With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Worried

As myself and others have commented on, Britain is only about one thing, money. Our politicians are in the pocket books of the enemies of freedom. It really is that simple. But because they can simply flee if things fall apart, they don't care. (I think the 1980s book 'Stark' by Ben Elton made that point, although it was in reference to matters environmental rather than political.) If Israel had oil...

Gershon

Mr. Hague is on Twitter (@WiliamJHague). Just take advantage of his last tweet "Ask me a question on my visit to the Middle East, please use #askFS - I'll answer on Thursday afternoon" and ask him why Israel preparing for any possibility is belligerence.

Joseph

Fantastic post Melanie, thank you. Another one of Israel's "friends" was on Radio 4 this morning, Sir Cowper-Coles, explaining how Israel must finally accept the two state solution which has been on the table since the Peel Commission 1937. Despite the fact that the Jews/Israel have on many occasions accepted a two state solution only to see it rejected by an Arab side committed to Israel's destruction, the learned gentlemen on the radio and the presenter regard it as axiomatic that Israel has been the intransigent party since day one. And as for Mr Hague, oh yes, lets all make peace deals at a time of massive instability and perhaps even make irreversible concessions too. Seemingly Israel has to play Russian Roulette with the lives and futures of its citizens. Got to love the age we live in!

David

Real friends tell you when you are going wrong, and provide advice on how to go right.

They don't just accept what you are doing and blame others for your mistakes. Only those that don't really like you want you to continue to make the wrong choices.

Raymond Douglas

As a Christian, I gave up my long standing habit of voting Labour due to the HARRIET HARMANISATION of the party. But, as a friend of Israel, the prospect of supporting the Tories diminishes with each day. Just what is it with Hague ? I used to really support this intelligent and courageous man, particularly over the EU. But now, he just bemuses me.Very, very sad.

Peter Harris

Slagging off Israel and distorting the truth as outlined by Melanie is mainly part of the government's attempt to win business from the Arab oil states. The government thinks it comes without a price other than making Cameron/Hague look cheap in some quarters (they can live with that if the Arabs spend enough dosh).

But a far, far greater problem is that their regular (and unjustifiable) assaults on Israel implicitly give legitimacy the views of the Israel-hating Islamists in the UK. The unintended but foreseeable consequence is to encourage terror attacks on the British public in the UK. The British Islamists think "Hague agrees with us but he just talks, we take action!" And they blow us up. Well done the government.

PS: the public also pay this price for the anti-Israel activism of eg the BBC/ Guardian/Independent nexus. It's an unintended consequence, but that's little comfort.

The government should realise that it's not in the interests of the UK even to begin to play the game of Czecholslovakia 1938.

Cristopher B.

If there is a way by which Israel has contributed to the unrest in the area, it is by bringing the idea of democracy and the superiority of the law into the region that has never experienced any such notions it its entire history.

Lynn Johnston

William Hague is clearly an abysmal Foreign Secretary and British policy in the middle east is highly dangerous as highlighted by Britain's dealings with Libya and the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. Hague could be supporting Israel by highlighting it's democratic institutions and it's attempts to integrate it's Palestinian citizens. This would be in stark contrast to the demonisation of Israel and Jews common throughout the Middle East. This might better serve Britain's long term interests as a democracy.

David D

Oh Perfidious Albion ! This is nothing more than the continuation of Britain's duplicitous policy in the "Middle East" which isn't the Middle East at all but is merely the area of the former British Mandate.

Victoria Williams

I am staggered by your response to Hague's message. The peace process, such as it is, is moribund largely due to Israel's preference for the status quo as opposed to inevitable concessions. What Hague said is realistic and pragmatic. Israel (and Netanyahu specifically not to mention his Foreign Minister) have consistently used belligerent language. Israel may be finally realising that unless some progress is made very quickly then the result will be a one state solution. Israel's friends right now are those that can persuade the Israeli government to grasp the opportunity to make a settlement whilst it remains possible.

Matt Pryor

Melanie I agree 100%. On the one hand we have Cameron talking the talk about confronting Islamist ideologies. On the other we have Hague pandering to those very same ideologies. Also check out Liam Fox's comments about Israel needing to push the peace process forward in order to help deal with Iran. Bloody ridiculous.

We're doomed - idiots in power, idiots in opposition. God help us.

Andy Gill

Hague's recent comments are a transparent attempt to brown-nose the Arabs.

Quite a sickening sight actually, and devoid of any moral principle.

Joshua

Melanie, I agree with your analysis. The old colonial mentality of "divide and rule" is alive and well with this Tory team. Not to mentionalso the policies of appeasement, which prevails at the moment in this government which is afraid to say "boo" to tyrannical systems of government and as a result is leading us towards catastrophic.

Melanie, your clear headed thinking is as (nearly)always a breath of fresh air.

Veracity

It is actually Liberal Democrat policy towards Israel, again filling the Tory vacuum .Just look at their authority on the Middle East Baroness Tonge for proof

Dr Michael Salt

Israel should ignore Hague.

He, and the government he represents, are simply without principles.

Stewart

I've seen it 1st hand in Northern Ireland, two sides implacably opposed. Unless Israelis want to live in this awful situation forever they are going to have to make a choice.

Do whatever it takes to placate the Palestinians, which won't be nice but might be necessary. Mr Hague is right in this. It probably includes giving back land and housing and handing over financial reparation. The real mistake Israel has made with the Palestinians: Never take a man to the point where he has nothing to lose, for then he will do anything and never stop.

Or define a border then eject all Arabs from the nation.

Meantime, be thankful the Americans gave Israel the A and H bomb technology because the Islamists will stop at nothing, but they are really a separate issue. Islam thrives amongst people who have nothing to lose.

Alex Bensky

Of course Hague would see Israel's actions in Lebanon as disproportionate. When it comes to Israel, "disproportionate" is a synonym for "effective."

Interesting that we're asked to look at the Peel Commission report of 1937. The Jewish authorities accepted it; the Arab authorities did not.

Nor did the Arabs accept the UN's plan for partition in 1947. Had they done so, of course, the total number of displaced Arabs would have been none. Neither did the Arabs make any response to Israel's negotiating offer after the Six Days War except the Khartoum three no's--no negotiation, no recognition, to peace. In 2000 Arafat responded to an offer of almost all he could have reasonably hoped for with the intifada--not even a counter proposal.

In any case, Christopher Hitchens wrote a response to Operation Cast Lead titled something like "Gaza could have been the model of a Palestinian state."

Unfortunately, Gaza *is* the model of a Palestinian state.

Remembering Other Great British Statesmen

Where have we seen such behavior from British leaders, pressuring and cajoling its allies in public to "make reasonable compromises" in the face of an aggressor speaking publicly of their destruction? Oh, that was Neville Chamberlain to the Austrians, Czechs and Poles.
The Brits have a strong appeasement gene, and a history of being an unreliable friend to smaller states.

Raymond in DC

"... the Foreign Secretary issued a blunt instruction to Israel to tone down the belligerent language used by Binyamin Netanyahu"

Memo to Hague: Israel is a sovereign state, and has not accepted "instruction" from the Brits since at least the end of the Mandate in 1948. So blow it out your ear, Bill. As the late Israeli PM Begin told US ambassador Lewis during one dispute, Israel is not a vassal state.

We supporters of Israel, Jews and non-Jews, have a long memory, and recall how the UK betrayed its obligations under the Mandate for Palestine to foster a Jewish homeland there - how it stood aside as Jews were attacked by Arabs, how they armed and led the Arabs against the nascent state. We recall too how they blocked US military transports bringing vital aid to Israel during the '73 war, and how they regularly sit on their hands as Israel is attacked in the UN. And we're still waiting for the UK to end the legal assaults on Israeli personnel visiting the UK. The UK has no standing to demand anything of Israel.

Grumpy true Zionist

reminds me of the time some people took exception to what was deemed 'the George Bush swagger'

when confronted by this, he - Bush- explained that in Texas this is called 'walking'

similarly in the middle east this so-called 'belligerent language' used by Bibi Netanyahu towards a hostile arab presence, would in fact be termed 'talking'

no 'tea and cucumber sandwich' type talk would be understood in this arena, especially spoken by some mieliemouth brit politician

Blair now understands this only to well!

rob

Stewart makes an interesting point about the Palestinians, if not meaning to do so. He warns Israel never to bring someone "to the point that they have nothing to lose". Indeed -- deprive Palestinian leadership of the unconditional aid it currently receives from the West (and pilfers from its people), and perhaps these leaders will act as if they truly wish peace as well. It takes two to tango, and I haven't seen the Palestinians showing up at the peace table lately.

