and Israeli version is contradicted by the negotiators and by a summary prepared for Ehud Olmert when he came to office. But the same applies to any stage in the "peace process" which has been managed by the US and Israel to achieve Israel's ends of scattering and marginalizing the Palestinians and securing for Israel the land and resources it wants to the north and east of the territories it acquired in 1948. I quite understand that many Israelis are "turning to those who tell them that the only solution is to embrace a fundamentalist approach to the conflict i.e. one that includes dramatic eschatologies and the mythologization of enemies." They would be more likely to achieve security if they gave up some of what they have taken, as part of a compromise between the two sides.

I apologize for lumping you in wiht those who want to deport the Palestinians. That was careless. I am sorry.

Free and fair elections in Jordan would be nice! The notion that Palestinians should have a "right of return" to Jordan is curious. It's like telling a Scotsman that because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom he should consider England his native land.

Why is Israel to have sovereignty granted it over the West Bank and why should the Palestinians move to Jordan to facilitate this? Does Israel consider this a compromise, or getting its way at last. I know Israel wants the West Bank not just for its land but, like the Golan Heights, for control of the region's water. But is that a reason why it should get its way?

"historically, large swathes of present-day Jordan were under Jewish sovereignty for hundreds of years." Do you mean in ancient times and if so what bearing does this have on the matter in hand?

I suspect your thought experiment is made improbable not just by the bigotry of Jordanians but by the eery silence whenever the subject is raised of Israel withdrawing from its main settlements in the West Bank. What principle could be applied that allows Palestinian claims in the West Bank but not for example in Galilee?

If any Palestinian tries to live anywhere Israel does not want them to, they are imprisoned, deported, or killed.

You have tried to respond reasonably to my question. But I still do not see how giving Israel sovereignty over the West Bank and telling the inhabitants to go to Jordan can be defended as anything other, in the eyes of the victims, than further expropriation by the settlers. It is clear rejectionism of the sort you say drives Israelis to extreme measures - maybe they should be expected to understand at least something of the Palestinians' point of view.

Augustus

Seraph - You say that (at its core) the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not a religious conflict. Do you honestly believe that the fury of intolerance manifested by the Arabs against the Zionist
settlers and founders of Israel
was not at its core a form of religious madness? That the fruits of patient toil, the real prospects of material prosperity, were flung aside solely because of territorial considerations. Do you really believe that?

Adam B.

Lindsay, you raise some interesting points, but the arguments you raise are really irrelevant.

Here's the situation: if Israel withdraws from Judea and Samaria, there will be a war for sure. Look at the Gaza model, and also Lebanon - Israeli withdrawals and concessions to those who do not genuinely want a real peace results in an increase in violence, not a decrease. It worked with Egypt because Sadat was a genuine partner. King Hussein later turned out to be a genuine partner as well (after decades of war). There is no genuine partner representing the Palestinians, who are themselves divided. The status quo is hardly ideal, but what is the alternative? Israel is stuck with the situation. After all, there was constant war before 1967 and the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria and Gaza - so what has changed in the interim?

My view is that this conflict is not about land, but mentality. If the Arab and wider Islamic worlds really, I mean really, accepted that a Jewish state is here to stay in the Middle East, peace would rapidly follow. Unfortunately, we are a very long way from that happening.

Augustus

Lindsay - If, as was pointed out in the article, Arabs themselves were for decades avid proponents of the 'Jordan is Palestine' position, why are you ready to talk of 'deporting'
people? Surely, that is not what the discussion is about?

It is a false assumption that Jews despise others, and somehow claim a right to pursue a merciless policy in the name of 'self defense', and in so doing have been totally responsible for the
desperate plight of the Palestinians. It is true that the terrifying experience of the
Holocaust prompted the UN in 1947 to vote in favour of the foundation of the Jewish state in Palestine. But what about the other fact that this same resolution created an Arab Palestinian state? Has that fact fallen into oblivion by any chance? And not only that; the majority of Arab Palestinians wanted to accept the two state solution in 1947, because at the time, tens of thousands of Arab Palestinians were in fact working in mostly Jewish-led industries such as citrus farming. It was the Mufti of Jerusalem and other tribal leaders who rejected the
designated Palestinian home, the two-state solution, not the Jews. They not only rejected it without consulting their people, but actually persuaded the leaders of five neighbouring
countries to do the utmost to prevent the establishment of the
designated Jewish state by all means. In my book 'by all means'
leads to war. And the war of 1947/48 was indeed disastrous. But it was just as disastrous as it was avoidable.

Lindsay

Augustus
July 3rd, 2010 6:22pm
The newly arrived immigrants make it clear that they intend to establish their own sovereign state in your native land and that the number of further immigrants is going to be such as to ensure the immigrants a majority, and they have the support of the new imperial power that the natives think has welched on them - and the resistance of the natives to this is "madness"? I think you could expect much the same response from any native population regardless of their religion.

You appear to imagine that the immigrants say, We have been promised this by the one true God - and the natives are to say, By the one true God, really? - oh, well, fair enough, here take my fields - what? you want my house too? fair enough - oh, I'm sorry, you want me to leave? - of course...

Have you ever tried to think this through, or imagine how it looks from the other side? Or is it enough for you that you think the one true God has spoken?

Linda Smith

Lindsay writes: "I have no objection at all to Israel or any other state as a secular state, nor as a state where a significant portion of the population has deep religious convictions. I can understand that fundamentalists can be entirely sincere and consistent, but they are by definition unable to compromise, and they are easily carried beyond reason by their convictions. I think this makes them particularly dangerous in control of the state apparatus (or indeed in a position of influence), especially in alliance with extreme nationalists. ....

What I queried was the idea that interests should be trumped by a claim that is claimed to come from God and thus indisputable."

Evidently Lindsay is unaware that the Palestianians are not seeking to establish a secular state. The Palestinian Authority Basic Law states (and has always stated) that the sole source of its law is religious Islamic Sharia. Ergo the PA, and the state it is striving to establish, is an Islamic theocracy, not a secular state.

grahame bennett

Well done again Melanie Phillips. This is what many have known for years. The so called palestinians are a michmash ( german word) for a mixture of everything. Why don't our politicians see it? I thought that William Hague was very astute. I'm not so sure anymore. He is supposed to have a knowledge of history. If we support the so called free Palestine movement we will let Israel down. Well done Gert Wilders for revealing the truth

Augustus

Lindsay - I'm sorry to say that you have now completely revealed your gullibility, and your transparent readiness to have been duped by the reams of
propaganda unleashed against Israel. As posted earlier (but admittedly before you had a chance to read it), there was no question of there being an exclusive sovereign state imposed by a majority of immigrants on a native people, as in fact there was no wholesale resistance by the indigenees themselves. The Arab Palestinians were offered equally a land of their own by the self-same 1947 UN resolution. A resolution which, had the population been asked to deliberate and vote upon would have accepted. But the conflict arose only because leaders of these people not only rejected the two states, i.e. one for Jews, and one for themselves, they wanted to very violently oppose the birth of the Jewish state, and furthermore, convinced neighbouring nations to help strangle it at birth. That is the history of the matter. Nothing to do with 'take my fields', or 'take my house'. And nobody wanted anybody to leave either. So don't try and pull the wool, it won't wash!

Lindsay

Augustus
July 3rd, 2010 9:12pm
Augustus
July 4th, 2010 12:36am
You flit about from one period to another which makes it difficult to respond.

There are things you say I think have a lot of truth in them. There are some points I will raise objections to.

"Arabs themselves were for decades avid proponents of the 'Jordan is Palestine' position, why are you ready to talk of 'deporting'
people?" It depends who you mean by "Arabs". Those who live in Israel and the occupied territories have no reason to think Jordan their native land rather than their native land. - They'd have to be "persuaded".

"It is a false assumption that Jews despise others, and somehow claim a right to pursue a merciless policy in the name of 'self defense', and in so doing have been totally responsible for the
desperate plight of the Palestinians". - It is certainly true that there has been an honourable tradition of enlightened Zionism from the early days up to the present. It has always been a minority. It has consistently from the early days of immigration deplored the attitude of the majority to the Arabs, characterized by utter disregard or contempt. The contempt has been evident in the actions of the Zionists and of Israel. (It is even evident in this blog.) This is not to say that Israel is wholly responsible for the plight of the Palestinians. The litany of Palestinian folly has been recited many times, especially by Palestinians.

It's difficult to infer the opinions of the population, since, as you say, they were ignored by the leadership on both sides. There's some evidence many of the peasants would've been indifferent who ruled the land so long as they could continue their way of life - even after partition and even after the armistice. There's also a lot of evidence the population had no liking for what looked to them like intruders during the Mandate, and no liking for what looked like a grossly unfair division of their land in the partition, giving one third of the inhabitants over a half of the land. It's not credible to put all the blame on the admittedly blameworthy Paletinian "leaders". I don't agree with all his judgements, but I think Norman Rose in his excellent book on 1948 sums it up well - "A Senseless and Squalid War".

" there was no question of there being an exclusive sovereign state imposed by a majority of immigrants on a native people, as in fact there was no wholesale resistance by the indigenees themselves. The Arab Palestinians were offered equally a land of their own by the self-same 1947 UN resolution." - Recall what I was responding to. You said,"Do you honestly believe that the fury of intolerance manifested by the Arabs against the Zionist
settlers and founders of Israel
was not at its core a form of religious madness" You were talking in the first instance of the early settlers. I think it was pointed out earlier that the Palestinians acquiesced when they were left to till the land and resisted when they were evicted. It is not correct that there was no "wholesale" resistance in the Mandate period. I didn't say the immigrants intended an "exclusive" state but they were very clear that it would be their sovereign state where they would form the majority. I attempted to nudge you into an understanding of how this must look to the existing population. Those among them who were politically aware also knew what the League of Nations purported to be doing in allowing imperial powers to govern Mandate territories (preparing them for self-government) and knew what Great Britain had led the Arabs to believe had been promised them. So the peasants resisted eviction. The townspeople resisted the influx of immigrants (as we know always tends to happen however beneficial immigration can be for the economy). And the political classes resisted what looked like a betrayal and a usurpation. Britain made a complete horlicks of its imperial governance of Palestine. It favoured the Yishuv (despite clumsy efforts to redress the balance), but it let down both sides, I think. The partition was a botched attempt to get out unscathed, as disgraceful in its way as the manner in which India was granted its independence.

To repeat, if you read the records of debate among the Zionists themselves, they were very well aware that what they considered a viable Jewish state would require them to take the property and land of the existing population. This is uncontrovertible.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 3rd, 2010 8:29pm
I think you will find most of the coninuing violence in south Lebanon and in Gaza has come for the Israeli side. You should also note that Israel has yet to give up all the Lebanese land - it pretends the bit it still holds is Syrian so tht it can continue to control the water supply (it is clear it's not going to give it up). And it continues to treat Gaza, which is full of the families of refugees from 1948, as an open prison. Your conclusion about the likely outcome of a peace agreement doesn't follow.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold and Lyndsay are both opponents of fundamentalism, it seems. Great!

They both believe Israel has a right to exist and the fundamentalists should believe so, too(?). Great!

But they also believe that Israel is the cause of fundamentalism so, in fact, the fundamentalists are justified in their fundamentalism as long as Israel is not..ah..ah .."magnanimous"? Mmm..not sure if this is great...

..but, would you believe, precisely how "magnanimous" Israel has to be to eradicate this fundamentalism, is not clarified.

...and whether or not this will guarantee that the fundamentalists stop being fundamentalists is not guaranteed..

..but what IS guaranteed is that there can be no way, according to their position, that the fundamentalists can ever be blamed for remaining fundamentalists..

..and, therefore, all the bloodshed that may result from fundamentalists remaining fundamentalists is, naturally, to be blamed on Israel. Wonderful!

Great recipe for negotiations and a Peace settlement, guys.

Augustus

Lindsay - If I have indeed flitted about a bit from one period to another it was only to mirror as concisely as possible the historical references to which the article relates. In the case of the Zionist movement it is recorded that Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the branch of Zionism which later evolved into today's Likud party, voiced his readiness to: "take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone." Remember, this was written back in 1923. But it was also written at a time when Palestinian Arab leaders had already started to defy the wishes of the Arab indigenous population by launching a campaign of nothing less than fierce opposition to a Jewish revival. When in the 1930s a constitution for Jewish Palestine was being drafted, Jabotinsky, presiding over the draft, incorporated provisions that both Arabs and Jews were to share together the rights and privileges of statehood, including (notably) both military and civil service.

Now Jabotinsky actually represented the more militant faction of the Zionist movement. As it happens, mainstream Zionism took such proposals for granted, and that the future Arab minority in a future Jewish state would enjoy full equality. You refer to Zionist records of debate. Well, my understanding of the many meetings which Zionist spokesmen had with Arabs in the years following the Balfour Declaration was the overriding wish to reach a 'peace and cooperation' agreement with the leaders of the pan-Arab movement
with any influence. And as late as 1947, only weeks before the UN partition resolution, Zionist envoys were still trying to convince the Arab League of the benefits of cooperation and mutual development. So I really cannot see how an agressive or colonial
type motive can be laid at the door of those in the vanguard of
founding a nascent Jewish entity
within the mandate of Palestine.

phil

Augustus
July 4th, 2010 12:36am I am really sorry to see someone for whom I have respect falling for the nonsense of this woman ?who is here as an agent provocateur -she is drawing you into debate on matters that do not require debate -they are patently untruths clothed in the cloaks of invented but asserted facts,and your politeness is being abused .I have never been able to persuade Adam B not to respond as he thinks these people must be answered ,it has never helped him to change a view ,nor will it ,they are not here for that .I do respect his indomitable will,but I wish he would ignore them .JR gives education ,history and logic to those like this person and others, like Richard and Harold, and has sadly wasted his talents on them ,Seraph tries hard too,but I would rather you all put your mind to what happened to Rooney , a task far more important than the thoughts of this Pinocchio .
-------------
She /he is cunning, I will admit, but for instance saying the British favoured the Yishuv shows her for what she /he ?really is ,a vendor of untruths ,so all you are achieving is giving her/him a platform for her/him to propound cynical lies .You will have no doubt noted that this person never has been able to answer any question I have posed ,that alone shows what she /he is really all about ,just here to make trouble and embarrass those who answer her -to pretend to ignore those like me ,answer someone else ,a tactic of the weak and mendacious -I suggest you leave her to her /his wiles, and I wish the Jewish people of the thirties had had that option available in der stuermer.You are feeding a frenzy enjoyed no doubt by those that wish us harm and of course you are never going to change the minds of people like her/him .
----------------
It is sufficient to have confidence in the righteousness of our way of life.,there is no need to try to convince people like this person or any of her followers .The only thing this person needs to know is the strength of the Israeli people and their government ,together with the support of those who believe in the justness of their cause .Mistakes have and will continue to happen ,but I am sure none of us doubt our belief in the path we have led and the necessity to remain firm with those that seek our destruction .

Lindsay

Augustus
July 4th, 2010 6:01pm
I stared blankly after reading your latest. Then I realised - it was you earlier wasn't it who cited Efraim Karsh as the source of your understanding of the history of Zionism. Have I got that right?

You certainly make a good point by citing Jabotinsky as an example of some of the complexities within the Zionist camp. He recognized that despite their "cultural backwardness" the "instinctive patriotism of the Arabs is just as pure as our own" and since they refused to be bought off "with words, gifts and bribery" they could only be "curbed" by superior force. He advocated rapid immigration from Eastern Europe and a rapid military build-up. As "a colonizing venture in a land already with a people" Zionism would "stand or fall on the question of armed forces." The hostility between the immigrants and the existing population was not "a misunderstanding but a natural conflict". Bound to defend their ancestral home, the Arabs would "not accept Zionism until confronted with an iron wall of Jewish bayonets". - Only then would the Zionists be willing to compromise on such practicalities as giving the Arabs assurances on "not pushing them out and on equality of civil and national rights" (within a majority Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan - (what the Arab citizens of Israel experienced after 1948 might give some indication what was intended)).

- The giants of Zionist history tended to be more clear-sighted and honest than their successors.

If you want to learn about the history of Zionism but don't want to stray too far from the fold read Colin Shindler's history. He's an excellent historian and himself a staunch Zionist. Or if you want to go a bit further afield - Arno Meyer, though he is too much an admirer of Magnes at al. - I suspect mainstream Zionists were right in thinking peaceful coexistence and cooperation in a binational state was pie in the sky.

The British in the Mandate helped the Zionists. They allowed a huge increase in numbers. They facilitated a state within a state. They disrupted Palestinian efforts at self-assertion. The US helped Israel in 1947-48. But those in authority amnong the Zionists always knew they would need to rely on force and would need to take land from the Arabs. Any "cooperation" and mutually beneficial "development" would be on these terms only. Ben Gurion has left a trail of quotes at least as varied as Jabotinsky's. But he too was very clear what was required. This is incontrovertible. It could even be argued that the state of Israel would have been impossible without such ruthlessness. In looking to resolve the conflict now, both sides should try to be honest about the past, and not fall back on the myths of the schoolroom.

Adam B.

Lindsay, I disagree.

There is currently no violence in Lebanon, so I don't know what you mean. Could you elucidate? (Hizbollah has now amassed 40,000 rockets, many of which can reach anywhere in Israel). Meanwhile, there have been several attempts to infiltrate Israel from Gaza by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If you regard Israel's right to stop these violent infiltrations as illegitimate, could you explain why? Israel has every reason to partially close its border to Gaza, which is governed by an entity which has declared war on all Jews of the world. Egypt, on the other hand, has no reason. Israel allows thousands of tonnes of supplies into Gaza, and thousands of Palestinians from Gaza receive free medical treatment in Israel, despite the rockets and attempted suicide attacks. Egypt offers precisely zero, yet Hamas fires rockets into Israel, not Egypt. Consequently, it is difficult to understand your blame game of Israel. Is Hamas (and Egypt) responsibele for nothing?