Miranda Rose Smith

The Israelis, I am proud to say, are doing an astounding job of going on about their business. I see it every day. I can see it from where I'm sitting now.

Victor B.

I despair at the so called leadership we have in London and Washington, we are doomed me thinks !

Debka have a brilliant link to a film about Iran, they should watch it in London and wake up to reality. www.debka.com.

Thank you Melanie for being a voice of reason in this sick world.

PeterG

Israel must exist and, if necessary, be protected by others within its existing legal boundaries. But if it persists in allowing illegal settlements at the expense of the Palestinians, who also have a right to exist, it will put its own future prosperity in jeopardy and lose the goodwill of its friends.

Some of those commenting on this blog appear to take delight in insulting Britain. Surely if they really care about Israel they should think about solutions rather than indulge in puerile nonsense about money and oil. Britain is above that and so should they be.

Matt Pryor

@Stewart

"Or define a border then eject all Arabs from the nation."

That is not a solution for peace, that is ethnic cleansing. Israel will never do this.

Harvey

Victoria Williams

And I am staggered by your breath taking naivety in believing that the Peace Process hinges on Israel making the unilateral concessions demanded by Hague .

If all that is required is for Israel to withdraw to the 67 borders then the question remains what prevented the Palestinians from declaring statehood at any time between 1948 and 1967 when there was no occupation and no settlements.

Purely a rhetorical question as there was never any intent to declare an independent nation . Then as now the objective was to eliminate Israel rather then form a nation.

Following the 1967 debacle ,the Palestinians found themselves in the invidious position of having taken 10 steps back and a need to return to the starting block.

It is time that Palestinians , Arab nations and their supporters realise that their previous and ongoing acts of belligerence ,hate and rejection of Israel have consequences.

Augustus

Victoria Williams - I am staggered by your misunderstanding of Israel's position and history. Which part of former Palestine do you suppose Israel to be colonizing?
The West Bank? Who exactly were
chased out of Judea and Samaria?
Who do you think were chased out of Hebron? And then just twenty years after that, when the Jews return they are called colonists. What kind of logic is that? What the media calls Palestine, and Palestinian refugees didn't even exist a hundred years ago. The Hope Simpson Commission said in 1930 that an illegal and uncontrolled
Arab immigration out of Egypt, Transjordan, and Syria was taking place which was being allowed by the British government (Palestine Report on Land Settlement and Development). The British Governor of Sinai from 1922-36
observed: "This illegal immigration was not only going on from Sinai, but also from Tranjordan and Syria, and it is very difficult to make out a case for the misery of the Arabs
if at the same time their compatriots from ajoining states
could not be kept from going in to share that misery" (Palestine Royal Commission Report). And why did those various streams of Arab immigrants from the surrounding countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq actually come to that part of Palestine?
For economic reasons; jobs, income, welfare. All provided by the Jews. Yes, there were some indiginous Arabs there too,
but these dwellers of the land
were not only pretty scarce, these families might just as well be called South Syrians, which is what they probably were
called throughout the ages. It's about time apologists for Arafat's 'Palestinians' learnt some facts about the history of
those whom they so readily wish to condemn.

Barbara Stone

Melanie, you clearly miss Silly Willy’s faultless logic...if Israel surrenders to the Palestinians – you might as well include Hamas, Hizbollah/Lebanon and the mad mullahs of Iran into the bargain, because ‘accommodations’ with these cut-throats will surely be next on the perfidious Foreign Secretary’s list of ‘must-dos’ for the Israelis – the world’s woes will be over forever and a day. From Chechnya to Afghanistan, Darfur to Kashmir, Yemen to the Philippines, et al, you can practically hear the peace bells ringing. It’s a reprise of 1938, when a naive idiot called Chamberlain came home waving a piece of white paper.

Stewart

@Rob
Never mind what passes for a Palestinian government. The general population are being put in a situation where they may as well say and do anything, even if just out of hate, what have they to lose?

As for ethnic cleansing, well lets be brutally honest, many Arabs would put Jews back into Extermination Camps and most would like to see all Jews sent West. And on the other side Israel uses its Arabs as cheap labour and marginalises them, getting rather close to Botha & Smith.
Nope, I think a 2 State solution with complete segregation of the populations might be required as a 1st step.
Once you have a stable Palestinian homeland Israel and the world can get their income and personal wealth and self respect built up and that of itself will solve many problems and relations can normalise.

The timely destruction of the totalitarian Islamic state of Iran would also help rather a lot!

John Edwards

Sounds like William Hague is talking sense. Also one good thing about David Cameron is that he recognises the status of East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories along with the rest of the world (including the judges at the International Court of Justice by a margin of 15:0)

Pamela Monks

There is an excellent analysis of the Middle East situation by David Solway on pajamasmedia. I would suggest that William Hague should read it.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-peace-possible-in-the-middle-east/?singlepage=true

I particularly liked this quote.

"Even those Palestinians who profess to support a two-state solution, make clear to pollsters that they do not see it as a final solution, but merely as a stage to a takeover of the Jewish state, which they will never, in any event, recognize as such.”

In other words they see a two state solution as a mere stepping stone to the real "Final Solution".

Susan Ross

Melanie, you are absolutely right.
The British have always been hypocritical, and Arab interests to them are paramount.Israel is a tiny nation the size of Wales surrounded by hostile regimes on all sides.

Barak from a white house

Neville Hague AKA William Chamberlain...."Peace in our time" rides again.In my nightmares I did not imagine that so many “Useful Idiots” will reach so many
High positions in western governments. The interesting thing is that if the like of the honorable Mr. Hague would have follow the advises they give to other nations in their private life, They would have been homeless or dead long ago. One would guess that Mr. Hague , following the spirit of his suggestions, would buy a house from a development company known to go out of business soon, ignore warning signs and enter the sea in a stormy day, or buy a second hand car from a questionable character without checking if the guy owns the car, all of this for a world peace.
But , Mr. Hague is still with us. I really wonder if he does not smell a hint of double standards in the air.

Grumpy true Zionist

have decided to just sit and keep 'shtum' when we have so many marvelous contibutors who make the case so manificantly

i applaud you, who make so eloquently, Eretz Yisrael's right to exist (some 60 years on)

on Masada certain regiments used to have ceremony in which was said;
NEVER AGAIN SHAL MASADA FALL NEVER AGAIN SHALL WE HAVE OUR BACKS AGAINST THE WALL

Susan Ross

Melanie, you are absolutely right.
The British have always been hypocritical, and Arab interests to them are paramount.Israel is a tiny nation the size of Wales surrounded by hostile regimes on all sides.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Cameron is the worst leader of a party that does not deserve to call itself Conservative; whilst William Hague, is a spiteful little person who continually swipes out at Israel, knowing nobody is going to come out and metaphorically give him a good punch . A cynical Europe, with the exception of a few patriots in Holland and Denmark, who are treated as pariahs, cringes and crawls to the hordes of Islamists, who are mainly anti-Israel. So why should a weak Coalition speak out for the one true democracy in the Middle East? Rather than try to deal with the dire situation Britain is in after years of Nu Labour, this quasi-Tory Foreign Secretary and his braying Prime Minister play it safe and follow the Galloway path of 'Blame the Israelis'

Harold Tobin

As usual these so called friends spend so much time in critcising Israel they don`t have time to condem the atacks on Israel or look at what is happening in therest of the world. In factteir not doing so great in the UK

The Original Joshua

"along with the rest of the world (including the judges at the International Court of Justice by a margin of 15:0)"

Whilst naturally they have absolutely nothing to say about Tibet, Chechenya, Georgia, Ireland, Kashmir, Kurdistan or the Basque Country.

Augustus

As for the Foreign Secretary's responses...Well!? One can only feel great shame at the feeble-mindedness and naivite of it all
in the face of the harsh political realities of the ME.
It's long,long overdue, that the West sheds its hypocrisy regarding the Palestinian-Israel
conflict, and stops insisting on
greater concessions, and tells the world why it is a moral urgency that we should support Israel precisely now, in our time, against a religiously sanctioned bigotry that has besieged Israel since birth. It is the same feeble-miinded appeasement that allowed the last wave of anti-Semitism to triumph in Europe.

Victor M

Oh ! The penny has finally dropped in that Wm. Hague used to be a bright intelligent man who I had lot of time for long ago - he has become a moron. His latest (reported) pronouncements in the DT etc. today prove it.

blue_&_white_avenger

@Stewart: "I love it! "Meantime, be thankful the Americans gave Israel the A and H bomb technology because the Islamists will stop at nothing, but they are really a separate issue. Islam thrives ..."
Where did you get this from? May I point out that, a) Jews provided much of the science which went towards nuclear power (starting with Michelson, Einstein, Bohr & a host of German-Jewish scientists) then contributed significantly to the Manhatten project (Szilard, Feinman, Bohr, Openheimer etc.)
b) France provided Israel with their test-reactor at Nachal-Soreq.
So I don't why you made up this particular gem - but it's utterly RONG!

Paul Freeman

Yes, and what is the point of excising Muslim "extremists" from British public life when Cameron and Co replicate their rhetoric against Israel? When it is always Israel that is to blame, what is the difference between the position of the British Government and that of Israel's Muslim would-be destroyers?

Furthermore it is outrageous that Hague should lecture Israel on “belligerency” from the heart of the Arab world which for the most part after more than 60 years continues to reject Israel’s right to exist. It appears our leaders continue to lack the moral fibre to confront real belligerency if it has an Arab face.

Jez

The guy's from a different world.

What on earth can this person relate to that can adequately arm him with the right answers if the going gets tough?

You walk into a boardroom and see Cameron, Osborne and Hague sat opposite. Without the luxury of them being briefed by their people, you'd fancy your chances i strongly suspect- in any scenario.

One word; 'liability'.

C.Gee

Friends of Palestine, Victoria Williams, PeterG and David:

Real friends to the Palestinians would tell them when they are going wrong, and provide advice on how to go right. Real friends would tell the Palestinians: Don’t murder, kidnap and send rockets to terrorize Israelis. They would offer advice like: lay down your arms, accept the borders offered, accept Israel as the Jewish state, and give up the right of return. Publicly call for the Arab nations to sign peace treaties, like Egypt and Jordan. Sign a peace treaty, get going on the successful prosperous state we know you can make. Oh, and by the way, ixnay on the internal uggerythay.

Friends of Palestinians don't just accept what the Palestinians are doing and blame others for Palestinian mistakes. Only those that don't really like their friends want them to continue to make the wrong choices.

tiki

Mr. Haig forgot to have a look at HIS countries history. The Brits never 'spoke belligerent, they only 'acted belligerent. Half the planet is in turmoil because of 'their colonial behaviour. They cooked the ME soup, they should shut up, for they are part of the problem, not the solution.

C.Gee

"(including the judges at the International Court of Justice by a margin of 15:0)"

Only 15 judges? Surely there is room for more? And couldn't they have managed just a one dissenting opinion - for form's sake?

cityca

Hague and Cameron have a mandate to govern only because of their coalition. The electorate recognised that they were the least worst, rather than the best and voted accordingly.

Hague has a history of nasty little asides at Israel so why should we expect any better now?

What he said is nonsense. The current situation in the Middle East has a great deal more to do with the actions of Arab leaders than anything at all to do with Israel. But I guess his cheap jibes help to keep the Arab bankers on side.

A failure as a party leader and a failure as Foreign Secretary.

I can't remember a time when UK politicians were of such poor quality. Not a statesman or woman among them.

Stewart

@Blue&White, this was my own field.
Producing refined fissile Pu is one thing and hard enough. This is where France was prepared to help. Constructing viable devices of a deliver-ably small size is something else altogether. Which is where I believe the UK and USA helped (while playing an elaborate bluff).
Quite right too given the risks to the Jewish people. Ernst Bergmann put it succinctly "best way to ensure that we shall never again be led as lambs to the slaughter". Who could disagree.

John Kant

Victoria Williams....Well said....What a change from the usual load of sycophants churning out their paeans about Ms P.

They (and Ms P.)are incapable of seeing that Israel has any responsibility for the conflict and redicule anyone who dares to say otherwise.

Jon

This is precisely why my American friends refuse to visit England anymore. They do not wish for their vacation dollar to be spent in a country so hostile to Israel and Jews in general. It is absolutely ingrained in England in all aspects of society. And as far as London goes, you can stick as many cute little teacups on everything, but its still an anti-Semitic training ground for terrorists.

Jez

Shut up Tiki.

Next you'll be wanting us to hand over India.

logdon

I wonder how this squares with Hague's ME love affair?

'At present, the international community, including the EU and the rest
of the Quartet, is adopting a disturbingly low standard by which to
judge PA readiness for statehood and should it continue upon its
present course, it is highly unlikely that the creation of such a state
will lead to the stability and prosperity so badly needed by the
Palestinian Arab people, let alone bring about an end to the regional
conflict.'........

'In the 2011 Freedom House report,[22] both the Gaza Strip and the West
Bank are categorized as "not free" with the former scoring 6 on
political rights and 6 on civil liberties, and the latter 6 on
political rights and 5 on civil liberties (7 being the lowest score –
least free – and 1 being the highest – most free). These findings
correlate with the reports coming out of both regions on subjects such
as the persecution of religious minorities and homosexuals, the erosion
of women's rights and the lack of freedom of the press.[23]'

Is a Palestinian Statehood in the Near Future a Realistic Proposition?

February 8, 2011 | Hadar Sela & Eli E. Hertz

www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=195

TDH

C.Gee
February 9th, 2011 7:38pm

All "true" friends of the Palestinians should tell them:

Let Israel kill, kidnap, and set off its whole array of munitions in your midst. Lay down your weapons and surrender. Accept that the ghettoes you live in are all you will get. Acknowledge that the Zionists had every right to cleanse the land of you and your parents and grandparents and have every right to keep you out. Encourage the Arab states not just to offer peace treaties in exchange for a two state solution on the 1967 borders, as they have for many years, but to offer peace treaties without anything for the Palestinians - indeed, like Egypt and Jordan, sign peace treaties with Israel that allow it to concentrate all its military might on the Palestinians (and the Lebanon). Accept your fate. Focus on making your ghettoes prosperous (!) Above all, if you can't cease to exist, at least keep quiet, and allow Israel to enjoy the spoils in peace. If you do otherwise, you deserve what you get.

Holly

How do we know what will happen in egypt?
The population are demonstrating
for more freedoms along with other things.They are tired of dictatorship,so I do not think any form of extremism is what they are after.
Not everyone sees Israel through
the same eyes and neither should
they.
I believe they are as bad as each other.
Israel has had a lot of support from powerful countries for years,now it is someone elses turn to get a bit.
Up to now the way it has been
'played'has not done much to solve the problems both sides face,maybe a different way may break the 'deadlock'.
You live in fear of the outcome,
I live in hope.
May my hope triumph your fear.

TDH

C. Gee,
Why do the governments of the US, the UK, or Israel, or wherever, not institute a system whereby they rotate the judges on the bench until they get a combination that gives them the decision they want? Why not change any law they are found to have broken? Why not frame the law to allow what they want? Why bother with a system of justice?

Holly

How do we know what will happen in egypt?
The population are demonstrating
for more freedoms along with other things.They are tired of dictatorship,so I do not think any form of extremism is what they are after.
Not everyone sees Israel through
the same eyes and neither should
they.
I believe they are as bad as each other.
Israel has had a lot of support from powerful countries for years,now it is someone elses turn to get a bit.
Up to now the way it has been
'played'has not done much to solve the problems both sides face,maybe a different way may break the 'deadlock'.
You live in fear of the outcome,
I live in hope.
May my hope triumph your fear.

Ian Hills

So by Hague's logic, if only the Ulster Unionists would give the IRA a united Ireland, there wouldn't be any more global warming. This irrelevant, grating bore hasn't changed at all since his 15-year-old debut as "Tory Boy". I wish he'd go back to curing insomniacs with after-dinner speeches, which he did the last time his political career died.

Derek BLADES

TDH might have added that the Palestinians should forget about water rights. Private swimming pools in the Settlements need it more than Palestinian peasant agriculture. And they can forget about an international airport or even control of their own borders.

Yes indeed. C.Gee is a true friend of the Palestinians.