Israel withdrew from every inch of Lebanon, and this was even verified by the anti-Israel UN. Are you seriously suggesting that Hizbollah's grievance with Israel is over the Shebaa farms? Hizbollah is a terror organization which, like Hamas, advocates the extermination of the entire Jewish people. This is clearly not about Shebaa farms, and it is absurd to claim that it is.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: how magnanimous does Israel have to be and will Iran accept it and not spoil the peace which you are so sure will follow?

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 4th, 2010 11:45pm
Israel has violated Lebanese sovereign territory regularly since its withdrawal. The UN has since acknowledged that Lebanon and Syria are correct in saying the land is in Lebanon. I think you should read a detailed log of Israel's activities in Gaza.

Augustus

phil, 4/7, 6.45pm -

Thank you for your comments.

Historical revisionism can often be more dangerous than denial because it feeds the propaganda of the political opportunists.

Hope you have been able to enjoy some of the nice summer weather in the UK.

Kind regards.

Augustus

Lindsay - You cite some quotes from Jabotinsky, but just looking at events which occurred following the San Remo conference of 25 April, 1920 when Great Britain was accorded the Mandate: The same month 46 Jews were massacred in riots in Jerusalem instigated by the Mufti, el Husseini. Between April and September four Jewish villages in Galilee and in the Golan region had to be evacuated because of months of Arab attacks. So, is it any wonder that Jabotinsky and others started the Jewish defence organization, Haganah, in order to combat the Arab agression? By the end of that decade many hundreds of Jews had been massacred in Arab riots and pogroms, topped by the then Grand Mufti's false rumour that the Jews were about to destroy the Al Aqsa mosque.
I am not convinced that the 'self assertion' which you claim was so readily disrupted,
really had any bearing on the Arabs true reason for refusing to coexist with an influx of Jewish settlers coming to Trans-Jordan and the Negev area within the British protectorate.

phil

Augustus
July 5th, 2010 11:47am The weather where I am presently is magnificent ,though not hot enough to make me hot under the collar when I see the lies being put on this site by "our friend" .
It does bother me that anyone feels it is necessary to respond to the lies-the "woman" is on an ego trip and with every polite reply she receives ,tells another lie -she has been unable to respond to my questions as you will have seen because they are too much to the point and she cannot find anything clever to say ,meanwhile in a well known but childish ploy she immediately writes some more nonsense to another poster
-------------
-My friend Adam thinks he can "reform "this supreme example of mendaciousness , but he has never managed one yet and this one is too encamped in the "Militant Arab" camp to use a brain .I have Arab friends who would despise what she is doing,its just a way way of ensuring the peace process will never achieve anything -keep the two sides arguing and nothing will progress -how sad a person she is .

Lindsay

Augustus
July 5th, 2010 12:19pm
It seems you haven't taken in what Jabotinsky said. He said he recognized the Arab nationalism as being as pure as his own. He said there was a natural conflict between the immigrants and the Arabs. He said the Arabs' natural hostility could only be overcome by force. He said only then would the immigrants give any thought to the Arabs' rights. Your subsequent comment does not deal with any of this.

You must try to be consistent - one minute you're saying there was no widespread opposition and the locals accepted the immigration, the next you're saying there was widespread opposition but it had nothing to do with land or way of life but mad religious bigotry.

As I said Jobotinsky was way more honest and clear-sighted.

I see you are not too careful about whose support you accept. In your little love-in you say something curious - "Historical revisionism can often be more dangerous than denial because it feeds the propaganda of the political opportunists." If the revisionism asserts what is not the case or if it draws conclusions that are not supported by the facts then it is simply bad history. If it is not bad history then what are you proposing to do about the truths you think "dangerous"?

If you start at the beginning of this thread and read through it you'll find you never defend what you say but shift your ground. You seem to think this allows you to keep your beliefs or prejudices while avoiding addressing any criticism of them.

John.

Were the "Palestinians to be returned to their homeland, a great many would return to Syria, Egypt and Libya - not Jordan.

phil

Augustus ,it didn't take long for her to fulfil my prophesy,straight back with a reply to someone else ,laughable is not in it -Sorry it brought you more insults and of course untruths ,but she has to show she is unfazed ,which of course she is -She writes what we would find "offen yam" but I do wish she would complete the first part of the phrase , a subject in which she is unrivalled . Perhaps we could guide her in the direction of ilan pappe and the abominable norman finklestein, a bonus for us would be resurrection of the three stooges .,albeit one in drag .I suppose to some extent she is a cause for amusement but I would rather see her in the heats of Britain,s got talent ,There at least we would have the benefit of a fish hook .
----------------
Have a laugh Adam ,you take her too seriously ,she is not going to change our world and she obviously is quite disturbed .Meanwhile I cannot sit by the pool all day ,so she does serve a purpose . Watch this space she will be back momentarily,but I think she is losing customers :)

Lindsay

Augustus
July 5th, 2010 12:19pm

"the Arabs true reason for refusing to coexist with an influx of Jewish settlers"

On reflection, the most obvious question of all ought to be, Why on earth you think the people who lived there, alone of everyone in the world, should have cheerfully accepted an influx of immigrants, especially an influx who told them in as many words that they intended to set up their own state there, in which the natives may, or may not, be permitted to remain. Why should they peacably accept this?

Linda Smith

Lindsay, the revisionist "historian" writes "Bound to defend their ancestral home, the Arabs would 'not accept Zionism until confronted with an iron wall of Jewish bayonets."

Israel is the Jews ancestral and spiritual home. Despite expulsions and cruel subjugation under Romans, Christians and Moslems conquerors, the Jews have clung tenaciously to their ancestral home for thousands of years, so that there has been an unbroken Jewish presence on the land. The Jews living in the Holy Land were cruelly oppressed by their Islamic masters during the Ottoman era, even more heavily than the Jews living in other parts of the Ottoman Empire.

Lindsay's revisionist "history" denies the entire foundation of historical evidence that at root the Arab/Israeli conflict is the conflict between Islam and Judaism, the refusal to allow Jews to live as equals with Moslems, and the refusal to allow Jews sovereignty over land previously conquered in jihad.

Lindsay truly is a fraud.

Augustus

Linda - It is not the 'truths' which I think dangerous, but the 'untruths' which have been manufactured by radical Islamic groups for many decades in an interminable and spiteful process of isolating the state of Israel in the eyes of the world, and whose only dream was to remove it from the face of the earth from the moment of it
conception. This is the context
in which Jews have had to struggle; a context of hatred, intolerance, and religious warfare. This misery is never going to be healed by weak appeasement towards such hatred.
Those are definitely conclusions supported by the facts.

Harold

I was reminded of a few lines by Dryden:

he/
Who stands confirmed in full stupidity./
The rest to some faint meaning make pretence,/
But Shadwell never deviates into sense./
Some beams of wit on other souls may fall,/
Strike through and make a lucid interval;/
But Shadwell's genuine night admits no ray;/
His rising fogs prevail upon the day.

Augustus

Sorry, my last post should be addressed to Lindsay.

Linda - Totally agree.

phil - LOL!

Lindsay

Augustus
July 5th, 2010 5:24pm
"It is not the 'truths' which I think dangerous, but the 'untruths' which have been manufactured by radical Islamic groups for many decades in an interminable and spiteful process..." Since nothing so far put to you on this thread has come from "radical Islamist groups" your latest attempt to evade a serious examination of the historical record fails, as have all your previous evasions - or I suppose I should face up to the fact that it has succeeded as have all your previous efforts in that you have so far avoided engaging with anything said to you.

You might like to tell your fan club - not Shadwell but the other member of your fan club that the revisionist ""historian""
who wrote "'Bound to defend their ancestral home', the Arabs would 'not accept Zionism until confronted with an iron wall of Jewish bayonets" was Jabotinsky. As you so elegantly put it, LOL.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "

I was reminded of a few lines by Dryden:

I was reminded of Dryden's other poem:

"Matilda told such Dreadful Lies,
It made one Gasp and Stretch one's Eyes;
Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth,
Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth,
Attempted to Believe matilda:
The effort very nearly killed her,
And would have done so, had not She
Discovered this Infirmity.
For once, towards the Close of Day,
Matilda, growing tired of play,
And finding she was left alone,
Went tiptoe to the Telephone
And summoned the Immediate Aid
Of London's Noble Fire-Brigade.
Within an hour the Gallant Band
Were pouring in on every hand,
From Putney, Hackney Downs, and Bow.
With Courage high and Hearts a-glow,
They galloped, roaring through the Town,
'Matilda's House is Burning Down!'
Inspired by British Cheers and Loud
Proceeding from the Frenzied Crowd,
They ran their ladders through a score
Of windows on the Ball Room Floor;
And took Peculiar Pains to Souse
The Pictures up and down the House,
Until Matilda's Aunt succeeded
In showing them they were not needed;
And even then she had to pay
To get the Men to go away!

It happened that a few Weeks later
Her Aunt was off to the Theatre
To see that Interesting Play
The Second Mrs. Tanqueray.
She had refused to take her Niece
To hear this Entertaining Piece:
A Deprivation Just and Wise
To Punish her for Telling Lies.
That Night a Fire did break out--
You should have heard Matilda Shout!
You should have heard her Scream and Bawl,
And throw the window up and call
To People passing in the Street--
(The rapidly increasing Heat
Encouraging her to obtain
Their confidence) -- but all in vain!
For every time she shouted 'Fire!'
They only answered 'Little Liar!'
And therefore when her Aunt returned,
Matilda, and the House, were Burned."

Oh, harold, you are a one!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote: "I suppose I should face up to the fact that it has succeeded as have all your previous efforts in that you have so far avoided engaging with anything said to you."

Mmm, well, we know that feeling!

Shameless, Lydsay! Answer all the questions put to you about how you think peace ought to be achieved. None of the provocative generalisations. get down to a little detail. prove you feel ann alternative war is possible in the real world...that you wan something that makes sense in the current situation.

All you have come up with so far is that Israel should be "magnanimous". This seems a radical departure - in terms of academic rigour - from you myriad posts on Zionist history.

I wonder why...

Augustus

Lindsay - And for your part, you will not admit, grudgingly or otherwise, that there was no Jewish 'design' to displace the Palestinian Arabs. Neither would you admit that the emergence of 'Hamastan' which the Islamists can, and have, used as a launching pad against Israel, has been a disastrous consequence of the Gaza pullout.

Your historiography suppresses any Arab voices, nay numerous Arab voices, that supported Zionism, or at least came to terms with it, and the cultural and material gap between the East and West which it lessened.
Linda Smith is right, the refusal to allow Jews sovereignty over land previously conquered, and consequently to live as equals is at the heart of the matter, and it is indeed fraudulent to pretend otherwise. As Melanie correctly says, the history of the region and the causes of the conflict in the ME have been misrepresented by the West. The murderous impasse of which she speaks is not the fault of the Jews or Zionism. You may not be anti-Semitic, but as far Israel is concerned, for all the scorn and contempt you display towards its creation, you are not one of its convincing critics.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lynday wrote: "You appear to share my unease about theology informing political and military action. It makes me uneasy in Islamic states."

Wow. It makes, dear Lyndsay "uneasy in Islamic states". Imagine that. I guess Lyndsay might think that in "Islamic states" anything but theology informs political and military action!

Lyndsay implies that fundamentalism is perhaps only an occasional phenomenon in Islamic states?

And are we not talking pretty much all the states surrounding Israel, most of whom call for its destruction?

And this phenomenon in the Middle East she equates with US Christian fundamentalism?...What, in terms of the extent to which it inform US political and miltiary action - as consistently and pervasively as in the Arab and Islamic states of the Middle East???

But the Islamic fundamentalism which causes our princess of the intellectually and morally exacting such"unease" is all Israel' fault too????

Lyndsay, Lyndsay, this is conduct unbecoming of such a scrupulous scholar as you, surely???

Adam B.

Lindsay, that is a lie. Please give details for your accusation. And if you recall, it was Hizbollah who crossed unprovoked into Israel in 2006, killed 8 soldiers and abducted a further two (alive). These two soldiers were then murdered whilst in captivity and their bodies swapped for Hizbollah prisoners (who were returned alive). Before Israel had even responded to the attack, Hizbollah unleashed barrages of rockets against civilian population centres in northern Israel. So please spare me your revisionist nonsense.

Other than that, you ignore the rest of the points I put to you. Do you honestly believe that Hizbollah has armed itself with 40,000 rockets because of the Shebaa farms? Do they advocate the extermination of every Jew on earth because of the Shebaa farms? What planet are you on?

You show yourself as not being interested in genuine dialogue, but rather the fashionable game of blame Israel, whatever the facts.

And I notice you let the antisemitic racist terror group Hamas off the hook as well. They must be blameless victims too.

Adam B.

Lindsay, how do you explain the increase in violence as a result of Israeli withdrawals from both Gaza and Lebanon?
Is this a proven recipe (withdrawals) for peace?

Is it Israel's fault again?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote:"In looking to resolve the conflict now, both sides should try to be honest about the past, and not fall back on the myths of the schoolroom."

Now, is this encouraging, or what?
There are myths in the schoolroom?
On BOTH sides??? Is this the Lindsay that we feared lost to us forever??

Now what myths in the schoolroom might they be, Lyndsay, amongst the Arabs and those Islamic states you feel uneasy about because theology might inform their political and military action?

Israel is not uniquely at fault, after all????

Where does this lead us, dear Lyndsay? Don't abandon us, now! Don't just leave us with these tantalising tit bits!!!!

I can smell a messenger of peace here, folks - even handed; flexible; realistic...

phil

Harold
July 5th, 2010 5:43pm -you all right harold ?not having a turn are you ?

phil

Hey Harold your songs are better than your normal efforts -on all my travels to football grounds the best song I heard ,I think I will share with you -it was at Oldham Athletic and sung in a great northern accent -you are going to love it ---"meat pies ,sausage rolls ,come on Oldham ,give us a goal"-I can just hear you and Lyndsay singing it -oops sorry the fishhook got you. .Just for you a true story of a goal with Zola,s hand "scored" for Chelsea at Boundary Park in an FA cup match ,subsequently disallowed by the ref but only after he had been floored by a meat pie -fan arrested of course but even the police were unable to make a charge of using a deadly weapon -well this at least is more interesting than the c--p we are getting from your pal lyndsay ,who could have been the arresting officer ,sounds her sort of sense does it not?
--------------
Sorry Augustus I just cannot take these two seriously and from the recent posts it seems noone else can either . btw I told lyndsay ages ago that she did not know her history ,she ignored it of course ,,I think it makes her feel more ,important but she cannot even remember the battles fought by the Israelites .King David ,the temple ,who lived there ,who ruled there, He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his capital, defeated the Philistines , and gained control of many bordering kingdoms-oh need I go on ? -What a ridiculous woman ! why she continues to post these untruths when it is obvious we all see her as stupid is beyond me ,but maybe banging her head against a brick, wall is her "thing "---if it is ,I wish her many more happy hours enjoying her pastime .

Seraph

I hope everyone had a happy Fourth of July weekend. It is gratifying to see that there are more than a few people here who have dedicated themselves to combating ignorance and that I was in no way missed.

@ Lindsay – You may want to be more careful; your animus is showing.

It is said that a belief is acceptance without the support of evidence or facts and ideology is the embodiment of beliefs in abstract ideas which can lead to pathological extremes. What typifies religious belief is not only that it does not desire evidence, but that it is not swayed by evidence, but rather readjusts or simply ignores when faced with facts. It is for this reason that I find it so humorous that someone who is purportedly so concerned by religious fanaticism is so dogmatic and ideological in their views. Even worse, you are so steeped in a rigid ideological worldview that, when it comes to Israel, you cannot help but see “evil” wherever you look.

Indeed, it is not surprising that you simply assumed that I wanted to deport the Palestinians. After all, isn’t that what Israel and its supporters have always wanted to do? You state so yourself on numerous occasions. Yet, on the ground, the numbers of Palestinians continues to grow year in year out and their standard of living (even in Gaza) is better than their brethren in Lebanon or Egypt. Pray tell, doesn’t Israel have the military might to carry out the Darfur option? Rather than the deportation and annihilation of Palestinians, Israel has to contend with thousands of Darfuris who are literally dying to get into Israel. Considering the way Palestinians have acted, what has always been shocking to me is not how Israelis have treated Palestinians, but that Israelis have not treated them much worse (or at least as bad as they are treated by their Arab brother). In short, Jabotinsky would likely be shocked that, given the constant provocations, the Jewish bayonets remained unsheathed.

Another example of how you project your dogmatic prism is your laughable (and reductionist) argument that all of this is really about controlling the water supply. After all, if this were true than why didn’t Israel hold onto the Litani River in Lebanon at all costs? Why has it claimed a right to the waters of the Euphrates? Why would it even be willing to discuss giving up Judea and Samaria. Instead, it has sought to buy water from Turkey and embarked on a large-scale water desalination program designed to grant it water independence.

The list could go on and on, but I think that at the core lies your question: “On reflection, the most obvious question of all ought to be, Why on earth you think the people who lived there, alone of everyone in the world, should have cheerfully accepted an influx of immigrants…”

Herein lies the crux. The answer to this question of yours also answers your repeated question regarding why events of “ancient times” should have any bearing on the matter at hand.

My question to you is – Do you deny that the Jewish people are an indigenous people of that land?

I personally think that only someone who denies this indisputable fact could even ask such an obtuse question or use the word “immigrant” to refer to those who should rightly be called “natives.” I also believe that it is only once you wrap your head around that and accept that the Jewish people, no less than any other people, have the “right to self-determination” in their own/ancestral land, will you be able to get past your dogmatic and ideological worldview.

I could Fisk probably 90% of what you have written, but I await your response to my question before I will waste my time doing so.

Seraph

On second thought, I will make one Fisking exception. You state that:
"The notion that Palestinians should have a "right of return" to Jordan is curious. It's like telling a Scotsman that because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom he should consider England his native land."

Your analogy is false and would only work if I said that a Palestinian should have the "right of return" to Turkey since the province was part of the Ottoman Empire. Since all of the Mandate was one political entity, I am saying that those "Scots" who chose to leave during the war are internally displaced people and should be allowed to live in the 77% of "Scotland" that is now being controlled by an imported and artificial monarchy.