Ehoop

I'm with you on hope triumphing fear, Holly, but hope isn't something you can rely on. The Muslim Brotherhood hasn't yet shown its hand, but neither the recent influx of anti-government demonstrators into every Egyptian city and town nor the attack on el-Arish gaol which cost the lives of 30 warders to set Hamas, Hizbollah and Muslim Brotherhood prisoners free nor the gas pipeline explosions had anything to do with Tahrir Square's original middle class demonstrators. And neither were they too fussed about the Israel / Palestine "peace process". But revolutions have a habit of becoming violent and progressively more extreme, so Netanyahu's words about readying Israel's forces to take on all threats - defensive, not belligerent words - were nothing if not prudent. Israel has done what it can to make peace with its enemies. Its remaining enemies have done nothing to make peace with Israel. The criticisms flung at Hague's judgement in earlier posts are justified. Those flung at his motivation, probably too. This is an uncomfortable time to be British, not just because of the economic issues but because we have a coalition government driven by the desire for power and avoiding the making of morally correct choices for that reason. The hurt caused by Cameron's criticism of extreme Muslim entryism while, Warsi-like, avoiding mention of the support that it receives from its wider community, had to be "made better" with something that lashes out at Israel. You may see Israel and Egypt as being as bad as each other, Holly, but you probably haven't looked. Hague's ignorance of the implications of the situation facing Israel, though, is willful ignorance. Were Mubarak to be safely in power at this time, there would be no reason to causally link that situation with the peace process. And now that he isn't and no one knows how the situation in Egypt will turn out, this uncertainty makes Hague's advice to Israel the advice of an enemy, not that of a friend. If you don't know what you're facing and the chances are that it will be more hostile, then don't let down your guard. Hague's words say nothing good about his government's ability to provide leadership where leadership is needed.

Penny

If the Arabs

1)rejected the original partition ie. Resolution 181, and in doing so must - logically - have rejected any and all borders,

and

2)Jordan's subsequent annexation of WB (and Jerusalem) was not recognised by the international community and there was no call from the newly-defined Palestinian people for a separate homeland

then

3)Palestine did not actually come into existence. It has yet to be defined.

and if

4)All offers subsequent to Res. 181 have been rejected by the Palestinian people

then

5) the areas defined as 'occupied' are surely legally extraterritorial?

As for Hague and Cameron - there is something mighty suspect about two highly educated men who, upon taking control of Commons, suddenly do an about face and sing from the Arab hymn sheet.

What is really going on behind the scenes?

jeronimus

unfortunately this type of logical rebuttal of idiotic
biased anti israel rhetoric coming from hague
is preaching to the converted.
the anti israel / israel is big bad wolf, sheep should be the ones listening and heeding Melanie's common sense and eloquence , but alas they are blinded by the darkness.

Cliff

Are we still a credible nation when it comes to foreign affairs I’m sure this is seen for what it is and that is craven weakness. And to think it was just about in living memory that the sun never set on the British Empire. I guess two world wars and 50 years of collectivism has got us where we are today. Very sad indeed.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Victoria Williams: "Israel's friends right now are those that can persuade the Israeli government to grasp the opportunity to make a settlement whilst it remains possible."

Waffle. What is this "settlement" you seem to have so firmly in mind? Does it include the application of the Law of Return or does it reflect the pragmatism on this issue of the Abbas leadership, as revealed in The Palestine Papers - the same leaders The Guardian have branded as traitors to the cause?

What boarder, precisely, do you have in mind, when you demand Israel makes the peace? What security guarantees do you have in mind? And how is this "settlement" to stick? How will the democratic "street" in the Arab world respond to the peace made with the Jew it so hates and has done for more than 3 score years and ten?

Easy for you to sound so certain and outraged. Give us something we can work with, Victoria, which takes cognizance of the history of Arab rejectionism. It doesn't matter whether or not you think that rejectionism has been justified or not. What matters is PEACE and how that rejectionism - over 90 years of it - makes Peace something slightly more difficult to attain than you imply.

Frankly, the likes of you and Derek Blades and Cowper whatshisface should hope that Netanyahu et all continue in their belligerence, since you are all so sure it will, ultimately lead to Israel's demise. Ah, what will happen, then - when you have your "justice"? 1000 years of God's blessed glory will reign over the region..?

Oh dear...the price we pay for the glib, self-righteous..

John Thomas

Yes, as people say here, it's ultimately economics, oil, money that decide things, certainly with the sort of rulers we have ...
"do whatever it takes to placate the Palestinians" - Stewart. The Palestinians (or rather, those who rule them) seek only the permanent extermination of Israel. Maybe mass Israeli suicide, Stewart?

MArk2

"As for Hague and Cameron - there is something mighty suspect about two highly educated men who, upon taking control of Commons, suddenly do an about face and sing from the Arab hymn sheet.

What is really going on behind the scenes?"

Simple - they wanted to win seats in North London.

Truthtriumphs

Stewart
February 9th, 2011 8:03pm

"Producing refined fissile Pu is one thing and hard enough. This is where France was prepared to help. Constructing viable devices of a deliver-ably small size is something else altogether."

Here is your answer:--
The Frisch–Peierls memorandum was written by Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls while they were both working at the University of Birmingham, England. The memorandum contained new calculations about the size of the critical mass needed for an atomic bomb, and helped accelerate British and U.S. efforts towards bomb development during World War II.

The two men were the first to calculate that an atomic bomb would require about 1 lb of the isotope uranium-235. (The estimate of 1 lb turned out to be too low; see Critical mass.) Before it had been assumed that the bomb itself would require many tons of uranium, implying that it was theoretically possible, but not a practical military device. An earlier letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, signed by Albert Einstein (but written by Leo Szilárd), had suggested it may need to be delivered by ship but could not be small enough to drop from the air.

Frisch--Austrian Jewish refugee.
Peierls---German Jewish refugee.
Szilard----Hungarian Jewish refugee.
Einstein.---Swiss Jewish refugee.

Point taken?
The West should be grateful to the Jews who made the A and H bomb possible.

Reuven

Hague is the one that is being (verbally) belligerent.

Herzen

Augustus
February 9th, 2011 3:06pm
You seem to repeat (what Zanwill himself confessed to be) the canard of "a land without a people". The retort was provided several decades previously by the Rabbis sent to reconnoitre, "The bride is beautiful, but already married to another". There was already a society in situ. Once you acknowledge the fact that your slogan is false, you can extract nothing true from it about the people who now call themselves Palestinians.

blue_&_white_avenger

Truthtriumphs - well done - thanks

Stewart

Lets just say that some people have no idea of the difference between research physics and practical design. The latter required the US/UK test explosion programmes and later the US super computing resources.
Unless you want to lug a 10 Tonne car sized payload in a B19 of course.
But Carry On Dreaming

Augustus

Herzen (Feb.10) - "There was already a society in situ."

Are you implying then that Jewish settlers had no right to be there? Are you one of those down the ages who believe that Arab disaffection with a Jewish national home could only, with complete justification, manifest itself through extremist violence and bloodshed? Here's a quote from a widely circulated Arab propaganda leaflet dated 11th September 1929: "O Arab! Remember that the Jew is your strongest enemy and the enemy of your ancestors since olden times. Do not be misled by his tricks, for it is he who tortured Christ (peace be upon him), and poisoned Mohammed (peace and worship be with him)."

Perhaps you would have preferred the Jews to surrender
already then, and perhaps go back to Poland etc., where a decade later even more would have succumbed to the Holocaust.

Herzen

Augustus
February 10th, 2011 1:13pm
Why shift your ground?

You said there were no Palestinians, only immigrants from neighbouring countries (who would no doubt have been bemused to be lectured by immigrants from Europe on the evils of immigration).

Now you say, "oh, so you think the Jewish immigrants had no right to be there, do you?"

I said no such thing, and it is irrelevant to what we were discussing: were you indeed perpetuating Zangwill's canard?

The Ottomans and British allowed immigration, the one as sovereign, the other as trustee for the population. Jewish immigrants had every right to take advantage.

It is another matter whether they had any right to demand a Jewish state. Even in 1948 they represented only about a third of the population, I believe.

And it is another matter whether Britain as trustee was within its rights to offer them a state in defiance of the wishes of the other two thirds.

Michael

Following on from Hague's comments, there was a BBC interview with a former UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia and to Israel. The senior diplomat said that Israel needed to honour the terms of the Peel Committee from the 1930s. He forgot to mention that it was the Arabs who had rejected Peel's work and then refused to sign any peace treaty with Israel until the 1970s. Syria backed away in 1999. And we now learn that Abbas refused Olmert's plan. How many other lessons of the 1930s has Hague missed?

Stewart

@John
You know what, I doubt the average Palestinian is any different to you and I.
Give them purpose and jobs and wealth and the radicalism will be so much less.
How much has been spent on this war in 50 years all around the world? Bloody poor investment.

Augustus

Herzen - I have not said there were no indiginous Arabs in Mandate Palestine, or before. What I am saying is that many came from neighbouring countries
to a pretty much barren landscape mostly after Jewish immigrants began settling there
and establishing their communities in a part of the world which their forefathers had, and in a few instances, had continued to inhabit. As for the 'majority' which you state had no wish for them to be there, and leaving aside the
fact that those subsequently displaced would not have been had the Arabs not waged war on the Jewish immigrants, if the British, had the power and the authority to commit a part of Mandate Palestine to a Jewish Home, it must naturally follow that, as more and more Jews gather to that Home, and all is worked from age to age, generation to generation, it can only have been contemplated and intended that in the course of time an overwhelming Jewish state would come into existence.
To me that all seems logical and straightforward, but you come, as a bolt from the future blue yonder and proceed to dish
out 'rights' to former generations. Finally, if people come in and make a livelihood for more to come, and make a desert into palm groves and orange groves, why is that an injustice if it makes more work and wealth for everyone? The injustice is when those who live in a country leave it as a desert for thousands of years.

SK

I feel sick that I voted for the Conservatives. Never again, or at least not for a generation. UKIP in General as well as European elections from now on.

Stephen Rothbart

Well, since we are discussing quantum physics and great scientific achievements on this blog, let us evaluate a different kind of equation.

'Jews must be either evil or stupid.'

Discuss.

It's the only explanation for why a country that has about 4,500,000 Jews, 1,500,000 Arabs and 400,000 'others' has decided throughout its history to embark on a campaign of unprovoked war with the 350 million Arabs that surround it.

Given that at some locations, even today, Israel is only about 8 miles wide it is clear that geographically Israel is at a great advantage in starting these wars, as she is so easy to defend....er - sorry, that does not compute.

OK then, the Jews of Israel are 4,500,000 and I guess that since some of them are old and some of them orthodox Hasids who prefer to let others fight for them, and others are children and others are women, that the Israeli army numbers what, 5-600,000 if you include conscription and on a good day.

Aha! Now we see it. This is why Israel is so keen to provoke wars with 350,000,000 Muslims living all around it. With such a big army at its disposal, who would not want to invade and conquer the entire region? Especially as it only has one border to defend at anyone tim.... no sorry, make that 4 borders.

So its because they are Evil!

No that does not compute either. Even Derek Blades, who is clearly an intelligent man if he could only ever conquer his anti-Semitism, must realize that it makes no sense for Jews to give up their work and their businesses and send their daughters and sons into the Army on a regular basis, under law, just to create an Empire.

After all, Derek, don't those damn Jews love money so much? Surely it would be better business to work than go on exciting adventures in Gaza and Syria?

So, if it is not that Jews are plain evil, who want to subjugate all the Arab states arund it and convert them to Judaism, then it must be that Jews are just plain stupid.

After all, why else would such a tiny mosquito try to attack an elephant?

Of course to the anti-Zionist, the other possibility that this tiny Army is always fighting could have absolutely nothing to do with their being attacked by a people and a religion that will tolerate no other life form but their own (pssst Derek, that includes you!).

And that since there is no Arab democracy in existence right now, nor has their ever been one, they just cannot stand the fact that there is one, thriving right in their very midst.

The sad fact of life though is that with so many young men coming through the ranks in Egypt and other Arab states, and with so little real employment (Jordan has 50% of its employees working for the State), and with their economies in melt down, hence the revolutions going on all around Israel, that's a LOT of cannon fodder for their leaders to play with.

Well let's see. You have a revolution in Jordan, Syria and Egypt because there ain't no work. So now what?

I have just been voted into power, and I have no clue how to get these people back to work, so I won't be in power for long. Oh! I know! Blame the problem on Israel, start a war. Get those people into unform, and who cares what happens to them. Worked for the Palestinians didn't it. It's a win win situation.

I lose hundreds of thousands of unemployable young men, and with a bit of luck get to kill all the Jews!

And even if I lose, guess who will get the blame? The JEWS!

Brilliant.

Jimmy

The British government only does what it perceives to be in its economic interest. When Britain, France and Israel did the dirty deal to invade Suez it was purely economics for the British. Israel bubbled to the Yanks about the deal. That was the very end of the British Empire. Britain owes nothing to Israel or a would be Palestine. Britain exists on trade and its trading partners.

Abraham Irwin

You mention a number of things that terrify Israel, but I think you omitted the most ominous.

Israel has a national memory, particularly when it comes to the Second World War. Czechoslovakia was a small country and when it came to their own national interests, both France and Great Britain willingly sold them out. Egypt has been an ally of the United States for over 30 years and every American president has supported Mubarak. Suddenly with great haste, President Obama is undercutting the regime.

This lesson does not go unheeded. Every regime in the area must worry for its own security and will disregard assurance by all outside powers.

A further lesson of history. Churchill, in his memoirs paid particular attention to Munich and the many well organized Czech military divisions that were lost to the Allied cause as a result of the duplicity at Munich. When push comes to shove, every country should always remember who their natural allies are and make sure they are there when needed.

Herzen

Augustus,
I'm sorry. You didn't say a land without a people. You did say a land with hardly any people, in a "pretty much barren landscape" - so few as to make no difference: "there were some indigenous Arabs there too,
but these dwellers of the land
were not only pretty scarce, these families might just as well be called South Syrians".

These "dwellers of the land" (and cities) amounted to half a million in the mid-19th century and three quarters of a million at the start of the Mandate.

Why are their interests to be disregarded? - because they are only three quarters of a million? because they might just as well be called south Syrians?

It seems to you "straightforward" and "logical" that the majority should not have a say in how their country is governed; straightforward and logical that they should bow to a minority of a minority (the native Jews were not that keen on the Zionists), and to citizens of other countries, who had decided they would have a state of their own there; straightforward and logical even when the rules the imperial power itself set down purported to protect the rights of the majority...?

Explain to me again why the inhabitants of Palestine were to acquiesce in its takeover by immigrants.

Explain to me again how the imperial power in facilitating a national home in Palestine for the Jews contemplated and intended a Jewish state - despite the explicit undertakings to the contrary.

And while you're at it, explain how cultivating orange groves gives anyone the right to disenfranchise the inhabitants.

And we're not talking about " a bolt from the future blue yonder" "dishing
out 'rights' to former generations", or any such nonsense - but about the rules of the time. The purported rules did not permit what happened - only imperial connivance and brute force.

Jimmy

Abrahim Irwin. The lesson of history is personal defense. Do not trust your so called friends. They have their interests. I am sure Israel is cognisant with this.

Truthtriumphs

Stewart.
"Meantime, be thankful the Americans gave Israel the A and H bomb technology."

And
"Lets just say that some people have no idea of the difference between research physics and practical design. The latter required the US/UK test explosion programmes and later the US super computing resources."

Your comments in relation to this are both deeply patronising, and covertly malicious.

I, too, have a science background, and am very well aware of the difference between theory and practical application.

Your first statement, is made to impress upon the gullible that those Israelis ie Jews, should be mighty grateful that the West gave them the protection of the nuclear umbrella.
Obviously, it needed the huge resources of powerful nation states to construct the A and H weapons.
But without the Jewish contribution to theoretical physics, there would have been no A and H weapons.
As "this is my field", you will readily acknowledge that, won't you,
and you will certainly be familiar with the contributions to the Manhattan Project of the Jews, without whom it could not have happened?

Tim

Actually, the most outside help that Israel received in developing the bomb was from France. It's why they understood the Iraqi programme so well, as it was also a copy of the French one.

Derek BLADES

Stephen Rothbart,February 10th, asks us to discuss the proposition that 'Jews must be either evil or stupid.'

As the proposition was clearly absurd I, like most people I am sure, immediately scanned down to the next contribtuion. But in doing so I noticed that Mr Rothfart had the efrontery to tell "Mr Blades" that he should "conquer his anti-Semitism".

I have a wide circle of friends including people of the Christian, Bhuddist, Moslem, Jewish, Hindu, Animist and Atheist persuasions.
I am neither anti-Semitic nor anti any other ethnic or religious group. Please have the courtesy to withdraw your insulting remark.