Lindsay

John Roosevelt,
We have discussed this before. You feel no need to address questions posed to you, but drench your opponents in sarcasm and vituperation if you think they fail to address yours. Why would anyone continue to engage with your efforts on those terms?

Lindsay

Augustus,
And so you shift your ground yet again.

phil

Lindsay
July 6th, 2010 10:44am
"
"""John Roosevelt,
We have discussed this before. You feel no need to address questions posed to you, but drench your opponents in sarcasm and vituperation if you think they fail to address yours. Why would anyone continue to engage with your efforts on those terms?" """
----
May I point out before JR gets home :)--hopefully you will not engage on any terms ,unless of course you wish to continue your career as an appalling joke writer or as a double for Pinocchio .Try reading the history of Israel up to the time of the temple ,you may actually find who lived in that land ,later who was forced out and now who inhabits once again the land of ERETZ YISROEL ,that should keep you busy for some time -long enough for us to forget you at least .No response required my dear I understand your problem.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: in your book, every time you want to evade answering anything you claim you have answered everything. Like Harold and Richard, if that fails, you answer a question with yet another question - to do with something the questioner was never engaged with you in you discussing anyway.

You never answered the following post of mine nor any subsequent ones. Let's start with this one, shall we?

"
JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 1st, 2010 10:27pm

Lyndsay wrote: "But what I'm saying is that there are two populations of more or less teh same size size (more Palestinians) effectively in one piece of land and it's in the victor's interest to reach some sort of accommodation (which is inevitably going to be hugely in the victor's favour)."

Well there's a piece of wisdom for you, but how does it square with your plea that the victor ought to be magnanimous?

Don't you think it in the interest of the vanquished, and those you surely feel are the unjustly downtrodden by war and pestilence, to elect some leaders who want to make peace - based on International Law, at least? Even your doppelgangers - Harold and Richard - want us to believe they want nothing more (liars of course, but are you, too?)?

"You talk as if Israel hasn't made consistent efforts usually very violent to oust the population from the territory it wants - which surely gives that population the right to resist."

Except that, even if true(and many would argue to the contrary), you talk as if Israel and the Jews, having been attacked ad nauseam even when they were unequivocally obeying International Law, were unjustified in doing anything they deemed fit to save themeselves and fortify their future. You talk as if the Arab and moslem mayhem has been inocently reactive only.

"The point surely is to halt the violence between two sides that both feel they've justification."

Indeed. Welcome to the Peace Movement, dear.

"Israel has from its inception been very clear about its military superiority and ability to take on all comers (in the circumstances an obvious and justified precaution)."

Boll&8cks.Start from November 1947. Think. Gather. Focus. Read..and then try and write.

"The only time the military planners got a real fright was in 1973 and even then Sadat was well aware before he attacked that the only realistic purpose could be to improve his position in negotiations. To say that Israel has been under attack is no argument for intransigence.

Your final para is an example of "asymmetry". Israel can insist on getting all the concessions it requires before it'll negotiate. - The Palestinians must cease their resistance and accept all Israel's demands before Israel will consider whether to give them anything - but once the Palestinians have surrendered, why bother to give them anything?

I see you're loudly indignant and, as I said, vituperative when you think a critic of Israel hasn't answered every point you think you've made, yet you allow yourself a much more cavalier attitude.

Anyway, I accept I've had all the answers I can expect."

I am very confused by the logic of you argument, Lyndsay.

It seems, for you, the Arabs and moslems - forever justified in their belief that "their" land was being stolen, from 1922 onwards have merely been justifiably reacting to Jewish and then Israeli transgressions against them.

Thus, it was a mistake , but understandable, that the Mufti rejected the Palestine Constitution in 1922, in which moslems would have held the majority vote and thus likely have precluded any further Jewish "transgressions" against them, let alone the "stealing" of arab land or the institution of a state.

It was a mistake, but justified, that the Arabs rejected the offer of a state for Palestine in 1947.

It was a mistake, but justified, that the Arab Legion then attacked Jews who had no legal right to bear arms - in contrast to the states which the Legion comprised which also were backed militarily by Britain.

No doubt you think it would have been a mistake, but justified, if the Arabs had defeated the Jews and pushed them all into the sea. No doubt it would have served them damned Jews right!

In the event, the Arabs didn't succeed in their decades old quest of exterminating every last Jew, despite trying again and again and again...

And, God help us all, wicked Israel got pissed and did what it deemed right for its future security. Perhaps awful. Perhaps to be judged by God as deeds to warrant eternal fire and damnation. Nevertheless, you have to be some dingbat to be surprised; and really a huge dingbat to think that a state will listen to demands that it treats its attackers with the magnanimity you prescribe - as wonderful as it may be.

Furthermore, no doubt it was a mistake, but justified, that Arafat rejected Barak's proposal - based on 242 - in '2000.

...A mistake but justified, that Abbas did the same with Olmert's offer...

A mistake, but justified. Israel can do no right..but it is the victor and oh so strong..so the schoolyard bully and it is not magnanimous enough, to be sure..

But can it ever be, in your book, Lyndsay, given its a priori guilt (according to you)?!!

Now, those who have waged this ceaseless violence you think are justified in expecting the objects of the violence to be even more magnanimous, now, than they have been....

..and what would you deem permissable, Lyndsay, and what would consider unjustified - in terms of a Palestinian response - given that they cannot be considered wrong in whatever their expectations because Israel and the Jews are a priori wrong.

And this is the basis for "negotiations" you genuinely feel can work or, in fact, some conflation of wishful thinking about somehow achieving what these Arabs have always dreamed of i.e the destruction of the Jewish state - or to change mankind in a way never witnessed in the history of the universe?

Well, Lyndsay, I fear that your position stands no chance of acceptance. If it's the wishful think position, tread very carefully, is my advice. If it's the latter, I just cannot imagine either side ever inviting you to take your place at the negotiating table.

It really is as simple as this. When reality bites - especially in the Middle East - where even if the Palestinians unite and make peace based on 242 - you would still be left with Hezbollah, Iran and Syria as the main spoilers - your kind of light headed piffle will almost certainly dissolve.... in the blood of the innocent victims on all sides of the conflict."

You see. Lyndsay, you think the Palestinian leadership should continue the fight. In return for the death of its people, Israel should be magnanimous, you say.

In other words, Lydsay, a historian of such perspicaciousness and scrupulus research such as you, now abandons the example of the entire history of war, and pretends that israel should be the exception to the golden rule and NOT expect those it is at war with to lay down arms before peace negotiations can begin. Is this what we should call the Jesus schollo of revisonism?

..and why should this Jesus approach not apply to the Arabs and Moslems..? Ooopps, I forgot! THEY'RE NOT CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Look Lyndsay, let me cut to the chase:

I couldn't give a toss whether or not a Jew was displaced in 1934 or and Arab house stolen in march 1926 by some marauding imperialistic, colonising Zionist shit.

What I care about is how to achieve peace.

You have a legitimate state with 6 million people.

Likely, this state has nukes.

This state perceives itself to be under siege (whether you, Harold or Dryden does or not) not only by those whose cause you support - ie. the Arabs in Palestine - but also Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and all those moslems and Arabs who believe in pan Arabism or the divine destiny of moslems in the region to restore the caliphate.

I dont want to attempt to prove that Ahmedinejad, to name but one, deserves to be elected to the Chair of HRC or deserves a place with the 72 vestels ahead of Bibi.

You propose NOTHING with regard realistically to achieving peace.

You only vilify but one one actor in this dismal dance of death, as if this is a valuable contribution of some sort.

If you want to count - morally and politically - focus on peace now and in the future, Lyndsay. Stop your obsessive faux academic jousting and point scoring with those who will never agree with your sources nor your interpretation of them, anyway.

Don't resort to quoting Dryden or quoting Shakespeare - as if Hamas would empathise with such extraordinary sophistication; or, indeed, as if an Ahmedinejad understands anything but how to design sewers and construct a fast track to the apocalypse. Just get down and dirty and focus on precisely what you think Israel could do which would change the situation - realistically - and not have Iran and its proxies spoil the chances to end the bloodshed that such "magnanimity" would generated.

Just a hint of what does NOT constitute a degree of realism: I dont think predicating your proposal on a state giving in to all its adversary's demands whilst it continues to launch rockets and plan for the greater war of annihilation - however justified - is going to get to first base in the peace stakes. Only a noggin would believe that possible.

Adam B.

Any answers Lindsay?

Thought not.

Augustus

Lindsay - I'm not 'shifting ground', but, like Geert Wilders, I do look around European cities from time to time, and what I see are bearded menfolk and veiled women, even the odd burqa and niqab. These Muslims make use of their rights to enjoy their freedoms, without, of course, taking the feelings of their hosts into consideration. Nothing is respected or accepted
for what it is: The language, the customs, the law, the reasoning. Europeans are even called unbelievers in their own countries, and can't even defend themselves because they aren't used to violence and agressive behaviour. Something these immigrants with their multitude of verses are very capable of. The bearded menfolk stare themselves silly at the European womenfolk and see them as whores. But those womenfolk are good enough when a Muslim needs papers. And when his goal is met, he throws the poor woman out so that a 'believer' can be brought in from his own country with whom he can have children which will be educated in an Islamic school. And if you ever have a chat with one one these immigrants you get to
hear a terrible hatred for Israel, a hatred which is spread in the mosque and in the family circles. Is it any wonder that Europeans, even children, are so hateful towards Israel and America? One wonders what the future holds for everyone if Israel capitulates.

Lindsay

Seraph
July 6th, 2010 7:06am
It would appear it's necessary to repeat what I've said before, as have others. - This isn't about the country Israel or Israeli people. It's quite specific. It's about the behaviour of the state of Israel towards Palestinians. (Britain's behaviour has been quite shameful in many respects over the last several centuries - doesn't mean I hate my country or countrymen.)

On deporting them East, you're absolutely right to upbraid me. But what you say is puzzling in light of the long debate on "transfer" both before and after 1948. I'll assume you're familiar with the history. But surely also you know the favoured solution of many in Israel's ruling elite is indeed to dump them all across the border.

"Considering the way the Palestinians have acted, what has been shocking to me is...that Israelis have not treted them worse." The only excuse for this is ignorance of how Israel has treated Palestinians - but is there any excuse for that?

I can't find where I said that it's really all about water. Are you saying it's not about water at all?

I'd be interested what else is on your list that goes on and on.

Have there been Jews in the Holy Land these last several thousand years? I've always been taught so. How many were expelled by the Romans and the Arabs? I don't know. Do you? How many of the Palestinians are descendants of those who remained? I don't know. Do you? How many of the Jews in Europe and Africa were descendants of inhabitants of the Holy Land and how many of converts? I don't know. Do you? etc. etc. What has this to do with Britain allowing immigrants to plan their own state in a land with a native population (a population born there)? I don't know. It seems to be taken as axiomatic and self-evident. It isn't. It needs explained.

You talk of self-determination. I never understood why this was not to be granted the population of Palestine. It is in many ways more complicated than that of course. For example, Zionism had the support of only a minority of Jews for many decades. So just when were the Jews to "self-determine"? Between 1881 and 1939, 3.3m Jews emigrated from Europe. 2.6m went to the US. 0.4m went to Palestine - most of them after the US restricted immigration. Even AFTER the Holocaust, the Western Powers pursued utterly disgraceful immigration policies against Jews (and against their own self-interest). Whenever Jews were given a choice, even in the squalid camps the Allies, to their shame, left them in, they chose the US. If truly given self-determination, would the Jews (any time between 1880 and 1948, and later) have chosen Palestine? If truly given self-determination, would the Palestinians have chosen anywhere else? - Of course this is all hypothetical and history was what it was - but the point is why should Jewish rights trump Palestinian?

I haven't come across the verb "to Fisk". I appear to have confused you with my analogy from the UK. You have certainly confused me with your response. I'm not sure you're familiar with the constituent parts and their history.

Adam B.

Lindsay wrote:

"Whenever Jews were given a choice, even in the squalid camps the Allies, to their shame, left them in, they chose the US."

Absolute drivel. And offensive as well.

Seraph

Lindsay, your rambling post manages to avoid answering the simple question that I asked:

Do you deny that the Jewish people are an indigenous people of that land?

Until you answer that, we will just be dealing with your many evasions and going around in circles.

As for the water argument, you stated: "I know Israel wants the West Bank not just for its land but, like the Golan Heights, for control of the region's water." (July 3rd, 2010 3:56pm)

Really? How do you "know" this? All I was saying is that your "knowing" is just a belief masquerading as fact. This is pretty much the definition of dogma. It is religious because your worldview demands for there to be some ulterior motive to all of Israel's actions. It is borderline anti-Semitic because it is based on Christian tropes of Jews as thiefs. Indeed, all that is lacking to make your animus complete is for you to tell us how the Jews are secretly poisoning the self-same wells that they covet.

phil

Oh dear she is back ,confused as usual ,which is a statement made in so many of her diatribes -now she does not understand whether a person is Jewish or not ,did we convert ? what from ?, this woman is getting attention by shifting from one subject to another ,never answering legitimate questions posed to her and yet still you all answer her -she even has the gall to "assume Seraph knows the history " when she has shown time and again that she does not what cheek !-astounding !!----
----------------
-She even claims she does not know what fisking is ,that alone shows her ignorance of this subject ,one which she regularly quotes the words of Pappe ,Shlaim and the nutter finklestein .In case she remains confused I will tell her I am A Jew ,my forbears chased from Israel and finished in Lithuania ,mostly massacred by the nazis ,none converted and none shall ever run away again ,so let that sink in lyndsay ,you can bore the pants of my friends here ,twist them which way you like ,you will finish up despised and rejected as you well deserve to be
--------------
.
-------------
I am sure if I say green is blue nobody will respond,so why do you all grace her with a reply when she writes nonsense -do you not think she has been given this task by a Palestinian agency ? ,farfetched ?,I don't think so ,even Harold has retired to songwriting ,this one remains undeterred and why ?because you all reply to her -most pests get fed up and go when ignored ,just give her a chance and she will be back at the guardian within a week .Just try it .

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 6th, 2010 2:23pm
Three attempts and counting, but what appears and what doesn't is a bit random. - You give me no incentive to try again.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay, falafel got your tongue? Lost your sense of humous?..or is just a case of Graucho's old line: "These are my princilpes, and if you dont like 'em, well I've got others!"

I have news for you: Israel has "self determined" and it ain't going to "unselfdetermine" itself.

Now, meditate on that fact for a while, and then get your books out again.

Adam B.

Lindsay, I don't care about your incentive. I do care about exposing offensive lies, like the last I highlighted.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 5th, 2010 11:25pm
One hint for homework: look at the chronology of IAF airstrikes on civilians and Hizballah launching rockets.

Lindsay

Adam B.
July 6th, 2010 4:37pm
"Lindsay wrote:

"Whenever Jews were given a choice, even in the squalid camps the Allies, to their shame, left them in, they chose the US."

Absolute drivel. And offensive as well."
- Sorry. More homework. "In the Shadow of the Holocaust" by Yosef Grodzinsky

Lindsay

Augustus
July 6th, 2010 3:27pm
"Lindsay - I'm not 'shifting ground', but..." ?? What??...? Please read your contributions in order from the top. Not shifting your ground? ?? What?...?

Lindsay

Seraph
July 6th, 2010 5:24pm
The quality of bits of your previous contributions had led me to hope for some clarification from you. Ah, well.

I suspect you think this "Are they indigenous or not?" is a killer question - either I say Yes and everything Israel has done is legitimate, or I say No and you can squeal Anti-semite and no further rational discussion is required. Are the French indigenous to France, Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, the steppes of Asia...? I'm Scottish, but am I indigenous to Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Central Europe...? Are we all when it comes down to it indigenous to some part of Africa? None of this has any bearing on who is allowed to impose their preferred political arrangements on whom.

One thing I had hoped for clarification on is this mysterious 19th century form of nationalism that lives on in Zionism - who counts as the "Folk" and what is the mystic bond with the "Land" or "Soil" - some particular stretch of real estate - that allows people who have lived elsewhere for centuries to take precedence over people who have lived on that particular piece of real estate for centuries. This is a very odd political principle which would, I suggest, cause havoc if generally applied.

Your attempt to make something out of me "knowing" Israel is after the aquifers is, I'm sorry, pathetic. You know as well as I do that Israel is after the aquifers. Their importance has been evident to the Zionists throughout the history of the movement - and is even more pressing to a government tasked with actually supplying water to its citizens.

The rest is drivel. Who would have thought you would stoop to this: "It is religious because your worldview demands for there to be some ulterior motive to all of Israel's actions. It is borderline anti-Semitic because it is based on Christian tropes of Jews as thiefs. Indeed, all that is lacking to make your animus complete is for you to tell us how the Jews are secretly poisoning the self-same wells that they covet". - Oh, for goodness sake! I would tell you to grow up, but I suspect this drivel is deliberate. Shouting "anti-semite" scares off anyone who might dispute your claims.

The search goes on for someone here who can make the case for Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians.

Adam B.

Lindsay, the IDF does not target civilians, Hizbollah does. So there is no chronology of the type you suggest. Nice attempt at manipulation though.

Hizbollah wishes to commit genocide against the Jews. You defend Hizbollah and blame Israel. What does that say about you?

Furthermore, the suggestion that Jews did not wish to go to their homeland is garbage - and I know a Holocaust survivor who indeed had such a choice (she had two children murdered and survived in a forest). It is extremely opffensive that you do her thinking for her.

She chose Israel.

Adam B.

Lindsay, I assume you are referring to this statement by Grodzinski:

"A demographic survey I conducted indicates that while almost all Jewish DPs said they wished to go to Palestine, only 40% actually moved to the Jewish state, with the rest dispersing to all parts of the West. Of these, about 120,000 went to the United States, once it opened its gates to DP immigration in late 1948."