Stephen Rothbart

Derek, my Jewish father used to share his barracks with a lot of English soldiers during the war and after the insulting Jewish jokes started to get a bit rich, he would suddenly be assured by the offender, don't tke offence 'arry, some of my best friends are Jews.

If a Jew had a penny for everytime they heard that line, we would not need to control the world through the Protocols of Zion or need to harvest childrens organs to make a living.

As usual, Derek (see? I called you Derek, even though you distorted my name the way kids at school did when I was oh! about 8, and I would not stoop so low as to change your name to D**k to win a cheap point), you once again avoided dealing with my argument by 'scanning down.'

I am not offended by that, nor do I take it personally, because that is your trademark.

Ignore anything that destroys your point of view. You do it with everyone.

There has to be a reason that a person, who I said was clearly intelligent and well read, is singling out a democratic country for special treatment by perverting the history and context of its very existence.

If one were to compare Israel with the standards of a European democratic state, then perhaps one could say that things in such a European state were better than in Israel.

But you are taking sides over a small democratic country that has a rule of law, a judiciary, equality of sexes and sexual orientation, religion and a strong desire to live in Peace, with their surrounding neighbours who are the complete antithesis of all that.

What is more, the leaders of these surrounding neighbours are even on record re-stating their aims to destroy Israel (actually, they said the Jews of Palestine), yet still you cling to your belief that it is Israel that has most to gain from this state of affairs and so must be guilty.

In the meantime, and perhaps you can show me other blogs where your contributions will show me wrong, you are silent on the daily abuses of Muslim against Muslim, Muslim against Christian, and yes, Muslim against Hindu. Just like the UN you appear to be entirely focused in your indignation, on the one State in the entire world that is clearly Jewish.

I know Jews who are anti-Semites, so your claim that you have Jewish friends does not impress me.

If you want me to withdraw my remark that you too are an anti-Semite, you have to earn it.

Show me where you have contributed to the fight against the corrupt regimes in Africa, the appalling treatment of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Turkey, the Human Rights abuses in China, North Korea and Russia.

Finally show me why your always managing to twist everything that happens involving Israel and, well anything really, into an excuse for another swipe at her.

Or finally, Derek, just explain to me why Hague and you can see a difference between Israel, constantly being attacked and thus using its military to defend itself, and William Hague's Army, that is battling the same kinds of insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both sides are involved in a battle against Islamic terrorists, both sides have killed innocent people, as have the US Army and even the Germans.

Why is only Israel being sanctioned by the UN and the Human Rights organisations, and the ICC?

Why are you not condemning your own country and calling it a pariah state?

Come on Derek, for once, don't run away. Explain yourself, and I will withdraw my assertion.

David, Thailand

Never have I so wished to be wrong, but from the turn of this century I have predicted that Israel would not, could not, reach her centenary as a Jewish state, largely due to the inability of Western politicians to comprehend the lethal combine of Arab mentality with Islamic ideology.

As ever, many believe the fantasy of peaceful coexistence with Islam is well worth the sacrifice of Israel.

Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief, that the most advanced civilisation ever, chose to capitulate rather than confront the ideology that promised to liberate it from freedoms and rights.

Otoh, it could be that the human mind was simply not designed to cope with such rapid and tremendous advances in such a short while, and that Western civilisation has no course other than to sow the seeds of its own demise.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Stephen Rothbart
February 11th, 2011 7:38pm
Decent argument Stephen, save for one minor point. You write that Blades is "obviously an intelligent man". Why do I miss this quality?

calcutta

Stephen Rothbart has spoken! He and his kind are Gods chosen people are they not? With those credentials the Jews cannot do any wrong,can they? A self deluded peoples who really believe that they alone matter to the detriment of all others in the world. Hitlers Nazis were saints compared to the Israelis who only bully their weaker neighbours. At least the Palestinians fight back. Unlike the cowardly 6,ooo,ooo who did not!The quicker this cowardly nation is brought to heel like the rabid dog, the better for all mankind!

Augustus

Herzen - Ah Yes, the inhabitants
of Palestine, those 'children of the desert', always armed and
rapidly able to improvise a fighting power against the Jews!
We really shouldn't have allowed
Zionist aspirations to have become a reality, should we? We
really shouldn't have contemplated the idea of a sovereign Jewish State
in Palestine, however small, which would, in modern times, be set up for the first time after ages of dispersion and oppression. A coherent Jewish community and a rallying point for Jews in every part of the world. To even contemplate and intend an independent responsible government and autonomous state, instead of constant bickering with British Mandate officials about annual quotas of immigrants, was totally wrong. In fact, to even survive and attain statehood was wrong. You leave me in no doubt regarding your hostility to the Jewish struggle. You make it perfectly clear that a settlement between Jews and Arabs was impossible for the Jews in the land of their forefathers. Because to you, every measure the future Jewish state would take for its defense
would look like an act of aggression. You can not bring yourself to afford to any Jewish
generation, past, present, or future, a measure of peace, prosperity and happiness in the Arab zone.

raymond francis jones

Israel Should not deal with Britains Godless politicians,they and their ideas are backward. UKIP however still intelegent and pro
Israel.As an an anti E.U.member of UkIP I know we are in the same boat as Israel in that we are surrounded by potential enemies within and without.So we should stick together.

buddy (shylock revenge) franco

who cares. England became an additional muslim-zoocialist country, this is our most satisfactory revenge. au revoir

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

calcutta
There was a young man named Calcutta
Who fell asleep in the gutter.
The tropical sun burned a hole in his bum,
And turned all his balls to butter.
I think this has been named for you, rather than the city!

Herzen

Augustus
February 13th, 2011 2:56am
Evasive, again.

It is not enough simply to restate your fervent belief that the Zionists had the right to establish a state in despite of the inhabitants.

What right?

And in response to your soaring rhetoric. I think Israel should stop using a falsified version of history to justify its current behaviour.

However it came into existence, it exists. Israelis have the same rights as the citizens of any other state. But this does not mean that Israel has any right to oppress and tyrannise the other inhabitants, those with a strong claim on the same land. To call it justifed self defence is humbug. A peaceful (if far from equitable) settlement between the two peoples who share the land has been possible for several decades now. Study the "peace process" in detail and you will find that Israel has used it, not to achieve peace, but to expropriate what it wants for itself - the land and resources of the West Bank.

maxsceptic

calcutta @ February 12th, 2011 7:40pm

Your attitude to Jews is at somewhat onconsistent: when they let themselves be slaughtered they are cowards; when they fight their enemies they are bullies worse than the Nazis.

Fortunately the Jews in Israel, at least, would rather be live bullies than dead cowards.

Plus, I am sure they will be around long enough to piss on your grave.

Augustus

Herzen - I agree with you that Israelis have the same rights as citizens of any other state. I do not agree with you that they oppress or tyrannise people who are not Jewish. And self defense is not humbug if it involves protecting one's home, settlements, or country. What is the point of founding a country under the severest of conditions if one does not mean to stick to the conditions which
would have to be imposed to defend it?

Ernest Gross

Mr.Cameron might cater to the Muslim mob fighting against Israel. However, even his ardent support of Muslims will not save England from turning to one of the satelitte figments of the great European caliphate.

Herzen

Augustus
February 13th, 2011 1:50pm
I will put this starkly in un-nuanced terms to try to persuade you to understand how things look from the other side: For its victims, it is difficult to distinguish Israel's self-defence from the aggression of a thief defending his loot.

To say that you don't agree that Israel oppresses anyone argues a profound ignorance, whether willed or not.

Israel has every right to self defence. That is not in question.

Can I reiterate for the Editor that I think such hateful comments as those of "calcutta" should not be allowed space here.

Stephen Rothbart

Actually I think comments like Calcutta's should not be excluded by the editor. It shows exactly what drives so much anti-Israeli sentiment.

Augustus

Herzen - You talk of studying peace processes, and Israel's expropriation of land and resources in the West Bank, but to be clear, after the events of 1967 one can safely say that
Israel has been the only nation
which stood or fell by the way in which this conflict was going to be resolved, whereas Arab nationhood and sovereignty
as a whole has been assured.
The area of the original Palestine Mandate included both sides of the river Jordan, and in that area there emerged not two, but three national peoples.
There was Israel, and an Arab people which had for twenty years expressed its political life through a Jordanian state,
of which the Palestine Arabs formed the great majority, and then there were the inhabitants
of the occupied territories who
began to adopt a new identity,
not of Arabs, or even Palestinian Arabs, but who now were to be actual Palestinians.
But under British rule Palestinians had been the Jews themselves - with passports, citizenship, and institutions to prove it. No wonder Golda Meir once said there was 'no such thing as a Palestinian'.

Herzen

Augustus
February 13th, 2011 9:10pm
I can see nothing here that addresses the question we have been discussing: why the society already existing should have stood aside to allow the Zionists to establish a state on the territory it had lived in for generations.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
February 13th, 2011 7:22pm
You have a very curious way of drawing conclusion from evidence. Cherry-picking taken to extreme.

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, the Zionist movement came about because of European Jewry's oppression by the Christian societies in which they lived during the Diaspora.

I suggest you get a copy of the book by Sir Martin Gilbert called 'Letters to Auntie Fori a 5,000 year history of the Jewish People and their faith,' which will give you some of this sense of persecution.

The decision for creating a Zionist state that was home to a Jewish people was made because it was felt that the Jews needed a respite from their persecution as a minority in other peoples' countries by having their own land in which their own identity could be the dominant force.

Because Jerusalem was the spiritual home of the Jewish faith, with the invocation, 'Next Year in Jerusalem' part of its ritual since being cast out by the Romans, and because, as you say, Jews have always lived in the Palestinian regions, it was agreed to have the new Jewish state there, and to partition the land after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Since we can say without fear of dissent, because it is an historical fact, Palestine as a country did not exist, it is a fatuous argument to claim that Israel occupies another land or country.

It is true the borders are not the same as those first granted to it, but that is the result of the Arab nations not accepting the UN vote to partition the land, and their failed attempt to destroy the Jewish state at birth.

To understand the logic of why Jews need a Jewish state rather than living in peace and harmony with other Arabs in a 'One State' solution, one needs only to read the words of the religious leaders surrounding Israel, then and now, who believe the idea of sharing anything with anyone not of their particular faith is impossible.

One need only look at what has happened in Lebanon.

Once a country with a Christian majority, it is now a Muslim majority and controlled by Iran/Syria.

We will soon find out what that means for the new Christian minorities in Lebanon, but we can have no doubt what that would mean for Jews in a similar situation.

Thus Israel. Thus a Jewish state able to defend itself.

Augustus

Herzen - Stephen Rothbart has outlined perfectly the reasons relating to the establishment of the state of Israel. I would only add that many countries immediately recognised it, including Russia and America. The fact that Britain did not immediately do so probably has something to do with the biased
British Labour Government and Foreign Secretary of the time. Remember also the Holocaust; That terrible event that Churchill had described as 'probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world'. You say that the
existing (Arab) society stood aside. It did not, it attacked Israel with the aim of destroying it. It therefore must be obvious that any partition arrangements for the Arabs before then were bound to have been better arrangements than they got after their defeat.

Herzen

Augustus
February 14th, 2011 2:33pm
I did not say that the Palestinian Arabs stood aside. I asked why they should be expected to.

Nothing you have said, and nothing in Stephen Rothbart's comments, gives an answer.

(On the history. The US recognised Israel de facto on the say-so of the President and against the advice of his startled officials, who were not sure of its legality, and were still attempting to arrange a trusteeship to avoid the imminent armed conflict that would be caused by partition. The US was apparently under the impression that it was recognising a Jewish state within the partition borders. The US government's legal officers were clear that the Soviet de jure recognition was illegal. Similarly, the British UN delegation were instructed by the Foreign Office that recognition should be witheld at least until there was greater clarity on the ground, "The decision (of the General Assembly) instructed the Commission to take various steps in Palestine culminating in the establishment of Jewish and Arab states with economic union...Most of these steps have not been taken and if a Jewish state is proclaimed it will be setting itself up by its own efforts and not through acts of the United Nations Commission." This is the more detailed history that has been forgotten in the West. By the way, the British government, and in particular Ernest Bevin, had come to favour a carve up between Israel and Jordan - hence the prompt forgetfulness about legal niceties and the three-way negotiation with Israel and Jordan and the military aid to Jordan to protect its share of the booty.)

Stephen Rothbart
February 14th, 2011 11:20am
You say that "it was felt" and "it was agreed". You don't say by whom. You say that "it was agreed" that the land should be partitioned after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, presumably to give the Zionists the state they sought - except this is not quite what happened. You say, "Since we can say without fear of dissent, because it is an historical fact, Palestine as a country did not exist, it is a fatuous argument to claim that Israel occupies another land or country." Two things. First, by the same reasoning there was no reason to allow the Zionists a state, because Israel "as a country" did not exist, only a region of the former Ottoman Empire. Secondly, you miss the point of my discussion with Augustus. Augustus began by saying that there were so few people in Palestine that there was no problem allowing the Zionists to settle. I have pointed out there was a society already in situ. My question is this: given the rhetoric of the League of Nations and the legal requirements of the UN, why should the interests of the existing population have been ignored in favour of a minority of the Jewish diaspora who decided they wanted a state of their own?

Augustus

Herzen - You say that 'there was no reason to allow the Zionists a state...', but there was every reason, not least of which was to prove whether the harmonious disposition of the Middle Eastern world amongst its peoples was a possiblity. Added to which could be, the search for a safe haven
from persecution, both before the First World War and thereafter culminating in the curse of Nazism. The rebuilding of Jewish life into a viable means of self-determination after the Second World War, and the noble aspiration that, at long last, Jews might avail themselves of an opportunity, of right and not on sufferance, to build up for themselves self-governing institutions which could positively lead to statehood. In the light of that I would suggest that by nit-picking any of that you could only do so by showing strong anti-Semitic prejudice. And what
is really the point of that?

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, if a decision of the Court at law is challenged in appeal because of a technicality or a Judge's misconduct for example, and still the decision is upheld, then the whys and wherefores of that decision being made are irrelevant.

Whether the leaders who voted for Partition understood what they were signing is surely irrelevant now. Its 60 years too late for a retrial.

The fact is that a lot more countries voted for Israel's right to exist than voted against it and so Israel is granted legitimacy.

Most of the surrounding states were granted their's by decree of just France and Great Britain following the First World War.

Is it fair that 35 million Europeans were displaced after WW2? Are they still living in camps while the UN tries to get them their right of return?

Should the Czechs in the former areas of Sudetenland move out and let the relatives of the Germans expelled from the region move back in?

The fact is that Israel exists by decree of the UN. The Palestinian Arabs, as Augustus has pointed out, were unlucky to be displaced but were not all indigenous to the region either.

Nothing is said about reparations to the 800,000 Jews kicked out of Iraq, Jordan, Egypt with just their shirts on their backs, only about the Palestinian refugees, who originally numbered 600,000.

Now according to the Palestinian position, they demand the Right of Return for 5 million!

Where would they live? Where would they go?

Do you think they would be happy to live in a Jewish state?

Why are people so entranced by this question?

It is bogus.

If a country was established legally in 1948 by the UN then Israel is a legitimate State even if the state of the US President was 'startling to his officials.'

If, folloowing the end of WW2 there were 35 million European refugees settled in their new homes, where ever that was, why was it so hard, with over 300,000,000 Arabs living in the region, for them to assimilate 600,000 Palestinian Arabs?

Had they done so, it would have brought to an end this situation which our looney politicians like Haig and their acolytes, consider the greatest threat to world Peace?

Excuse me? Israel is the greatest threat to world Peace? Why? Because for some reason that I and many others in these blogs have said before, the only nation in the entire world that is defined a a Jewish one, is unable to be treated on the same terms as every other nation in the world, including Britain, which did actually create its wealth by conquest and colonization, as did Spain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and even Belgium!

If the free world would just say to the Arabs, 'sort out this probelm among yourselves, Israel is legal and has the same rights as we do to defend ourselves and re-define their borders if it suits them in consultation with us,' then it would not be long before the Palestinian probelm would be over.

Instead, we allow these intolerant hordes to continue to oppress their own people and blame Israel for it, we fund their schools in Gaza and the Wst Bank to teach their children Jews are monkies and dogs and must be killed wherever they are, we tolerate their dressing their children up as suicide bombers, and watch as they slaaughter each other, but insist that their mortal enemy drops its guard, withdraws to indefensible positions, or even worse, allows Jerusalem to be divided again as 5 million descendents from the original 6000,000 Arabs pour back into Israel.