Two things:
1. Have you had these figures verified elsewhere?
2. Assuming that these figures are correct, (and that's a big "if"), is it really surprising that those who had just survived the horrors of the Holocaust would hesitate to yet again enter an uncertain future in the nascent state of Israel at that time? Israel was about to be attacked by several Arab armies, whose express intention was to "drive the Jews into the sea." That you use the concerns of these survivors against them, with the huge assumption that they didn't really want to go to Israel anyway, displays not only a poverty of comprehension and intellect, but a devious agenda.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: "The search goes on for someone here who can make the case for Israel's behaviour towards the Palestinians."

Wow, now, there's a "killer " statement, if ever I heard one. If someone makes a case for Israel, it implies what you surely think i.e that there is a case to answer. If not, Israel is guilty as charged..

You are tap dancer of note, aren't you Lyndsay?

There is no "case" for Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians to be made and certainly not one to answer. Israel is not answerable to you or anyone else.

If you are curious as to why its foreign policy is as it is, keep reading, observing, posting. If you think it illegal, keep complaining to the UN and screaming about International Law.

In the meantime, put a case forward for the Palestinian behavior which amounts to something more than the crassly obvious i.e they feel hard done by; or that it's sense of nationhood takes precedence of that of the Jews.

You are ignoring my challenges to you, Lydnsay. Are to assume thereby, that you take the 5th?

phil

It looks like the charmer has come to the end of the fight now ,like a boxer about to be stopped a few desperate flails -only one difference though the defeated boxer is usually admired for his valour ,this loser will leave the ring despised ,and why? because of the deceit and manipulation of facts ,facts that are mere propaganda -

It is obvious to me that this woman is a stooge for either Hamas or some other militant group ,she does not care for either us or the unfortunate Palestinians who would like to make peace ,in fact just another saddo consumed with hate .Adam believes he should answer every lie ,I hope the rest of you have seen how futile any discussion is with this poor excuse for a debater .

At this time of the night ,there only remains her desperate attempts to get you all to continue this nonsense -let her sink into the oblivion that is blades ,carl ,si,n et al,pointless people .

Seraph

@ Lindsay I guess the time has come to fisk you.

Lindsay states: “I suspect you think this "Are they indigenous or not?" is a killer question”

Seraph fisks: It is actually a simple question and one that goes to the root of the problem. The fact that you refuse to answer it and continue to evade makes it very clear where you stand on this issue. As long as you deny Jews the same things that you demand for the Palestinians – i.e. self-determination in their homeland, then there really is no reason to debate you. In addition to being dogmatic and an ideologue you have now shown yourself to be a hypocrite.

Lindsay avers: “either I say Yes and everything Israel has done is legitimate, or I say No and you can squeal Anti-semite and no further rational discussion is required.”

Seraph fisks: I find it funny that you think you can get away with mendacious drivel such as “This isn't about the country Israel or Israeli people” when you malign the country and its people with outright lies and are trafficking in tropes that are clearly drawn from the dungeon of European anti-Semitism.

Lindsay obfuscates: “Are the French indigenous to France, Scandinavia, Germany, Italy, the steppes of Asia...? I'm Scottish, but am I indigenous to Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, Central Europe...? Are we all when it comes down to it indigenous to some part of Africa? None of this has any bearing on who is allowed to impose their preferred political arrangements on whom.”

Seraph fisks: What tosh! Of course it has bearing. You are welcome to check the Italian citizenship rules. Under Italian law, Italian citizenship is granted by birth through the paternal line (with no limit on the number of generations). Under Irish law, you can claim citizenship if one of your grandparents was Irish, regardless of where you were born. This is no different than the Law of Return in Israel. You may want to check out this wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return to see how common this type of law is around the world.

I would add:
1. Your criteria for being a “native” (i.e. being born in the land) is not one that Palestinians would likely embrace. As I noted earlier in these comments, you only have to have physically been in the Mandate from 1946-48 (regardless of where you were born) to claim Palestinian refugee status.
2. You repeatedly elide the fact that there never was a Palestinian state and the League of Nations created the Mandate with the express purpose of the establishment of a Jewish state. This is international law and it is in recognition of the fact that this is the ancestral Jewish home which was never abandoned or forsaken by the Jewish people.
3. Whether or not every Jew lives in Israel or not has no bearing on anything. Not all Irish people live in Ireland nor do all Lithuanians live in Lithuania. This does not deny them the right to return to Ireland or Lithuania if they can show a connection to those lands.
4. Can we please get a clear date from you when the Palestinian claim to the land will expire? At least that way we will know how much longer we need to hold the line.

Lindsay maligns: “One thing I had hoped for clarification on is this mysterious 19th century form of nationalism that lives on in Zionism - who counts as the "Folk" and what is the mystic bond with the "Land" or "Soil" - some particular stretch of real estate - that allows people who have lived elsewhere for centuries to take precedence over people who have lived on that particular piece of real estate for centuries. This is a very odd political principle which would, I suggest, cause havoc if generally applied.”

Seraph fisks:
1. The fact that it is not generally applied shows how rare the Jewish connection to the land really is. We have never abandoned our claim to it. Few nations have suffered as long and as much as the Jewish people, yet we never gave up hope and actively strived to return to our land.
2. If you have issues with nationalism, that is your problem and your pathology. Just because you want to live in some post-nationalist multicultural utopia does not mean that you have to force these values on others. (BTW Enjoy! As Augustus pointed out, this will be short-lived.)
3. It is precisely your anti-nationalist stance that will lead to havoc if generally applied.
4. If there is any group that bases its nationalism on “Blut und Boden”, it is the Palestinians. Just listen to their anthem (“With the longing in my blood for my land”) Apparently some nationalisms are OK by you.

Lindsay projects: “Your attempt to make something out of me "knowing" Israel is after the aquifers is, I'm sorry, pathetic. You know as well as I do that Israel is after the aquifers. Their importance has been evident to the Zionists throughout the history of the movement - and is even more pressing to a government tasked with actually supplying water to its citizens.”

Actually I gave you a pretty clear example of Israel giving over a major water source for the sake of peace. The Litani River was abandoned not once, but twice! In the meantime, it is the Palestinians whose overall percentage of water usage has increased steadily since the 1950s and Palestinians who receive over 40 MCM of water from Israel on a yearly basis.

Besides, I really don’t find your Malthusian arguments very convincing. Considering how scarce water supposedly is, it is surprising that the much ballyhooed water wars have not materialized. In general, I would appreciate it if you kept your dogma to yourself and did not tell me what I know. The facts speak for themselves and I don’t need you to interpret them for me.

Lindsay protests: “Oh, for goodness sake! I would tell you to grow up, but I suspect this drivel is deliberate. Shouting "anti-semite" scares off anyone who might dispute your claims.

Seraph fisks: Since you are likely getting paid to sit and blog your drivel, I doubt that this will scare you off. Besides, if you actually read what I wrote, you might discover that I never called you an anti-Semite. In the same way that “This isn't about the country Israel or Israeli people,” this isn’t about “you.”

I would add that I don’t think that there is anything threatening about saying what seems pretty obvious to me, i.e. that “your water argument is borderline anti-Semitic because it is based on Christian tropes of Jews as thieves.” This is hardly “yelling” and I will not give you the pleasure of dictating my words or the prerogative to place the term “anti-Semitism” out of bounds. As a Jew, I not only have the right to use it, but as Justice Stewart once said about pornography, “I know it when I see it.” Frankly speaking, the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Harold

"Before Israel had even responded to the attack, Hizbollah unleashed barrages of rockets against civilian population centres in northern Israel"

"look at the chronology of IAF airstrikes on civilians and Hizballah launching rockets."

"the IDF does not target civilians, Hizbollah does. So there is no chronology of the type you suggest."

Thus faith in dogma defeats reason.

The cluster bombs were specifically targetted at terrorists, you understand.

Lindsay

Seraph
July 7th, 2010 3:34am

...That was it, was it?

So, what does the verb "to fisk" mean?

You say I'm an "anti-semite" and so you won't debate with me. At least you have been true to your word. But oh dearie me...

Adam B.

Another flaw in your thinking, Lindsay, is that you focus solely on Ashkenazi Jews. What about the 900,000 Jews from Arab countries who had lived under dhimmi status apartheid as second class citizens who chose Israel as their salvation?

However, your post about European Jews and their motives remains offensive.

Adam B.

Harold, this may surprise you, but there is such a thing as truth. It's not simply perspectives on "truth".

phil

Seraph
July 7th, 2010 3:34am -Much as I obviously prefer that we do not respond to this militant agent ,who as you say is probably being paid ,I must applaud your last missive which appears to have her gobsmacked -she has been well fisked .
-----------------
I have to say I do find her amusing and inventive as are most of her persuasion ,but despicable at the same time ,in fact ,most confusing to use one of her oft used phrases .The ref has the count up to 8 and even her corner is thinking of throwing in the towel ,but like those that send out the suicide bombers they never feel the pain .
---------------
I don't think you need be in any way embarrassed by assuming she is just an anti -Semite ,with all the garbage we have seen over the years from the likes of blades ,carl,patricia et al , nothing has ever seemed so plain to me .I do of course listen carefully to criticism of Israel from those who I consider fair minded ,but from an anti-Semite never ,as I have said all along ,what,s the point ?
---------------
btw you did not remind her of the fact that the grand mufti spent the war in Berlin with hitler and that the UN would have been well aware when coming to their decision of which side the Arabs supported in the second world war,and hence how they should be treated regarding the issue of land .

phil

Harold
July 7th, 2010 9:59am don´t be silly now ,send us a song,you are far better at that , and I hope you enjoyed mine.

Augustus

Phil - Re. the defeated boxer:
Shall we give her a consolation prize?

Harold

Adam B has raised an intriguing point: " there is such a thing as truth. It's not simply perspectives on "truth"." Could there be "perspectives on truth" of there were no "truth"?
But it need not concern us now. We have enough of an understanding of truth for everyday purposes. Israel "never targets civilians". It does kill them in their thousands - true. Hizballah warned Israel that if it killed civilians Hizballah would retaliate - true. Israel killed civilians - true. Israel also dropped millions of cluster bombs on the eve of what it knew to be a ceasefire - true (not "targetting" civilians, of course).

"Before Israel had even responded to the attack, Hizbollah unleashed barrages of rockets against civilian population centres in northern Israel" - false.

See. The everyday concepts work quite well.

phil

Augustus
July 7th, 2010 12:08pm absolutely Augustus -how about the slop bucket ?:)-and a tube of arnica for the bruises if we are feeling generous .

phil

Harold
July 7th, 2010 1:17pm -harold you can still get free treatment on NHS for this problem of yours -its similar to that for dislexia.
----------
Where is the song ?,is this it?- "perspectives on truth"and sung by the" hamas peace choir " with an arrangement by blades and conducted by lyndsay ,introduced by carl and written by you .I can arrange for you to perform at the MANN AUDITORIUM in Tel Aviv and as a prelude we will accept rocket fire. Kidnapping any of the audience strictly forbidden ,and suicide bombers need not apply .,LYNDSAY MUST WEAR A HOOD OF COURSE, THERE WILL BE CHILDREN PRESENT -Can we be fairer.?

Adam B.

Harold you are wrong. The missiles were fired first, right after the abduction of two soldiers and the killing of another eight.

Your defence of Hizbollah is akin to defending the Nazis. Shameful.

By the way, the UK has killed far more civilians than Israel.

Adam B.

Lindsay seems unable to answer the points put to him/her/it.

phil

Adam B.
July 7th, 2010 6:39pm -she may be on holiday in TEHRAN gathering information .Or wiping the bloody nose she has received here ,on holiday with Si,n ? Writing songs with harold ? The mind boggles at what this mistress could be up to .

Harold

Adam B.
July 7th, 2010 6:37pm

"Before Israel had even responded to the attack, Hizbollah unleashed barrages of rockets against civilian population centres in northern Israel."

"The missiles were fired first, right after the abduction of two soldiers and the killing of another eight."

You are confusing two different things: first, what the IDF called a "diversionary attack" i.e. part of the original ambush, and, secondly, the retaliation for the Israeli airstrikes which killed civilians.

Ironically, many of Hizbalah's indiscriminate rockets landed near or on Israili military targets (which happen to be built in population centres; while Israel's precision targetting demolished mainly civilian infrastructer and civilians (which was of course consistent with the avowed aim of setting Lebanon back decades).

Your second paragraph is well down to your usual standards.

Over the last twenty years, Britain has certainly been complicit in the death of far more innocents than Israel. I don't think this cause to praise Israel.

Adam B.

Harold, it's amazing. You have no interest in the truth at all.

The missiles were fired at Israeli population centres (which do NOT have military infrastructure in the middle of them - clearly, you have never been to northern Israel, nor the Israeli towns and villages which were hit, or you couldn't write such an ignorant statement). These were fired BEFORE ANY airstrikes, whose purpose was to stop the missiles. Hizbollah fired the missiles from inside civilian housing, and even schools. Several "incidents" were completely invented by the Hizbollah propaganda machine. It is clear that Hizbollah started the conflict - but you refuse to condemn them for this or their disgusting tactics.

Look at the Israeli casualty figures as a result of rocket fire - almost all civilians. Hizbollah celebrated these deaths - did you see Israelis celebrating the deaths of civilians? No you didn't Harold. That itself shows you the different mentalities involved.

Defending Hizbollah is akin to defending the Nazis - both movements are genocidal antisemitic movements, committed to the extremination of every Jew on earth - the difference being that Hizbollah is quite open about it, unlike the Nazis. Your position is shameful.

And the UK, as you admit, has been killing more civilians than Israel several times over - and in circumstances which are far less threatening than those Israel faces. Do you think the British armed forces are war criminals? I don't see you frothing at the mouth in the way you do about Israel.

Answer me this - how many civilians have been killed by British military action in Iraq and Afghanistan? Put a number on it - you have such figures ready when you launch your rants against Israel - so let's hear it Harold.

Sheer, selective hypocrisy.

Adam B.

Heres a classic from Harold:

"Could there be "perspectives on truth" of there were no "truth"?"

In which circumstances is there an absence of truth Harold?

Harold

Adam B.
July 8th, 2010 12:45pm
You told me, as if imparting information, that as well as "perspectives on truth" there was "truth". I pointed out that there couldn't be perspectives on truth if there were no truth. So, contrary to what you thought yourself to be doing, you imparted no information.

Adam B.
July 8th, 2010 12:33pm

I believe the chronology is in the public domain. It is clear Hizballah started the conflict. You might be able to confirm for me that the Israeli airstrikes started the same day as Hizballah's ambush.

Military sites? Weapons factories, army bases, airfields, communications towers...and the planning centre for the invasion of Lebanon in a bunker under Mount Miron. All attracted rockets from Hizballah.

Do I think Britain's participation in the attacks on Iraq a war crime? Yes. It was complicit in more deaths of innocents during the sanctions era. I do more about this than about Israel's crimes, but with equal futility.

Harold

Adam B.
July 8th, 2010 12:33pm

Israel bombed Lebanon the same day and launched a limited ground incursion (presumably in hot pursuit). The next day Israel bombed airports, roads, bridges, factories, power stations and oil refineries. Civilians were killed and injured. Hizballah retaliated by firing limited numbers of rockets at areas near the border including Kiryat Shmona and Nahariya. It was only four days later it fired on Haifa killing eight railway workers, by which time over 100 Lebanese civilians were dead.

Hizballah initiated the conflict with an ambush of the sort both sides had engaged in for years (none the less reprehensible and reckless). Why Israel did not respond in the usual and expected manner, but with a full scale assault on the Lebanon is a question still to be answered.

Harold

I am a bit confused by how some things appear and others do not. So this is out of synch.

Seraph, I think, confused the matter under discussion, namely what is an "indigenous" population, by introducing the question of citizenship. I think Lindsay also confused matters. She tried to illustrate that ancient origins are beside the point, which is correct. But should she not just have stuck with what "indigenous" means, namely "native". She was talking specifically about the period before and after the imposition of the Mandate, at which time there was no doubt about who constituted the native population. I should say that she also made clear that this has no bearing on recognition of Israel now, although it does have a bearing on Israel recognizing the strength of Palestinian claims. Such recognition might contribute towards compromise.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "I pointed out that there couldn't be perspectives on truth if there were no truth. So, contrary to what you thought yourself to be doing, you imparted no information."

What a clever clogs you are, Harold!

..but rest assured, your grasp of the arcane laws of Logic does not stretch to politics or Ethics.

It reminds me of how the nazis applied their science...

Nicht goodt, Harold!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "But should she not just have stuck with what "indigenous" means, namely "native". She was talking specifically about the period before and after the imposition of the Mandate, at which time there was no doubt about who constituted the native population. I should say that she also made clear that this has no bearing on recognition of Israel now, although it does have a bearing on Israel recognizing the strength of Palestinian claims. Such recognition might contribute towards compromise."

What "compromise"? Both you and Lyndsay - like the Palestinian leadership since '67, not to mention the other major spoilers in this quagmire of a conflict, flip flop over what this means.

You talk of International Law, but assume it is cut and dried. You flip flop over whether or not UN Res 242 should be the basis/guideline for that 'compromise" you allude - as, apparently, does the so-called "international community" - but, anyway, we know that Hamas, Iran, Fatah, Hezbollah and Syria all use 242 as the basis for doing nothing more than pushing their ultimate agenda of destroying Israel - something you, actually( the killing that would be entailed aside), also want - with all your bs discussion re "native", "indigenous" erogenous", "monogamous" etc merely a smoke screen for what is, in fact, your continuous fudging of the questions re what compromise is realsitic and doable.

Stop the crapola, Harold. Your agenda is nothing short of what Arafat's was, not to mention Daoud's and all the rest of the "freedom fighter" jetsom: get rid of the Israelis and Jews whatever happens. No amount of your intellectualisation alters that. Your "compromise" means little but the coaxing or constraining of Israel - with the help of the Obama's and the Lib/Left todying to islamic communities/voters in the West - to weaken itself any way possible. What you dont want and would horrify the moslem players ould be really stuck,I have mentioned is if Israel said: Ok: peace based on 242 and the Quartet said to all of you: what are you waiting for???!!!

Your compromise, therefore, is not far removed for the anal orientation of your compulsive obsessiveness predilection for Logic

Bivalence, countervalence...zzzz. As I have told you before, You're just a charlatan, posing as some lover of freedom and justice.

John.

It would be useful to know exactly what proportion of the so-called "Palestians" is recently descended from immigrants from, (mainly), Libya, Egypt and Syria. Surely this has some bearing on the discussions being conducted in these columns? When the Greeks were expelled from Alexandria - a city founded and built by them nearly 2,300 years previously - by the Muslim Egyptians, whither did they go? Back to Greece of course. If the Greeks still considered their homeland to be Greece after a lapse of millenia, would it not be true to say that the "Palestinians" would be equally likely to consider the a/m countries as their true homelands? Neither Israel nor Jordan. But where can one obtain the facts about the origin of these people?

Harold

It has been said that the ruling classes in Israel have given up on Greater Israel and now accept that they may have to leave some territory to the Palestinians. I do not know if this is so. Those who contribute here are always very careful not to say anything about it. If it is so, presumably they mean something like what Barak attempted. Or what Lieberman calls for. I am pretty sure it will be called something dishonest like a peace settlement "based on 242". What they mean by that can be seen in the maps of what Barak offered at Camp David, which left the Palestinians with roughly 14% of Palestine circa 1947. Of course, at Taba etc. the two sides got closer to a credible deal, but Barak felt he had to pull out because an election was imminent and he therefore did not have the authority. There has been nothing like it since, although I believe a similarly lame-duck Olmert made a grandly pointless gesture in that direction. And still Israel is busy busy building away. Why? To ensure the facts on the ground restrict the territory ultimately alloted to the Palestinians to a handful of isolated cantons or ghettoes, which, as Barak said contemptuously, they can call a state if they want. Of course, before Israel can be expected to contemplate finally announcing how much territory the ghettoes will comprise, Hamas, Hezballah, Iran and all other genocidal organizations will have to promise not just to negotiate on 242 but to stop trying to destroy the state of Israel. But, of course, even if they make such a promise, who can believe them? So how can Israel be expected to reach a deal? And still Israel is busy busy building facts on the ground. And anyone who suggests compromise is putting lives at risk and wants Israel to cease to exist (?). Those who contribute here never spell out this bind that allows Israel to carry on its piecemeal annexation while blaming the other side. They just know that an alliance of Western liberals and Hamas jihadis can bring Israel to extinction. No argument is countenanced. No appeal to reason. And while Israel builds, Palestinians live in abject poverty, and are killed by Israel at a rate of a thousand a year (but any compromise would put lives at risk).

Adam B.

That shows how closely you read Harold - I said no such thing. I said that there is ONLY truth, not perspectives on it. So your post remains incoherent.

Hizbollal launched missiles BEFORE Israeli airstrikes, even if it was the same day. Nice use of language though to avoid saying it.

And the examples of Israeli military targets - yes, those are militay, targets, which are NOT in the middle of civilian towns. So your attempt to portray Hizbollah as merely targeting military targets falls flat on its face. You try to manipulate language, to little success.

Yes Harold, civilians were killed. Perhpas if Hizbollah hadn't launched a war, they would be alive today.

Your portrayal of Hizbollah as a fair minded group only interested in military targets and only responding to Israeli actions is laughable. Why don't you address its racism, its antisemitism and genocidal goals? Its rejoicing at civilian deaths? Its death cult? Its religious fanaticism?

Doesn't quite fit your narrative, does it?

Harold

Adam B.

I meant to ask you where you got this from: "Hizbollah fired the missiles from inside civilian housing, and even schools."? The jihadis at HRW, UNIFIL...and the US Army found otherwise.

phil

Adam and JR do you really care what harold thinks .,if so why ? he is just given the chance to write more rubbish here ,and have you noticed how the little lady has disappeared with a bloody nose ,and harold the songwriter has reappeared?coincidence -I think not .LET HIM THINK WHATEVER HE WANTS -it is what he does that I care about ,so if he wants to don battle dress so be it ,the IDF will look after ISRAEL and harold can look after himself and his partner .Otherwise let him shut the ----up ,
----------
You are just feeding him and although I admire your tenacity and loyalty I am getting tired of telling you -it seems to me that you take more notice of them than of me,even though by now you must have realised we are dealing with crazies.Your intelligence is wasted and they are dragging you into their territory ,that of mendacity .I have a strong feeling that they have been sent here by militants to have a platform that they should not have ,and that your well meaning replies do us all a disservice .There is no chance that any of them will ever agree with you ,and as I have said why should you care .
---------------------
Adam just for you if you do not reply to them they cannot keep telling lies and noone will read them .

Harold

Adam B.
July 8th, 2010 4:52pm

" I said no such thing. I said that there is ONLY truth, not perspectives on it."

Um. What you said was:

"Adam B.
July 7th, 2010 11:00am
Harold, this may surprise you, but there is such a thing as truth. It's not simply perspectives on "truth"."

Anyway, as others have noticed, this is neither here nor there. I have to confess I am not sure what comment of mine prompted yours. And - "In which circumstances is there an absence of truth Harold?" - your "understanding" of what I said is arsy-versy.

"Hizbollal launched missiles BEFORE Israeli airstrikes, even if it was the same day. Nice use of language though to avoid saying it." On the assumption that you simply overlooked what was written to you: The IDF said Hizballah fired some missiles as a diversionary tactic during the ambush. The IAF then pounded the Lebanon, its infrastructure and its people. "You are confusing two different things: first, what the IDF called a "diversionary attack" i.e. part of the original ambush, and, secondly, the retaliation for the Israeli airstrikes which killed civilians." To spell it out for you: Hezballah started hostilities with its ambush; as part of that ambush it fired rockets as a diversion from the ambush. None of this is in dispute. Nor is the warning from Hezballah that if Israel killed Lebanese civilians it would retaliate (for the further absence of doubt, the threat to kill civilians and the actual killing of civilians by both sides was criminal).

"And the examples of Israeli military targets - yes, those are militay, targets, which are NOT in the middle of civilian towns. So your attempt to portray Hizbollah as merely targeting military targets falls flat on its face." Again you should be more careful. First you will find that many military installations are indeed in or beside population centres. Secondly, what I said was "Ironically, many of Hizbalah's indiscriminate rockets landed near or on Israeli military targets (which happen to be built in population centres); while Israel's precision targetting demolished mainly civilian infrastructure and civilians".

"Yes Harold, civilians were killed. Perhpas if Hizbollah hadn't launched a war, they would be alive today." Now there's a thing! Hezballah did not launch a war, but a border ambush. Go back to the laws of war if you wish for clarification.

"Your portrayal of Hizbollah as a fair minded group only interested in military targets and only responding to Israeli actions is laughable." Again, "Ironically, many of Hizbalah's indiscriminate rockets landed near or on Israeli military targets (which happen to be built in population centres); while Israel's precision targetting demolished mainly civilian infrastructure and civilians" Try not to embellish.

As a further irony, when the US belatedly arranged a 48-hour cessation of IAF airstrikes, the IAf failed to observe it, while Hezballah did, despite not being party to the agreement.

Why did Israel respond to the familiar border tit-for-tat with a full-scale assault on the infrastructure and people of Lebanon? Hezballah's firing of erratic rockets at population I think unequivocally criminal. What would you say of Israel's seeding of South Lebanon with over a million cluster bombs just before a ceasefire?

Augustus

phil - I don't know why Adam B. doesn't listen to you. Harold is a complete fraud, and is displaying unbelievable naivite in siding with Hezbollah. In the four years since this Lebanese proxy organization fought the Second Lebanon War against Israel, it has stockpiled 40,000 short, medium,
and long-range missiles, supplied by Iran and Syria, and has deployed an estimated 20,000
armed insurgents south of the Litani river. It uses the same strategy as Hamas in Gaza, and stores the weapons in residential neighbourhoods so that, in the event of war, the IDF will be accused of targeting civilans. Shame on anyone in the West who stands up for them!

phil

Augustus
July 8th, 2010 7:03pm -Adam has always believed that one has to answer these people and much as I respect his loyalty I do not concur-He is giving an opportunity for them to argue even more ,tell more untruths and I am really frustrated that I cannot persuade Adam to stop.

Adam B.

Phil and Augustus, you are right. Talking to Harold is like talking to a brick wall. He simply cannot absorb anything which causes cognitive dissonance with his sick view of the world. I know that. I know he is beyong a reasonable conversation. After all, how can one debate with someone who supports an antisemitic terror group which celebrates the deaths of civilians, and has stated on record that its goal is to exterminate the Jews? I know it would never change his so-called mind.

My view is that lies need to be countered, especially in a public forum such as this. However, I agree that I am now simply feeding him. I also note that as this is on the third page of Melanie's blog, no-one is reading it other than ourselves. Consequently, I'm going to leave him to stew in his bile and hatred.

I didn't even bother reading the latest from him/her/it.

I'm always touched by Phil's concern - but Phil, you should know, that I actually enjoy annoying Israel bashers. I get quite a kick from it! And believe me, I only fit his in here or there in a very busy day.

phil

Adam B.
July 8th, 2010 11:20pm -well said :)

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "Of course, before Israel can be expected to contemplate finally announcing how much territory the ghettoes will comprise, Hamas, Hezballah, Iran and all other genocidal organizations will have to promise not just to negotiate on 242 but to stop trying to destroy the state of Israel. But, of course, even if they make such a promise, who can believe them? So how can Israel be expected to reach a deal? And still Israel is busy busy building facts on the ground. And anyone who suggests compromise is putting lives at risk and wants Israel to cease to exist (?). Those who contribute here never spell out this bind that allows Israel to carry on its piecemeal annexation while blaming the other side. They just know that an alliance of Western liberals and Hamas jihadis can bring Israel to extinction. No argument is countenanced. No appeal to reason. And while Israel builds, Palestinians live in abject poverty, and are killed by Israel at a rate of a thousand a year (but any compromise would put lives at risk)."

Don't be a mendacious twit, Harold. When you are asked : WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "COMPROMISE", you respond the questioner doesn't agree with compromise. Blimey. Get some medication!

Negotiations are just that - negotiations. The international guideline for a peaceful settlement is Res 242. If the Arabs don't like what Israel puts on the table, based on 242, they can reject it.

If the arabs and moslems don't recognise Israel's right to exist and the principle of a full and final settlement based on 242, then forget negotiations..which is, of course, what they want to do, anyway.

So, yes, a bind indeed. Forget peace, Harold..It ain't for the faint hearted.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "Why did Israel respond to the familiar border tit-for-tat with a full-scale assault on the infrastructure and people of Lebanon? Hezballah's firing of erratic rockets at population I think unequivocally criminal. What would you say of Israel's seeding of South Lebanon with over a million cluster bombs just before a ceasefire?"

Moral of the story: DONT FIRE ERRATIC ROCKETS AT ISRAEL!

You lot aint half stupid. The best way not to get killed is to stop your killing. Really pretty simple..but, no, you want "magnanimity!

Another planet..I swear...

JOHN ROOSEVELT

"Hezbollah has some 40,000 short-, medium- and long-range missiles, and a force of 20,000 guerrilla fighters based throughout southern Lebanon.

Many of the arms caches are stored in private homes, which in the event of war could turn into IDF military targets. Unlike the Second Lebanon War - in which most of the fighting between Israeli soldiers and Hezbollah militants took place in thickly forested rural areas - the past four years have seen the organization concentrate most of its fighting capacity in built-up areas.

In Beirut, one Hezbollah official told reporters he would not comment on the information provided by the IDF before seeing it himself.

Hezbollah's operation has been limited considerably by the presence of UNIFIL troops deployed in southern Lebanon. In recent days, however, residents of southern Shi'ite villages sympathetic to Hezbollah have blocked the UN monitors from entering their communities.

Virtually every Shi'ite village in southern Lebanon functions as a kind of military post, including control centers, underground supply tunnels and storage of arms caches.

Most villages host cells of between 30 and 200 Hezbollah fighters trained in field operations and rocket launching. IDF planners believe that in the event of war, Hezbollah will fire between 600 and 800 rockets a day at Israel.

Yesterday the military revealed intelligence on one southern Lebanon village, Khiam, 20 kilometers from the northern Israeli city of Kiryat Shmona. The village of 23,000 is said to include at least 10 weapons storage sites - some of them just dozens of meters from schools or hospitals - and upon the outbreak of war would likely provide a haven for at least 90 Hezbollah fighters.

Col. Ronen Marley of Brigade 300, stationed on the Lebanese border, said yesterday, "Hezbollah is hunkering down in the villages. They're gathering significant quantities of intelligence on our forces. Every day it is busy digging tunnels and building up communication infrastructure to prepare itself for war."

Over the last few months, farmers working land close to the border have reported more sightings of Hezbollah fighters perched at reconnaissance towers overlooking Israel.

Many of them, the farmers said, were accompanied by individuals speaking Iran's dominant language, Farsi. Hezbollah is believed to be operating in conjunction with hundreds of Iranian advisers, led by Hossein Mahdavi - the head of the Lebanon Corps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard - stationed in Beirut.

Iranian officers have largely filled positions once handled by Imad Mughniyeh, the senior Hezbollah militant assassinated in Damascus two years ago in a strike the group has attributed to Israel.

Syrian-supplied rockets
Hezbollah has received over 40,000 rockets from Iran and Syria over the past four years, three quarters of which possess strike ranges of between 20 and 50 kilometers.

The group has several thousand Syrian-made rockets with calibers of between 220 and 302 millimeters, able to hit targets up to 150 kilometers away.

Another Syrian-supplied projectile, the M-600, is produced jointly by Iran and North Korea and is capable of hitting targets up to 300 kilometers away with accuracy of within 250 meters. The latter group of rockets would represent a considerable threat to communities in central Israel.

Over the last few months Syria has also delivered Hezbollah a number of SCUD missiles capable of hitting almost any target in Israel.

Commando units
While Hezbollah has invested most of its resources into bolstering its rocket-firing capacity, it has also trained disciplined commando units for more sophisticated attacks within Israel.

Still, high-ranking IDF Northern Command officers said yesterday that despite Hezbollah's growing military strength, the group remains uninterested in sparking a war with Israel - at least for now.

The last four years have been the quietest on Israel's northern border since the founding of the state: the only rocket attacks waged were the work of Palestinian terror cells affiliated with international jihadist groups, and their damage to Israeli life and property was minimal.

Northern Command officers said Hezbollah is wary of the immense damage another confrontation with Israel would wreak upon southern Lebanon, which would also harm its political status in the country and lead to international pressure on the group to disarm.

Still, one top officer said that should Israel launch a strike on an Iranian nuclear facility, Hezbollah could be expected to respond with a forceful barrage of rockets that would shatter the quiet now prevailing in the north."

Noah, Lyndsay: no doubt this is all false..or, if true, all for the sake of taking "back" the Shebaa Farms...but, you have to be some noggin to think that if it is true and war does break out,alot of civilians will die.

...but that wont stop your good fight, right? No doubt from your armchairs...

Seraph

@ Harold, who states: “Seraph, I think, confused the matter under discussion, namely what is an "indigenous" population, by introducing the question of citizenship.”

Seraph fisks: Actually, if you reread the entries you will find that it was Lindsay who confused citizenship with indigeneity. All I did was respond to that. In any case, I suggest you do some homework and at least read the wiki on “indigenous people” before you share your ignorance with this group. As it clearly states in the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples):

“…a contemporary working definition of "indigenous people" for certain purposes has criteria which would seek to include cultural groups (and their continuity or association with a given region, or parts of a region, and who formerly or currently inhabit the region) either:

** before or its subsequent colonisation or annexation; or
** alongside other cultural groups during the formation and/or reign of a colony or nation-state; or
** independently or largely isolated from the influence of the claimed governance by a nation-state,

and who furthermore:

** have maintained at least in part their distinct cultural, social/organisational, and/or linguistic characteristics, and in doing so remain differentiated in some degree from the surrounding populations and dominant culture of the nation-state.
To the above, a criterion is usually added to also include:

** peoples who are self-identified as indigenous, and/or those recognized as such by other groups.”

Not surprisingly, this section on the criteria for indigeneity concludes with the following sentence:

“Groups such as the Greenlandic Norse, the Basque people, Albanians in former Yugoslavia, Maronite Christians in Lebanon or the Jewish presence in Israel would all meet the criteria of indigenous people.”

Obviously, the ancestral connection is one of many proofs of Jewish indigeneity. Since Jews ARE the only extant indigenous people from ancient times, they ipso facto cannot be considered “settlers” or “colonists.”

Of course I do find it interesting that the word Palestinian (Plishtim) comes from the same Semitic root as Falasha. Both mean “outsider” or “invader.” This is hardly what one would call the moniker of an indigenous group.

Seraph

Actually, Harold, you really should consider reading Wikipedia more often. It includes a timeline of the 2006 war which corroborates what Adam B. has been saying all along (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Military_Operations_in_the_2006_Lebanon_War). At around the time that Hizballah infiltrated across the border to kidnap Israeli soldiers, there were TWO artillery barrages on Israel. The first was in the area of fighting (in Zarit/Even Menahem) and the second was in Shlomi, which is located some 12 miles distant.

The cross border attack was causus belli, but the indiscriminate rocket attack on the village of Shlomi is a war crime that certainly deserved swift and forceful retribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zar%27it-Shtula_incident).

phil

JR and Seraph ,is there any point in addressing you,if you just ignore me?,can you not see that harold and lyndsay are probably the same people or at least from the same source-you must by now be aware that they do not care what you say PLEASE leave them alone ,you are just giving them space !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harold

Seraph
July 9th, 2010 4:20am

You are right and I am wrong: Open-ended legal definitions of "indigenous" such as used by the UN, international labour orgnaizations, and states like Australia, and intended to ensure that aborigines, native Americans, Amazonian indians etc. cannot be excluded from the little legal protection that is available to them can indeed be extended beyond their intended use (at a stretch). It was flippant and unhelpful to suggest that the dictionary definition and the "facts on the ground" in the early twentieth century in Palestine made its application unambiguous - Palestinians were clearly native, Polish Jews not. The portmanteau working definitions do indeed allow you to argue that Polish Jews were native to Palestine, I suppose, at a pinch. I think this bizarre and a criticism of the portmanteau definitions. You think it justification for their immigration to Palestine. (I have a sneaking suspicion "the Jewish presence" should refer to the native Jews of Palestine or to modern Israelis - which leaves out the crucial period in dispute.) This is a basic difference of opinion we won't be able to resolve. (To repeat, it has no bearing on recognition of Israel.)