The interests of the existing population was not ignored. It was discussed, considered and a decision made, just as the decision for South Sudan to cede from the North was made. I am sure there are many in Sudan who did not like that decision either.

Were the Greeks living in Cyprus asked what they thought about Turkey occupying by force, not UN decree, their island?

Does Israel try to arm the Greeks against the Turkish army as Turkey is now doing with Hamas? Does the UN bring in constant censures demanding Turkey pulls out?

Are there demonstrations in the streets of every European capital and warrants out for the arrest against the leaders of India occupying Kashmir and China occupying Tibet?

No. Silence, just as there was silence during the massacres of the Sudanese, and all the other African civil wars and tribal genocides.

Just Israel is the one nation that everyone is exercised about to condemn, and as we have seen from calcutta's spiteful remarks, we Jews know why.

And becasue we know why and the because we know the nature of the people that make these unreasonable distinctions against Israel, so we know why we need a defendable State of our own and the means to defend it.

Augustus

Stephen Rothbart (Feb.14,6.32pm)

I salute you! Superb! Let us hope that the light will shine,
and that it will grow.

Herzen

Augustus
February 14th, 2011 5:28pm
Again it would appear that you have difficulty following what is said. Perhaps I am not being clear.

Stephen Rothbart said, "Since we can say without fear of dissent, because it is an historical fact, Palestine as a country did not exist, it is a fatuous argument to claim that Israel occupies another land or country."

I pointed out that this works both ways. There was no Zionist country either.

As a "historical fact", however, there was a population living there, mostly Muslim, who, if asked, would be highly unlikely to say they wanted a Zionist state.

The question remains the same and still has received no answer from you: why should this population be expected to stand aside while a Zionist state is established in their land?

You seem to be saying that to ask the question is to be anti-semitic. - That certainly would be a fatuous argument.

Augustus

Herzen - I disagree with you when you say that the population
living there, mostly Muslim 'who
if asked, would be highly unlikely to say they wanted a Zionist state'. It would be more precise to say that if, from the onset of Jewish immigration, the ordinary Bedouin tribesman etc. had been asked, 'do you mind these Jews coming here from elsewhere and improving conditions, as you see they are doing, both for your families, and the ones who have come from other places to
avail themselves of a good livelihood on the land?', I think it most likely that they would have answered that they didn't mind a bit. There was no
hapless Zionist predatory assault, no intended 'war' of dislocation. Yes, there was a Zionist movement, but that had its reasons, as Stephen Rothbart has explained. It was, as you perfectly well know, the
leaders of your precious population that launched the campaigns of relentless hatred and obliteration of the Jewish
aspirations for revival. It was them alone who can be held responsible for the clashes to follow, and it is solely the people like the awful Mufti, and
his recruits and descendants in
infamy, not the mainstream Arabs, who must shoulder the blame for the conflicts which followed. So, the very fact that people like you have to ask people like me 'why should this population be expected to stand aside...etc?' only underlines your ignorant siding with so many in the international community who insist on obsessively debating Israel's right to its founding.
Why you people do this, and on
Melanie Phillips blogs, is beyond me, but I presume that you regard it as some form of obligatory cause celebre, a form of one-upmanship in the realms of Western opinion. Nobody is ever perfect, and many Jews have made mistakes, or performed badly, and even killed innocents, but the greater charge of dispossession
of a society which already existed in order to displace them and ethnically cleanse them because they were Arabs is
complete and utter fabrication.

Herzen

Augustus
February 15th, 2011 2:10am
An astonishing combination of historical ignorance, wishful thinking, and denial. Even when evidence is put before you, you blank it out. It alows you to maintain untenable beliefs, but renders further discussion pointless.

Truthtriumphs

Herzen.
"Stephen Rothbart said, "Since we can say without fear of dissent, because it is an historical fact, Palestine as a country did not exist, it is a fatuous argument to claim that Israel occupies another land or country."

I pointed out that this works both ways. There was no Zionist country either."

Is that so?
I think not.
Have you never heard of the countries of Judah and Israel which existed for more than 1,000 years until the time of the Roman conquest, when most, but not all, the Jews were driven out, and at which time, btw, there were no Arabs there, some 600 years before the birth of Islam.
In fact, the Jews were the only people in history to hold dominion in the land in the form of nation states.
Do you really deny that?
Zionism is simply the term for the fulfillment of Jewish nationhood in Zion.
In fact, it is integral to Judaism, which you will see if you read the bible.
It was a Jewish king, David, who founded Jerusalem as his capital city, which has only ever been the capital for the Jews.
It might be an idea for you to learn some history, before you bore us with your ignorant, malevolent scribblings.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
February 15th, 2011 8:30pm
There was indeed an ancient Israel and an ancient Judah, and whatever else in the region (so many listed in the Bible!), as elsewhere, in ancient times. So what?

"It might be an idea for you to learn some history." - As if your name were not irony enough.

Stephen Rothbart

Come now gentlemen, not the time for name calling. I do not think Herzen is either ignorant or an anti-Semite.

Herzen is however a kind of Johnny-One-Note.

Whatever answer you give to him about why Jews have a national home in Palestine, no matter how many ways you try to answer him, he comes back and asks the same question all over again.

His whole approach to the question in the first place reminds me of the tourist traveling through a remote part of Ireland.

Lost, he asks a local villager, "excuse me, but could you tell me the best way to get to Ballyrimple?" Well says the local villager after a few minutes thought, 'If I were going to Ballyrimple, I would not be starting from here."

Thus the main thesis of all those who think they can find a solution to the Palestinian question by suggesting that the decision for a nation called Israel was flawed and it should, somehow be undone, at which point the world would once again settle on its axis and peace and harmony would come to the entire planet.

Like the Irish villager, their approach is entirely unrealistic
and futile.

So once again, Herzen, in very simple terms, and for the last time; in 1896, Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist living in Austria-Hungary, published Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State"), in which he asserted that the only solution to the "Jewish Question" in Europe, including growing antisemitism, was through the establishment of a Jewish State.

By the end of WW1,Britain's government agreed that this would be a good idea and since it had the British Mandate for Palestine, produced in 1917, the Balfour Declaration which permitted a great number of Jews to immigrate to Palestine.

In 1947, Britain's government turned its Mandate over to the United Nations, which, in the same year, adopted Resolution 181, which partitioned the land into two states, one Arab and one Jewish.

Israel agreed to the partition, but Arab countries and Palestinian Arabs did not, resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and many wars after that, after which no Arab nation was ready to sign a Peace accord with Israel, so why should the victors give up their conquered land in return for nothing?

Several decades later, Egypt and Jordan signed Peace treaties, and in 1967 there was a man called Arafat who actually created the idea of a Palestinian consciousness, where none before had existed.

Arafat tried to remove the Hashemite dynasty from Jordan, and King Hussein killed tens of thousands of Palestinians loyal to Arafat, and they were all expelled.

So if these people cannot live peacefully among their own fellow Muslims, how are they going to get along with the Jewish "dogs amd monkies?"

So Herzen, what do you propose now?

Britain promised a Jewish homeland to Jews for Jews, they then handed over their mandate to the UN who voted for partition. And before 1967 no one ruled, or settled the land except Turks and the British whose subjects were Arabs and Jews and Christians.

And if you need anothe point of reference, look at what happened to India after the fall of the Raj.

Muslims and Hindus partitioned themselves into two seperate nations.

Some folks just cannot get along together, especially where religion is concerned and where religion dominates a person's way of life.

Is that any clearer? Which part do you not understand?

Loretta

It's ludicrous to say that Israel is unwilling to compromise when they have time and again tried to do just that.
It's the Palestinians that have refused to come to the negotiating table.
It's puzzling to see so many otherwise rational people behave in such an irrational and feckless manner. Worse yet, many of these people have enough power and influence to do great harm.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
February 16th, 2011 5:51pm

If I could repeat what I said earlier: However it came into existence, Israel exists. Its citizens have the same rights as the citizens of any other state, including the right to self defence. I agree that it would be foolish to respond to the current impasse by saying "I wouldn't start from here". I pick up on comments about the history because Israel and its supporters here use a highly tendentious (to put it mildly) version of history to justify Israel's current actions towards the Palestinians. The next blog is a fine example, as is, with respect, much of what you write.

Barry Kalms

Has David Cameron been advised as to the above contents, I have appraised James Clappison, my MP for his comments