Out of curiosity, where does Lindsay confuse citizenship with the question of who is indigenous and who not? I thought I had followed what she said, but maybe not.

On Lebanon, there are a couple of things puzzle me. Why is Hezballah's capture of Israeli soldiers a casus belli, but not Israel's capture of Hezballah fighters (and assorted civilians)? Why are Hezballah rockets a casus belli, but not Israeli missiles, shells and airstrikes? Why is a border skirmish a cause to devastate the Lebanon? Were the Lebanon strong enough, would a border skirmish started by Israel (and there have been many) sufficient cause for the Lebanon to devastate Israel?

If we run the timeline from Hezballah's incursion, I think there is no disagreement on who did what. Hezballah fired rockets as a diversion (which is a criminal act). Israel went in hot pursuit, but also initiated airstrikes on targets such as airports and roads. Hezballah warned that if civilians were killed it would retaliate. Israel continued with its attacks, killing many civilians. Hezballah retaliated, in what I have never said were other than criminal attacks. The question remains, Why did Israel respond to a border incident, of the sort Israel has been repeatedly guilty of, by devastating the Lebanon?

Israel's case that the border incident was a casus belli is very shaky.

Others here list Hezballah's reinforcements as proof of its aggressive intent. Its raison d'etre is defensive. It came into being in an attempt to defend South Lebanon from Israel's attacks and occupation. This is legitimate. Its armaments are intended to be deterrent. Whatever else you think of it (and as a wishy-washy supporter of liberal democracy I am no supporter of Hezballah, and much of its credo and activities are clearly not legitimate), this much at least is clear.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

harold: bivalence, countervalence..and, now, "portmanteau working definitions"!!

Oi vey, boichik! Vot is your disease?

Look, the probelm now is that the most of the 6 million israel have nothing directly to do with you exogenous/indegenous arguments, anyway. There arr - albeit an inconveneient one - the very definition of a fait accompli on the ground.

This fait accompli has nukes..most likely.

Time to stop the crying and and find ways of achieving peace. Your inebriation with the exuberance of your own pomposity will not help anyone in that regard.

Harold

It is odd the complaint here that those who criticise Israel never say how peace can be achieved. A settlement has been proposed. Everyone except Israel and the US has agreed to it. It has been repeated again and again here as elsewhere: The Green Line and adequate compensation for refugees. And I would add open markets. What is striking is how reticent supporters of this blog are about what they think would achieve peace. The closest we get is "Arafat rejected what Barak offered" or "Jordan is the Palestinians' homeland". So we have to infer that their idea of a compromise is that a population at least the size of Israel's should live not on tne land illegally taken from them and illegally annexed but in ghettoes or else they should be persuaded just to go away. Some compromise. Some peace.

John.

Harold & Lindsay: How about doing aome mild research into how Palestinian the so-called "Palestinians" really are? As I have repeatedly said they are largely descended from very recent immigrants from Syria, Egypt and Libya. Does that not change the complexion of the matter?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

harold says: "Harold
July 9th, 2010 4:25pm
It is odd the complaint here that those who criticise Israel never say how peace can be achieved. A settlement has been proposed. Everyone except Israel and the US has agreed to it. It has been repeated again and again here as elsewhere: The Green Line and adequate compensation for refugees. And I would add open markets. What is striking is how reticent supporters of this blog are about what they think would achieve peace. The closest we get is "Arafat rejected what Barak offered" or "Jordan is the Palestinians' homeland". So we have to infer that their idea of a compromise is that a population at least the size of Israel's should live not on tne land illegally taken from them and illegally annexed but in ghettoes or else they should be persuaded just to go away. Some compromise. Some peace."

What a mendacious ninny you are, harold.

Not " Everyone except Israel and the US has agreed to it."

Everyone does agree that Peace will not be achieved without negotiations.

No point in negotiations if the end game is cut and dried, it would be reasonable to assume.

Res 242 is the guideline basis for a a full and final settlement. Nothing more.

Last time I looked no one agreed on the so-called Palestinian side, not to mention the other Moslem and Arab spoilers - even in principle - to a full and final settlement, let alone any recognition of Israel's right to exist.

You keep pendulating between smug attempts at pedantry and outright lies.

You really do need get a grip. Noone is fooled by this foppery.

Linda Smith

What is this silly Harold burbling about? Hamas and Hizbollah will not make peace with Israel. Their sole purpose is to destroy it as a Jewish state.

And I note that the bigot Harold is still going on about compensation for the "Palestinian" refugees but does not assert that the Jewish refugees from Arab/Moslem countries should also be compensated. It is estimated that the Jewish refugees lost land some 5 times the area of Israel.

phil

The only one here who has not lost his marbles is in fact harold who knows why he is here, and the rest of you in spite of warning after warning continue to ease his passage -I have no doubt the ridiculous man is laughing at you wondering how outrageous he can be before you stop. .Ladbrokes are not offering odds on the rest of you but at least Adam has seen the light .What on earth has happened to my previously intelligent friends .

Harold

242 and compensation are in fact a legal requirement. But we have here a lawyer (at least self-described) who thinks, if the law was broken in the past, it is a fait accompli. So if Israel takes land and property in 1948 it is a fait accompli. In 1967, likewise. If it bulldozes yet another home yesterday or last week, a fait accompli. If a fait accompli, then negotiations over what? The point of "negotiations"? Apparently then Israel does not have to give any indication of what it will accept, because that is for "negotiation". Meanwhile it can continue with fait accompli after fait accompli. And every state except Israel and the US accepts 242 and compensation. And Hamas and Hezballah. And the majority of Palestinian people in opinion poll after opinion poll. But of course that fact is a "lie" i.e. something it suits ISrael to deny. Endless sophistry and chicanery.

Harold

Hezballah fires rockets. Some hit military targets. Most do not. Israel fires a vast arsenal of munitions. Some hit legitimate targets. Most do not.

Hizballah's rockets are erratic and indiscriminate. Israel drops over a million cluster bombs, known to be faulty, on the eve of a ceasefire. Hezballahs' firing of rockets is a crime. Israel's dropping of cluster bombs is "purity of arms".

Harold

242 and compensation are a legal requirement. But we have here a (self-described) lawyer who thinks past law-breaking is simply a fait accompli, so law is negotiable. Israel takes land and property in 1948. Fait accompli. 1967, likewise. Israel demolishes yet another house yesterday or last week. Fait accompli.

If a fait accompli, what is there to negotiate about? But the promise of "negotiation" means apparently Israel does not need to indicate what it thinks a deal would look like because that is for "negotiation" - except we may infer that it will not look like 242, but 242 minus the faits accomplis.

Every player except Israel and the US accepts 242 and compensation. This fact is a "lie". So Israel does not have to negotiate yet. It can continue to accumulate faits accomplis. We can infer that the deal it will ultimately accept ("lie" permitting) will look even less like 242 and ever more like the Barak/Lieberman compromise - give up for now on Greater Israel, take everything Israel wants from the occupied territories, confine the Palestinians to ghettoes, with any luck transfer Israeli citizens to said ghettoes if they are not Jewish.

Some compromise. Some peace.

phil

ok its2.30 and I COMMEND YOU ALL -the silly man has gone berserk and posted three times now in desperation because you have not answered him .The same old nonsense ,he is going to get fed up very soon and will go back to his people for more instructions-let them stew .

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "Harold
July 10th, 2010 10:28am
242 and compensation are a legal requirement. But we have here a (self-described) lawyer who thinks past law-breaking is simply a fait accompli, so law is negotiable. Israel takes land and property in 1948. Fait accompli. 1967, likewise. Israel demolishes yet another house yesterday or last week. Fait accompli."

Flip flop. Flip flop. Feeling anxious, Harold? Lying getting the better of you again.? Your academic fastidiousness deserting you?

Again, you remind me of that legendary quip: "Those are my principle and if you don't like 'em..well, I have others."

It is a fait accompli that Israel will not willingly commit national suicide. Not up for negotiation.

You lot tried to exterminate the Jews before UN Res 181 and after it; before a state was formed and after it.

It is a fait accompli that the Arabs and Moslems - beliveing Israel to be illegitimate - have waged endless war with a view to destroying it - starting with explicit attempts at ethnic cleansing when the battle was not against the state but agains Jews; then against the newly formed state, before you lot started weeping and aping western concepts to use as your political shibboleths - and Israel had nought to do with what the UN refers to as "occupied territories"; then again in '67, when Israel decided to take what it felt strategically and morally to be hers.

...and all Israel's fault for existing. NOTHING Israel could have done would have prevented you from pledging yourself to its destruction...and NOTHING has changed.

Don't conflate all these stages in your violence to hide the true intent that has characterised Arab leadership since the early 20's.

..and dont even attempt to deny that the hallmark of Arab and moslem history of relations with the Jews has been nothing less than one of an a total and explicit attempt to destroy it. This is the measure of the trust you have generated and the basis for the magnanimity that you insist Israel should show you.

On that basis, you're scared sh*tless about negotiations, to the exent that you will not sit down and talk unless everything you dream of is accepted by those you tried repeatedly to destroy and those who have prevented you for years from doing so. ..and 242 for you is that stepping, if you are forced to accept it..just a stepping stone. If not 100% true, you have some work to do, chum..'cause that is what Israel thinks (God knows why!!!)..and that is the enemy you insist should show you generosity.

You live in in La la land and one which is steeped in duplicity and blood lust. Great combo.

You may be right that the Liebermans of this world wish to create "facts" on the ground. They may be Nazis and practioners of the worst apartheid policies. They may day dream about murdering every last moslem on earth. They may even be unaware of the difference between bivalence and countervalence, not to mention the excluded middle and Fisking. If true, however, it reinforces the point I have repeatedly made in these posts: the longer you attempt to perpetuate the destruction of Israel - and smirk at the gullible Western constuencies who believe that you are merely seeking a just compromise for a full and final settlement of the conflict based on 242 and the establishment of humanitarian democracies who don't stone their women to death and throw peopl from buildings as a matter of rote; and the longer you make no attempt to build trust and make serious attempts to convince your enemies that something significant has changed in your histroical desire to wipe them off the map - the more you can expect for this state to defend itself in ways that you will not find conveneint and will condemn those who you consider to be Palestinians to endless destitution.

Avneri has the good sense, as I have said several times, to realise that the two state solutuion is the only solution, for now. To achieve it, you lot have to change for the Israelis to change. It's a simple fact of life. You cannot win, Harold, and NOTHING will alter this fact no matter how much you bleat and which side you support.

harold, just as your pedantry is not substitue for truth; just as night follows day; there will never be accomodation with Israel whist you insist you get all you dream of before negotiations start, especially as nothing in the history of the Middle East even vaguely indicates that you want anything more than to exterminate the Jews and the state of Israel.

Funny thing that....

If a fait accompli, what is there to negotiate about? But the promise of "negotiation" means apparently Israel does not need to indicate what it thinks a deal would look like because that is for "negotiation" - except we may infer that it will not look like 242, but 242 minus the faits accomplis.

Every player except Israel and the US accepts 242 and compensation. This fact is a "lie". So Israel does not have to negotiate yet. It can continue to accumulate faits accomplis. We can infer that the deal it will ultimately accept ("lie" permitting) will look even less like 242 and ever more like the Barak/Lieberman compromise - give up for now on Greater Israel, take everything Israel wants from the occupied territories, confine the Palestinians to ghettoes, with any luck transfer Israeli citizens to said ghettoes if they are not Jewish.

Some compromise. Some peace.

Augustus

Harold - Before accusing Israel of law-breaking and not compensating Arabs etc., can we please have some recognition from you that from November 1947 to 1951, following a plan decided upon by the Arab League,
800,000 Jews were persecuted, forced to desert their homes and possessions, and leave behind their businesses. And this happened in Muslim countries. So before you start accusing tiny Israel of not compensating Palestinian farmers
families for leaving because Muslims were attacking it, try first to think of the greater number of Jews who were just kicked out under a 1947 racist law simply because they were Jewish.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "Harold
July 10th, 2010 10:28am
242 and compensation are a legal requirement. But we have here a (self-described) lawyer who thinks past law-breaking is simply a fait accompli, so law is negotiable. Israel takes land and property in 1948. Fait accompli. 1967, likewise. Israel demolishes yet another house yesterday or last week. Fait accompli."

Flip flop. Flip flop. Feeling anxious, Harold? Lying getting the better of you again.? Your academic fastidiousness deserting you?

Again, you remind me of that legendary quip: "Those are my principle and if you don't like 'em..well, I have others."

It is a fait accompli that Israel will not willingly commit national suicide. Not up for negotiation.

You lot tried to exterminate the Jews before UN Res 181 and after it; before a state was formed and after it.

It is a fait accompli that the Arabs and Moslems - beliveing Israel to be illegitimate - have waged endless war with a view to destroying it - starting with explicit attempts at ethnic cleansing when the battle was not against the state but agains Jews; then against the newly formed state, before you lot started weeping and aping western concepts to use as your political shibboleths - and Israel had nought to do with what the UN refers to as "occupied territories"; then again in '67, when Israel decided to take what it felt strategically and morally to be hers.

...and all Israel's fault for existing. NOTHING Israel could have done would have prevented you from pledging yourself to its destruction...and NOTHING has changed.

Don't conflate all these stages in your violence to hide the true intent that has characterised Arab leadership since the early 20's.

..and dont even attempt to deny that the hallmark of Arab and moslem history of relations with the Jews has been nothing less than one of an a total and explicit attempt to destroy it. This is the measure of the trust you have generated and the basis for the magnanimity that you insist Israel should show you.

On that basis, you're scared sh*tless about negotiations, to the exent that you will not sit down and talk unless everything you dream of is accepted by those you tried repeatedly to destroy and those who have prevented you for years from doing so. ..and 242 for you is that stepping, if you are forced to accept it..just a stepping stone. If not 100% true, you have some work to do, chum..'cause that is what Israel thinks (God knows why!!!)..and that is the enemy you insist should show you generosity.

You live in in La la land and one which is steeped in duplicity and blood lust. Great combo.

You may be right that the Liebermans of this world wish to create "facts" on the ground. They may be Nazis and practioners of the worst apartheid policies. They may day dream about murdering every last moslem on earth. They may even be unaware of the difference between bivalence and countervalence, not to mention the excluded middle and Fisking. If true, however, it reinforces the point I have repeatedly made in these posts: the longer you attempt to perpetuate the destruction of Israel - and smirk at the gullible Western constuencies who believe that you are merely seeking a just compromise for a full and final settlement of the conflict based on 242 and the establishment of humanitarian democracies who don't stone their women to death and throw peopl from buildings as a matter of rote; and the longer you make no attempt to build trust and make serious attempts to convince your enemies that something significant has changed in your histroical desire to wipe them off the map - the more you can expect for this state to defend itself in ways that you will not find conveneint and will condemn those who you consider to be Palestinians to endless destitution.

Avneri has the good sense, as I have said several times, to realise that the two state solutuion is the only solution, for now. To achieve it, you lot have to change for the Israelis to change. It's a simple fact of life. You cannot win, Harold, and NOTHING will alter this fact no matter how much you bleat and which side you support.

harold, just as your pedantry is not substitue for truth; just as night follows day; there will never be accomodation with Israel whist you insist you get all you dream of before negotiations start, especially as nothing in the history of the Middle East even vaguely indicates that you want anything more than to exterminate the Jews and the state of Israel.

Funny thing that....

Harold

Mr. Roosevelt,
If you are, as you say, a lawyer, I trust you are not called upon to plead in court. You would be a spectacle for the gallery; but, for your client, a cause to despair.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "Mr. Roosevelt,
If you are, as you say, a lawyer, I trust you are not called upon to plead in court. You would be a spectacle for the gallery; but, for your client, a cause to despair."

Is this your rebuttal, dear Harold/Stephen?

Harold

John Roosevelt cites Uri Avnery. I would urge everyone to read him. He talks sense. He is humane. I would urge John Roosevelt to read him.

(John Roosevelt, you appear to expect a rebuttal. Surely the rant splenetic, the comic diatribe, the breakdown of all self-control requires no rebuttal. It should stand alone in its splendid absurdity.)

Harold

If you find yourself unable to devote the time to studying much Uri Avnery, just read his introduction to the collection of his journalism 1998-2008 entitled "Israel's Vicious Circle."

phil

Augustus
July 10th, 2010 4:12pm -Augustus my loyal and stoic friend ,do you really think that this man harold would agree with anything-he is not here for that -,but he does appear to have infected the usually sensible JR ,who for reasons beyond me continues to engage in a fruitless task that does not merit his education .

phil

AUGUSTUS AND JR and harold may read it too -well maybe not

Israeli Sense of Humor at UN

An ingenious example of speech and politics occurred recently in the

United Nations Assembly which should have made the world community smile.

A representative from Israel began: "Before beginning my talk I want to tell you something about Moses. When he struck the rock and it brought forth water, he thought, 'What a good opportunity to have a bath! He removed his clothes, put them aside on the rock and entered the water. When he got out and wanted to dress, his clothes had vanished. A Palestinian had stolen them."

The Palestinian representative jumped up furiously and shouted, "What are
you talking about? The Palestinians weren't there then!"

The Israeli representative smiled and said, "And now that we have made
that clear, I will begin my speech."

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "Harold
July 11th, 2010 4:20pm
John Roosevelt cites Uri Avnery. I would urge everyone to read him. He talks sense. He is humane. I would urge John Roosevelt to read him.

(John Roosevelt, you appear to expect a rebuttal. Surely the rant splenetic, the comic diatribe, the breakdown of all self-control requires no rebuttal. It should stand alone in its splendid absurdity.)"

Well, harold, at least you are true to form (and you realy dont fill us with much optimism, mate.)

The crucial thing to take out of Avneri is that he believes that a uni state solution is not possible. He also realsies that theose who want this really just want the destruction of israel.

He also thinks that ethnic cleansing is a propensity of both sides in the conflict - another compelling reason for the two state solution.

This is improtant and it puts paid to the implications of the revisionist position.

Harold claims to support the two state solution but it is, in his case, spurious - downright mendacious. He does not share Avenri's humanist approach to the conflict.

One day, harold, you may find courage to answer your detractors rather than flip flop and slip slide, jumping in only to insult them and even claim their assertions as your own.

Linda Smith

Harold may claim to support a two state solution, but the PA clearly doesn't:

Palestinian National Authority website of the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics displays map that erases Israel, calling all of israel "Palestinian territory."
PA official website
July 11, 2010
http://www.palwatch.org/pages/allmaps.aspx?doc_id=2562

On whose behalf is Harold speaking?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Phil: t:)))

Harold

"He also thinks that ethnic cleansing is a propensity of both sides in the conflict - another compelling reason for the two state solution." - Ethnic cleansing usually elicits denial here. Uri Avnery appears to encourage frankness.

Perhaps we should have some more of the history he summarises in his introduction.

Perhaps also the two-state solution he proposes - 242 plus compensation.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "Perhaps we should have some more of the history he sumarises in his introduction.

Perhaps also the two-state solution he proposes - 242 plus compensation."

Avneri believes, as I say, that ethnic cleansing has been committed by both sides..You believe it is only the jews and/or Israelis who are the guilty party.

For me, it is immaterial now, anyway. To achieve peace, there has to be negotiations, not dictats. To achieve peace, the violence has to stop. To achieve peace, extremism has to stop.

I have never read anything by you that blames arabs or moslems for anything in the history with the Jews in the Middle East. In your posts I have never read anythiung about genuine accomodation.

You blame Israel. You blame the Jews. You think Israel illegitimate. You propagandise shamelessly in order to demonise Israel. You enable anti semitism. You enable Arab Fascism. You apologise for all manner of Islam's inhumanity to its own believers, let alone the infidels.

You have not made one single serious attempt to engage some of the hugely intelligent posters, here.

It's time you outed yourself, Harold. Have the courage of your convictions and be straight with everyone. Perhaps you may get at least some grudging respect for that.

Harold

So, given the choice - reason or ranting - you choose ranting.

One last piece of advice: by all means ignore what I say, but do read what you claim to endorse - the writings of Mr. Avnery. Read not just snippets or soundbites. He is worth a greater investment of time and effort, even for those who don't agree with him.

One last request: could you direct me to these "hugely intelligent posters". I regret to say I have not noticed any.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: "

So, given the choice - reason or ranting - you choose ranting."

Nasty, nasty...

"One last piece of advice: by all means ignore what I say,"

..I don't. You say nothing.

" but do read what you claim to endorse - the writings of Mr. Avnery."

What parts of Avenri's thinking do you feel I have not read and on what basis tdo you make this assertion?

"Read not just snippets or soundbites."

Like what?

"He is worth a greater investment of time and effort, even for those who don't agree with him."

Whoever thought otherwise. If you remember, I recommended the man, before you..You're also an intellectual terrorist, Harold!

"One last request: could you direct me to these "hugely intelligent posters". I regret to say I have not noticed any."

..Oh, Harold. You are so ungracious..but, then again, most liars are...

Oh dear...what a sorry response, harold.

I am a ranter. You're the only intelligent poster...You desparately want me to refer to more of Avneri - clearly his views on on ethnic cleansing and anything else you hang your hat anti Zionist hat on..all in the name of what - a model peace and justice that even Avneri would not sanction.

Thanks goodness you didn't dare challenge my view of Avneri's views. You just want me to select more of what you consider to be your basis for wanting the hamas Charter realised, no doubt.

Anyway, harold, if your wisdom was anywhere near equal to your egoism, we might all enjoy reading you more.

Linda Smith

John Roosevelt to Harold:

"I have never read anything by you that blames arabs or moslems for anything in the history with the Jews in the Middle East. In your posts I have never read anythiung about genuine accomodation.

You blame Israel. You blame the Jews. You think Israel illegitimate. You propagandise shamelessly in order to demonise Israel. You enable anti semitism. You enable Arab Fascism. You apologise for all manner of Islam's inhumanity to its own believers, let alone the infidels."

You've outed him, alright. JR. Well done!

"You claim you are a "Palestinian" - you are not. You are an Israeli Arab living in the geographical area known as Palestine, a territory assigned in 1922 by the League of Nations as the Jewish National Home.

The "Mandate for Palestine" clearly differentiates between political rights - referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity - and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the "Mandate for Palestine." At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the "Mandate for Palestine" explicitly states that the Mandatory should:

"Be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates - in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [today Jordan]. International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

"The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own."
Eli E. Herz, 14 July 2010.

Well, I guess Jordan really is "Palestine"

Harold

John Roosevelt,

You ignore what I say at very great length, but you certainly do ignore it:

"If you find yourself unable to devote the time to studying much Uri Avnery, just read his introduction to the collection of his journalism 1998-2008 entitled "Israel's Vicious Circle.""

I hope the next poster after your latest comment is not one you consider hugely intelligent. Quoting misunderstandings of the Mandate does no-one any good.

Anyway, I hope you find your reading enlightening. And I hope one day you learn how to debate without spraying your opponent with poison.

Linda Smith

"Quoting misunderstandings of the Mandate does no-one any good."

Misunderstandings? And what are your qualifications exactly, Harold?

Lindsay

You seem to accuse anyone who opposes you:

"I have never read anything by you that blames arabs or moslems for anything in the history with the Jews in the Middle East. In your posts I have never read anythiung about genuine accomodation.

You blame Israel. You blame the Jews. You think Israel illegitimate. You propagandise shamelessly in order to demonise Israel..."

I gave a perfectly reasonable response when you accused me of the same thing:

"This blog and its followers will allow nothing to be said against Israel, which is fair enough - it's seen as under unfair attack and it'd be disloyal to criticise - but it seems to me also fair enough that others should redress the balance by pointing to Israel's faults. I haven't seen any who say because Israel is at fault it shouldn't exist or that Palestinians can do what they want - yet such attempts to redress the balance get screamed off."

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay's back, folks.

Lyndsay: it's ALL Israel's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Of course it is!!!!!!!!!!!

..but it wont alter a thing that I said to that nasty Harold - in my previous posts.

In addition, I have seen nothing from you lot that redresses the so-called "balance" i.e NO criticisms at all re the Arabs and moslems.

You villify, villify, villify Israel and nothing more. When pushed, you try the res 242 gambit but want no negotiations till Israel has agreed your every demand...and no recognition that the history of the Arab and moslem position gives Israel absolutely no reason to believe that your assurances re 242 and a full and final settlement will ever be possible with these enemies.

It's all crapola about the onus being on Israel to be magnanimous and show good will. It's quite dotty. The politics of la la land, with a soupcon of suicide bombings and murder. Nice...

Lindsay

John Roosevelt,

" I have seen nothing from you lot that redresses the so-called "balance" i.e NO criticisms at all re the Arabs and moslems."

Are you playing to type for our entertainment or are you really challenged by what is in all conscience a very elementary point?

Those who support Israel here never allow Israel to be criticised at all. They themselves only ever criticise Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, anyone in the West they think support them. There is therefore a lack of balance, which critics of Israel try to redress by pointing out where Israel is at fault. Unless you think Israel faultless, there is nothing exceptionable about this. It certainly does not warrant your loss of self-control (again).

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote(and just when we dared think she was back in her box - though we do suspect she is a he etc): "Those who support Israel here never allow Israel to be criticised at all. They themselves only ever criticise Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, anyone in the West they think support them. There is therefore a lack of balance, which critics of Israel try to redress by pointing out where Israel is at fault. Unless you think Israel faultless, there is nothing exceptionable about this. It certainly does not warrant your loss of self-control (again)."

Oh,Lydnsay. Stop being a twit, please.

My goodness you have a cheek. Your greatest source of critiques of Israel is Jewish/Israeli. Israel is famous for its dissent and ability, as a polity, for allowing its free expression.

Now you get a little balance (and stop the avoidance) and share with us your source of Arab and moslem self criticism.

In any event, none of your tap dancing will change the validity of any of the main points I have made..over and over...Jeez, if your persistence in peddling redundant claptrap was matched even fractionally by a focus on searching for viable ways to achieve peace, we would all be alot better off...

Oh, but I forget! You couldn't give a toss about peace! Sorryyyyyy!

Lindsay

Are you playing to type for our entertainment or are you really challenged by what is in all conscience a very elementary point?

It would appear the latter.

You really do think you're onto a good thing with what appears to be your only argument, your version of "we have no-one to negotiate with" - "they never say what needs done to make peace" (roughly translated, all the things that need done, Israel has no intention of doing...thank goodness the Palestinians are such terrorists, otherwise Israel wouldn't any longer be able to pull the "no-one to negotiate with" trick.)

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: I am guessing about what will be done. It's an educated guess.

We know that even Bibi has accepted the principle of a two state solution.

We know 242 is guideline basis for peace for israel

I think Israel will negotiatiate, based on 242, navigating the challenging waters of its coaliton constrained political system.

This is not my prescription. That is irrelevant. It's a realsitic view of the limits of what might be achievable...

..with one caveat: it is predicated on the Arabs and moslems being willing to negotiate and leaving the door open to some key principles of 242: the recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure boarders and and reaching a full and final settlement of the conflict, not merely a hudna.

Jerusalem of course will be a difficult issue to resolve.

The Right of Return perhaps even more so.

But the Islamic extremist issue - bei it Palestinian, iranian or any other that taints the peace process - this will, in my view, preclude the prospect of peace - as it always has done.

Don't accuse me of wanting this, Lyndsay. This is a reality which your obsessive need for Israel to stand up and negate its very right to exist only cements.

You just dont get it...mainly because you just dont want to.

Lindsay

"We know that even Bibi has accepted the principle of a two state solution.

We know 242 is guideline basis for peace for israel"

This is disingenuous, as has been pointed out to you many times by different people.

"it is predicated on the Arabs and moslems being willing to negotiate and leaving the door open to some key principles of 242: the recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure boarders and and reaching a full and final settlement of the conflict, not merely a hudna...But the Islamic extremist issue - bei it Palestinian, iranian or any other that taints the peace process - this will, in my view, preclude the prospect of peace - as it always has done"

All these parties have said they will negotiate on the basis of the Green Line i.e. on the terms laid down in 242.

You do not have to like Hamas to negotiate with them.

"This is a reality which your obsessive need for Israel to stand up and negate its very right to exist only cements." I can only assume that you are referring to my suggestion that Israel observe 242 - which makes your contention that Israel will negotiate based on 242 puzzling.

Harold

John Roosevelt,

I have noticed that without fail you accuse anyone who criticises Israel of thereby willing its destruction. Now that no-one else is watching, could you explain for me how you arrive at this conclusion in the complete absence of evidence?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

harold:You're sounding more like an Ahmadinejad supporter every day (what "evidence do you have that wew are weaponisng our nuke programme etc!!") No wonder, I guess..but you doth, I fear, protest too much..

If i have this all wrong, harold, prey tell us all that you and Lyndsay and your buddies DON't believe Israel to be illegitimate and how you see a peace holding - given Iran, hezbollah, Fatah's position - publicly declared over and over again.

We're all ears.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: mae no effort to clear the matter up, right? You so belevethat the hamas, iran et all support 242 as a basis for negotiations? tell it to Obama and let the negotiations begin.

They wont but let's try. In the meantime, read "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Should get your toe tapping..or curling...

Harold

John Roosevelt,

No, seriously, quote for me those passages that convince you your opponents think Israel should cease to exist. It is an accusation you find very easy to spray and splutter, but apparently not to justify. All this "doth protest"-ing is just lamentable. Show me what has been said that justifies your outrageous inference. And, if you can't, then try for once to win an argument by reason rather than slur and slander. Do you think you could manage that?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: so you DO beleive Israel has the right to exist? I am mistaken? A liar?

Please..spit out out clearly for us all to understand - once and for all!!

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: so it is then, you don't believe that Israel has no right to exist?

Or you believe it has not right to exist because the League, The mandate, the UN which proposed partition was also an Imperialist charade but we have to live it....but it has to revert to the armistice lines of '49?

Is the latter what you think realistic or morlally right?

Do you feel the Arabs were morally right in attacking the Jews when they accepted Res. 181?

Do you think the Arabs were right in attacking the Jews in '48 when they declared the state of Israel and were recognised by the overwhelming majority of ststes in the UN?

Do you feel the Arabs were morally right in attacking Israel - or trying to - in '67 ; then in '73...

...but it's not realistic for them to do so any more (for some reason) and they should make a full and final settlement as per 242...and Iran should get back in its box???

You think that settlement has to include the return of all Palestinian refugees"?

Dear boy, you are confusing me. The flip flopping between the moralist and realist is ...is..well..it's a big mess, harold!!!

Come out, come out, harold, wherever you are!!!

Lindsay

Do Hamas, Iran, Fatah et al. propose negotiations on 242? Yes. Does Israel? Your answer is that it will negotiate "based on 242"...and "not the Arab interpretation". What you don't seem to want to say explicitly is that Israel is not willing to negotiate on 242 (but only "based" - loosely? - on 242) because it would require Israel to give up territory it illegally occupied and which it has no intention of giving up. "Illegally occupied"? you harrumph - yes, that was the determination not just of the international community and the international court of justice, but of the senior Israeli law officers at the time of the occupation, who advised the government that the occupation was clearly illegal - not just the law officers, but Moshe Dayan, and the rest of the politicians, who said it's illegal but we're going to do it anyway. (Of course, since then the Israeli legal profession has learned how career advancement works.) International law is sufficiently unambiguous on this: Israel has no legal claim on the occupied territories and if it wants a negotiated peace it will have to give back what it has taken. If it says it is prepared to negotiate "based" on 242, but is not willing to give up the occupied territories, then it is not in earnest, it is temporizing, it is, as has been pointed out to you before, building "facts on the ground" in an effort (as has proved successful over the last sixty odd years) to ensure territory once conquered remains in its hands. Compromise and negotiation will then be on the subject only of what bits and pieces to leave the Palestinians for their ghettoes (sorry, state). When you are done with your careful evasions, this is what it comes down to. And when you are questioned too closely about it, you fall back on the thief's last resort of shouting "stop! thief!" - "they want Israel to be destroyed! but it isn't going to happen, whatever these Arab-lovers may say!" etc. Wearisome, your temporizing.

And, by the way, I'm to read Ayaan Hirsi Ali to learn about the Palestine/Israel conflict? I could give you any number of more relevant references, but I doubt you'd bother to read any - you have your brief, and you're sticking to it, however threadbare its repetition.

Truthtriumphs

Harold and Lindsay.
Here is your answer:-

Leader and co-founder of Hamas, Mahmoud Al Zahhar, laid out his vision of the future of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

“We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land.

“This is our plan for this stage – to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, without recognizing Israel’s right to a single inch of land, and without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee.

[...]

“Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy. “

“As for the issue of a referendum – [the Palestinian Authority] is ready to impose its position on people by force. Whoever wants to hold a referendum, and believes that he can get all of Palestine for the Palestinians, can hold a referendum, but [we] will not give up the platform of resistance, and the plan to liberate Palestine in its entirety. This is unequivocal.

[...]

“If we could liberate the Negev now, we would continue [our military activity], but our capabilities dictate that after we got rid of the Israeli presence in Gaza, we must finish off the remnants of that occupation, and move on to the West Bank.”

And you want Israel to negotiate itself into oblivion?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay: let's separate out two things here:

What YOU feel ought to happen because you seem to be an expert on "international Law", as do all those who have little else to say but how venal Israel is, and what there is to negotiate about - realistically.

Though it was the PLO which rejected 242 and not Israel, you would have to be a complete , disingenuous, naive, dolt not to think that Res 242 contains alot that will have to be negotiated, whatever the ideals and/or interpretations of it exist amongst interested parties.

You would also have to be a complete fool to imagine the history of the conflict will not make the kind of trust required genuinely to work towards peace, difficult to cultivate.

My "hurrumphing" at you, Lyndsay, is to do with your sanctimonious quacking on about how nasty Israel is and what a law breaker it is...as if it is uniquely at fault even in your book of "balanced"(????) view of the conflict.

You also make out that Israel has never negotiated in the past and that 242 has, in the past, almost been accepted in its entirety by Israel - but rejected by the Palestinians.

The reasons for their rejection of Israel's proposals are - to this day - the same reasons given for refusing to negotiate, not to mention a refusal to recognise Israel and a refusal to contemplate - under any circumstances - a full and final settlement of the conflict.

Why is that? The answer is simple: the majority of the Arabs and moslem governing elites cannot accept that this conflict goes away until Israel goes away - 242 or no 242. After all, don't you, like them, see 242 as a compromise far worse than the nabka of '47-'49?

This is the heart of the matter and is why - again you would have to be a total twit not realsie - why Israel trust the Arabs as much as, say, the Russian Secret Service thinks cloning passports is immoral i.e. just a funny jewish pursuit.

That aside, why don't you clearly your throat, and focus on the realsitic possibilities of peace. Follow, at least, Avneri's strictures on that. Even he would suggest you test your notions by asking:

First: Is it possible at all?
Second: If it were possible, is it a good idea?
Third: Will it bring a just peace?

Even Avneri thinks that
the parameters for a solution are well-known, and about them too there is worldwide agreement.
One:A Palestinian state will be created, side by side with Israel.
Two: The border between them will be based on the Green Line [pre-1967 border], possibly with agreed exchanges of territory.
Three: Jerusalem will be the capital of both states.
Four: There will be an agreed solution to the refugee problem – meaning that an agreed number will return to Israel, and the others will be absorbed in the Palestinian state or in the present places of habitation while getting generous compensation, for example like what the Germans paid us.

This, to me, with time and confidence building measures, may be acceptable to Israel. Who knows..Ploitics is not easy, especially in a democracy with a proportional representation system.

However,I would bet my life on the likelihood that enough Arabs and moslems would reject it, spoiling any said agreement with violence.

I also have absolutely no faith that there is any international organisation which will vaguely guarantee the peace.

This is all we need look at, Lyndsay. All the rest is a dreary mixed bag of old lefti hackdom with a pinch of Islamist rhetoric and molsem propaganda designed to get the western jerks on their side.I couldn't care less about it as a resource for creative and genuine thinking about peace.

One thing I am certain of: anything you accuse the Jews of or Israel of is nothing when compared with how islam has played out in the 20th and 21st century - in the Middle East, if nowhere else - when it has come up against a world in which the ideas of The Enlightenment are a powerful force. Iran's penchant for stoning aldulterous women sets the tone of the role of Islam in the Middle East, if not globally. It is a disgusting blight on humanity, in my view, and IS a sign of things to come if it manages to go unchecked.

The book "Infidel" is TOTALLY relevant to this debate and you are a completely obtuse idiot for dismissing it.

Harold

John Roosevelt,

...so you can't in fact point to anything said by anyone here that suggests they wish Israel to cease to exist. You repeat the accusation again and again presumably as a diversionary tactic. Would you not want to do better then that?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Dont be toss pot, Harold. My last post was a precise precis of what you have said and the confusions you persist on perpetuating.

Come clean, dear Harold. We wont stone you! Promise.

Lindsay

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 18th, 2010 8:39am

What an odd comment.

"First: Is it possible at all?
Second: If it were possible, is it a good idea?
Third: Will it bring a just peace?

Even Avneri thinks that
the parameters for a solution are well-known, and about them too there is worldwide agreement.
One:A Palestinian state will be created, side by side with Israel.
Two: The border between them will be based on the Green Line [pre-1967 border], possibly with agreed exchanges of territory.
Three: Jerusalem will be the capital of both states.
Four: There will be an agreed solution to the refugee problem – meaning that an agreed number will return to Israel, and the others will be absorbed in the Palestinian state or in the present places of habitation while getting generous compensation, for example like what the Germans paid us."

Precisely. - This is what the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Muslims, the rest of the world, even the US for a time, have all been advocating for decades. Israel has been very careful not to advocate it, - in the meantime annexing the territories. You may well know more than I do about current Israeli politics, but I doubt you will find many in the establishment who advocate anything like this. (The post-Camp David discussions went some way in this direction, but we can't know how serious the Israelis were as Ehud Barak closed the discussions down.)

The rest of what you say is in the main silliness. - So let's just concentrate on the bit you get right.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 18th, 2010 1:31pm

You are not good at all at distinguishing between what someone said to you and what you want to think they said. Your "precise precis" is a fine example. It would however be entirely beside the point even if accurate. You still evidently cannot find a single instance of a single person here saying that Israel should cease to exist. You should consider taking greater care, if not for the sake of intellectual honesty or common courtesy, at least for your own credibility, which is shot every time you combine falsehood with puerile insult.

Lindsay

Sorry, I meant also to say that I agree with you in your identification of the obstacles to peace - Israeli politics (including settlers - the religious fundamentalists, the self-interested - who isn't? - and the profiteers) and the continuing descent of Palestinian society into chaos (self-inflicted maybe, but greatly and intentionally helped by Israel), which can only end in the complete dominance of gangsters and fundamentalists.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Just a sample of Harold's support for the legitmiacy of the sate of israel, folks:

"“This seems tortuous sophistry to persuade us that the Zionists had every right to Palestine because Great Britain said so (well, not quite) and the people who actually lived there had no right because they had been subjagated by the Ottomans and then by the British.

I believe the figure for land under cultivation owned by Jews on the eve of partition is something like 5-6%. I believe the Jewish population was something like one third of the total. I may be wrong.

What happened to the self-determination Woodrow Wilson was so loudly hypocritical about? Would the natural solution in hindsight not have been for Great Britain to consult the population in 1918, or 1923, or even 1947?”

“My opinion (for what it is worth!) is that we have to make do with the history of international law that got us here, and the Palestinians do too, despite the manifest injustice. It reminds me of the Irishmen who, when asked for directions, replied "Well, I wouldn't start from here." The League of Nations, an imperialist charade, is the foundation of our current international law. The UN is its successor. The Palestinians have learned the hard way that they have to accept this. Israel has been able to disregard it because the UN has been for most of its history an instrument of US policy (as Roosevelt intended), and on the rare occasions it has disobeyed the US has ignored it.”
“The Zionists accepted partition in 1937 and 1947 on the explicit assumption that the Arabs would turn it down. The Zionists accepted it explicitly as a first step. The Zionists presented the various committees with maps of the minimum requirement for a Jewish state - somewhat more than was offered and somewhat less (but very close) to what was achieved in war. The Arabs would have been wise to accept, but who can fail to understand their difficulty in accepting the loss of half their land to newcomers?”

Lyndsay wrote: "Sorry, I meant also to say that I agree with you in your identification of the obstacles to peace - Israeli politics (including settlers - the religious fundamentalists, the self-interested - who isn't? - and the profiteers) and the continuing descent of Palestinian society into chaos (self-inflicted maybe, but greatly and intentionally helped by Israel), which can only end in the complete dominance of gangsters and fundamentalists."

Wow, Lyndsay..you mean the gangsters and fundamentalists are only of recent vintage? Mmm...well..tell that to Arafat, the Grand Mufti, Izzedin Al-Qassem ...bu no matter.

Yes, it will not be easy to have peace and it wont make a whit of difference what Israel does, I'm afraid.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 18th, 2010 5:03pm

You maybe don't need to address your remarks to the "folks" out there. I believe most will have left long since.

You still can't quite grasp the point: still found nothing from anyone about wanting Israel to cease to exist. Maybe because no-one here has ever said any such thing, because no-one here thinks any such thing.

"...as if it is uniquely at fault even in your book of "balanced"(????) view of the conflict." You still haven't quite grasped Lindsay's point either. Understanding seems to stay tantalisingly out of reach for you.

If you are indeed a lawyer, I pity your clients. How do they get you to understand your brief?

If one were looking for "gangsters" and "fundamentalists" on the Israeli side, one wouldn't need to look too far (I should say, not gangsters, but thugs, certainly). You cannot excuse Israel its responsibilities with a threadbare gambit such as this. Palestinians have done wrong. Are you pretending Israel hasn't? Are you one of those who insists that noble righteous Israel is simply a victim of bad irrational Arabs and that's all there is to it?

Lindsay

John Roosevelt,

I would be interested in the evidence, any evidence, that the political classes in Israel, the military, the security establishment have any thought of acceding to 242. What has changed since Ehud Barak made his historic offer of ghettoes? Indeed, what has changed given that the settlement building of the last forty odd years continues apace and Palestinians continue to be evicted?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

harold wrote: "
Harold
July 18th, 2010 9:52pm

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 18th, 2010 5:03pm

You maybe don't need to address your remarks to the "folks" out there. I believe most will have left long since."

Bitch!

"You still can't quite grasp the point: still found nothing from anyone about wanting Israel to cease to exist. Maybe because no-one here has ever said any such thing, because no-one here thinks any such thing."

Oh MY GOD!! I have completely misunderstood you and your mates, Harold. There is a God, after all! Welcome abord the peace train!!!

"...as if it is uniquely at fault even in your book of "balanced"(????) view of the conflict." You still haven't quite grasped Lindsay's point either. Understanding seems to stay tantalisingly out of reach for you."

Bitch.

"If you are indeed a lawyer, I pity your clients. How do they get you to understand your brief?"

Well, Harold..you seem to get wonky info on my just as I do on you. Whoever claimed to be a lawyer? I think you merely suffer from the "in the dock" syndrome. Common amongst bigots. All those who oppose your cant are lawyers.

"If one were looking for "gangsters" and "fundamentalists" on the Israeli side, one wouldn't need to look too far (I should say, not gangsters, but thugs, certainly). You cannot excuse Israel its responsibilities with a threadbare gambit such as this. Palestinians have done wrong. Are you pretending Israel hasn't? Are you one of those who insists that noble righteous Israel is simply a victim of bad irrational Arabs and that's all there is to it?"

By and large, ABSOLUTELY YES!!! I have no doubt that if tha Arab Legion didn't start murdering Jews when Res 181 was passed and they Arabs had accepted the Partition Plan, things would have been very different.

I have no doubt if the Arabs and moslems had not, since '47 vowed to erradicate israel and tried repeadly to do so, things would have been very different.

I have no doubt that, Israel, whatever "greater Israel" forces may be at play in that society, would have accpeted a compromise and would still do so, all things being equal (which they most certainly are not) today.

In short, I think radical Islam is a problem for Israel and the West. I think it will not stop or be mitigated by the wishful thinking from the Western liberals or Left or by compromises made by Israel or other Western Governments.

I think we are in a world, now, where the conflict of religious/ideological differences is endemic and here to stay. Period.

and take you courage in your hands and answer the brilliant Linda Smith's post. You seem a complete and utter intellectual coward and opportunist.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Lyndsay wrote:"
Lindsay
July 19th, 2010 9:30am

John Roosevelt,

I would be interested in the evidence, any evidence, that the political classes in Israel, the military, the security establishment have any thought of acceding to 242. What has changed since Ehud Barak made his historic offer of ghettoes? Indeed, what has changed given that the settlement building of the last forty odd years continues apace and Palestinians continue to be evicted?"

Glad to hear it. Relook at the Oslo Accords and read Clinton et al. You should find alot there. If not, and you are convinced the Israeli ruling classes will never compromise, thus making any attempt at negotiations not worth even trying..nor even gambits of calling israel's bluff by coming out and recognising its right to exist and excaliming the desire to reach full and final settlement; and, if you think that Hamas, iran, hezbollah, if not Fatah and Syria - will all adhere to peace based on 242 - SCREAM IT FROM THE MOUNTAIN TOPS!! It can do this process no harm. perhaps you will even force the US to constrain these israeli governing classes to come to the party!!

..but you wont...because you know damn well it will never change the Arab and moslem ruling classes who count.

Linda Smith

Lindsay (David Lindsay?) writes: "I would be interested in the evidence, any evidence, that the political classes in Israel, the military, the security establishment have any thought of acceding to 242."

Clearly the "Palestinians" have no thought whatsoever of acceding to 242 or any other "final solution" other than the total eradication of Israel:

Palestinian TV (Fatah) - Apr. 27, 2009
PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas displays a map of "Palestine" that erases Israel. The names of the neighboring countries of "Palestine" are written in English: Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. There is no mention of Israel.
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=708&doc_id=2568

Lindsay

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 19th, 2010 11:27am
The Oslo Accords? You will of course recall that Article 5 Clause 3 postponed three matters to be dealt with in future negotiations,namely, the question of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees, and the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.

"Clinton et al."? I take it you do indeed mean the ghettoes offered by Ehud Barak. Even Clinton, whose job was to get agreement on Barak's proposals, realised that they were too parsimonious to be acceptable to any Palestinian, and sought to have Barak make them slightly more generous. The subsequent negotiations (at Taba, I think) made progress, but Barak terminated them. (If you are unaware of the detail of the Camp David negotiations, do not rely on Dennis Ross, the lobbyist for Israel within the US administration, but the briefing paper prepared for the incoming Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, which sets out what was offered.)

My question remains to be answered. You are probably correct in saying that only pressure from the US would force Israel to consider compromise, but such pressure is highly unlikely.

Harold

JOHN ROOSEVELT
July 19th, 2010 11:21am

It is good when someone withdraws an allegation because they cannot substantiate it. It is at least some evidence of honesty. Your post is in this regard disappointing.

You often express impatience with the notion of taking the time to study the history, which makes it curious that you should nevertheless base your opinions on a cartoon version of history.

You also often express your impatience with the notion of studying international law, which makes it curious that you should refer me to an account of the Mandate (the only candidate I can find for "the brilliant Linda Smith's post").

The legal, diplomatic and political documents are mostly now public. Historians have made a study of them.

One small detail as an illustration of why the mandate is anything but straightforward: to prove what is not in dispute, that Balfour and Lloyd George envisaged what was not in their gift, namely, a Zionist state in Palestine, Mr. Rostow refers to the authority of Lord Curzon("Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit"). Here is a flavour of what he actually thought, "The Zionists are after a Jewish State with the Arabs as hewers of wood and drawers of water. So are many British sympathisers with the Zionists, Whether you use the word Commonwealth or State that is what it will be taken to mean. This is not my view. I want the Arabs to have a chance and I don't want a Hebrew State." The wording in the Declaration ended up "His Majesty's Government would VIEW WITH FAVOUR the establishment IN Palestine of A national home, and will USE THEIR BEST ENDEAVOURS to FACILITATE the achievement of this objective", which among other things acknowledges that His Majesty's Government cannot simply impose such a national home on Palestine but is constrained by law and by the practicalities of Great Power politics. And Lord Curzon's remarks make it clear further that it was not settled British policy to impose anything to the disadvantage of the Arab population of Palestine, whatever the wording Balfour had lumbered them with. Here is some more, "I think the entire conception is wrong. Here is a country with 585000 Arabs and 30000 or is it 60000 Jews (by no means all Zionists). Acting upon the noble principles of self-determination and ending with a splendid appeal to the League of Nations, we then proceed to draw up a document which reeks of Judaism in every paragraph and is an avowed constitution for a Jewish State. Even the poor Arabs are only allowed to look through the keyhole as a non-Jewish community. It is quite clear that this mandate has been drawn up by someone reeling under the fumes of Zionism." - So, yes, indeed Lord Curzon does make explicit that the wording taken from the Balfour Declaration was intended (by Weizman and Balfour)to allow the Zionists a state in Palestine. However, if you read the correspondence and travaux for the Paris Peace Conference and beyond, when he was engaged in the drafting of the Mandate, you will find that a "National Home in Palestine" was promised precisely because a state could not be promised without harming the rights of the population already resident; also, that the promise was "far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim"; also, that the Declaration did not contemplate "the flooding of Palestine with Jewish immigrants". See also the White Paper of 1922 which states that the "development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine" does not mean "the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world". And Churchill: the British Government "never contemplated, at any time, the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population..." The Balfour Declaration did not contemplate that "Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine." - What the wording of the Declaration can in fact legally be interpreted to mean in practice is not at all clear, as the legal advisors of His Majesty's Government were well aware. Indeed, the deeper you delve into the documentary record, the more obvious it becomes that Britain (even Balfour himself), and FranceItaly, the US etc., were all well aware that the part of the mandate based on Balfour was not consistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the classification of Palestine as a class A mandate. Britain had therefore bound itself to two contradictory and irreconcilable undertakings, the one to the Zionists probably subordinate to the overarching principles of the mandate, which Britain had no power or authority to disregard. If we are looking for someone to blame for the inception of the intractable conflict between Zionists and Palestinians, I think Great Britain is the obvious candidate. - As I say, this question of what Lord Curzon thought is just one detail from the whole complex history, which renders "the brilliant Linda Smith"'s assertions simplistic at best. We can go on to the question of whether the Covenant combined with the term "civil rights" denies or affirms the indigenous population's right to self-determination... I think a reading of the record of the time will show that Mr. Rostow's interpretation while highly creative does not give a just reflection of the legal position at the time.

As a footnote, you said in an earlier remark "I or another Israeli lawyer" from which it is natural to infer that you consider yourself an Israeli lawyer. I apologise for making the inference.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold: so you do think Israel has the right to exist..or you dont think it has the right to exist but you do not support the Islamists who have steered Arab and moslem policy on so-called Palestinian nationalism since the post WW1 period?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Harold wrote: "What the wording of the Declaration can in fact legally be interpreted to mean in practice is not at all clear, as the legal advisors of His Majesty's Government were well aware. Indeed, the deeper you delve into the documentary record, the more obvious it becomes that Britain (even Balfour himself), and FranceItaly, the US etc., were all well aware that the part of the mandate based on Balfour was not consistent with the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the classification of Palestine as a class A mandate."

Can you give tell us in what way "that the part of the mandate based on Balfour was (not consistent) with the Covenant of the League of Nations and with the classification of Palestine as a class A mandate."?

"Britain had therefore bound itself to two contradictory and irreconcilable undertakings, the one to the Zionists probably subordinate to the overarching principles of the mandate, which Britain had no power or authority to disregard."

Probably or definitely? In what way? Why do you think Samule and Churchill persevered with the idea, then, with the idea of a Palestine Constitution which established a legislative Council which was to have a majority of non-official members, most of whom would be elected - meaning, its legislative aspect - the only one that mattered - it would have been a predominantly Arab body?

"As I say, this question of what Lord Curzon thought is just one detail from the whole complex history, which renders "the brilliant Linda Smith"'s assertions simplistic at best."

What assertion are you referring to and why dont you respond to Linda ("brilliant)Smith?

"We can go on to the question of whether the Covenant combined with the term "civil rights" denies or affirms the indigenous population's right to self-determination..."

We can indeed and you have with many, here, dear Harold...

"I think a reading of the record of the time will show that Mr. Rostow's interpretation while highly creative does not give a just reflection of the legal position at the time."

With time, dear harold, to steal from MR Keynes's dictum, we ware all dead....and with your kind of support for the peace process, that may be alot sooner that we all wish for - virgins awiting us oin high or not.

Fivish

The San Remo Treaty and the British Manadate gave recognition to the Jewish ownership of Palestine. The UNs charter article 80 forbids it from ceding land or creating an Arab entity west of the Jordan river. The Left have no use for international law and treaty unless it suits them!

fivish

Jordan is Palestine, 78% of it. Has been since 1922. This was Churchills two-state-solution. But prior to that in 1919 there was the Weizmann/King Feisal two-state-solution in which the Jews would get 50% of palestine.
But it was never about land, it was always about the genocide of the Jews (and oil).