A monstrous inversion

Barry London

The only answer is the wholesale removal of the so called educated elites from any say in the affairs of the nation.

David

Well said, Melanie!

Derek BLADES

The truth of the matter is that the Israeli government has deliberately torpedoed the peace talks arranged by President Obama. No amount of obfuscation can hide that simple fact. The present right-wing coalition ruling Israel does not want peace. It wants land.

Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles was out Ambassador to Israel. He has an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Israeli government. That is why he was invited to talk on the Today programme. Well done BBC.

L. King

The fact is that Joe Biden ineptly torpedoed the peace talks with the rump Palestinian government. The US had a time frame of completing final negotiations in one year. The Municipality of Jerusalem announced initial planning meetings for new housing in Ramot Shlomo, an area already ceded by the PA to Israel. Ground breaking would not have taken place until 2-3 years later.

Biden basically telegraphed that the US time frame was a fraud and killed 18 years of diplomacy where direct talks had taken place.

The Palestinian leadership simply followed Biden's lead.

Objectivist George

Take a look at this newly (last Monday) released film: http://www.iraniumthemovie.com/

Truthtriumphs

Blades.

Just one simple question that you have consistently failed to answer.
Why was there no Palestinian state created between 1948 and 1967, when the Jordanians illegally annexed the WB, and from where the Jews had been ethnically cleansed, so that the absence of Jewish "settlements" couldn't be "an obstacle to peace"?
In fact, why has there never been a Palestinian state throughout history?

Hague, Cowper-Coles et al can strut and fret upon the world stage all they like, but GB's hour has been and gone.
Fortunately, their posturings wont make a blind bit of difference.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Well of course the likes of Mr Blades will fall over themselves in the rush to support anyone who steps forward with such vigor to dish out such monstrous distortions of the truth.

If a major part of British public opinion supports atrocious propaganda of this kind, as appears to be the case, it's safe to say that the whole nation is doomed. It's simply a matter of time.

J D Bryan

Response to DerekBlades

Even if this was true, which I would reject, you have conveniently ignored Melanie’s overall description of history of the “Palestine issue”. The problem is more than the “behaviour” of the present Israeli government.

Indeed, this is more than, say, a political debate between political parties in a western nation but about the existential threat to the free world. This region is the frontline in a global war directed by Islamists against the west. Israel as the only liberal democracy in this region should be defended on first principles by anyone who lives in the free west - and presumably supports thus. It is thus wrong to imply Israel and the MidEast regimes, let alone Hamas and Hezbollah, represent morally equivalent forms of society/polity.

Consider, today people would hardly treat as equally culpable, say, Nazi Germany and the western democracies for the international crisis of the late 1930‘s. Let alone claim Nazi Germany a victim of the west. That today, who be an apologist for Nazi Germany? Say, condemn both Britain and France as global imperial powers who had the audacity in the name of liberty to declare war on Germany who was just similarly obtaining colonies which happen to be in Europe (Though at the time some did hold some such views). For though both democracies were hardly moral paradigms, nonetheless, Nazi Germany was by far the greater evil, as an existential threat to human western civilisation.

Paul JACOBS

As an american reading your articles regularly, I am truly amazed at the survival of your British supercilious, pompous, effete, and shallow ruling class. Sir Sherard what's-his-name personifies this anachronism which has lead to the rapid decline of your country.

Al Ramy

The way the Brits written on one sheet of stationary (1938)walking away from their international commitments, they are prepared to put Israel under the bus. In 1967 president Johnson, also put Israel under the bus, by walking away from commitments made to Israel following the joint operation with Britain to open the Suez. Busy with rising casualties in Viet-Nam, he let Israel sort out the closure of its lifeline-the Aqaba straight. Israel prevailed with no assistance. Britain was left out of any influence ever since it had to retreat from the Suez. The chatter in London has no influence on the region because Britain is not a player.

RichardM

"He has an intimate knowledge of the workings of the Israeli government."

But no knowledge whatsoever of the region's history, or the Israeli state's origins. Which is why your comment evaded the entire point of the post, of course.

No one can accuse you of being an honest man, can they, Mister Blades.

Eli G

Strange how he calls it a ''crazy democracy'' in Israel. Whats crazy about it? That everyone has the vote, including women? That there is freedom of religion, speech and the press? That is crazy when compared against the backdrop of Arab oppression against their own citizens. When will the world realise it is up to the Arabs to prove they are genuine about peace, a warm peace, with the Jews - then and only then could any representative Israeli government do a deal that their own citizens will support.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Derek Blades: rhetoric aside, Derek, what is the Peace that you envision "the Palestinians" want and what peace is it that you and the twit of an ex ambassador to israel thinks would stand a chance if holding.

Try not to lie, now...

Joan

Where did you come from DEREK Blades? I have been reading your extremely foolish comments for some time now and it is very obvious you have no knowledge of the truth regarding Israel and indeed the whole situation in the Middle East. 'Well done BBC' you say. Indeed it will be a truly great day when we can once again say in truth of the BBC 'Well done' It seems to have become an anti-Israeli corrupt organization, no longer trusted as it used to be.

Roy

Me thinks, Melanie, you are a dying breed, protesting truth for the world, which doesn't want to hear. So much ignorance, so much misinformation, so many lies. We look to you to continue to press the point, to hold them to the truth, and show them for what they are.

Edward in the USA

I believe that when the British retreated from Palestine in 1947, just two years after WW2 and the Holocaust, they smugly believed that without the "protection" of the British, the Jews would finally be totally destroyed, this time by the Arabs.

It must have been a bitter pill for the British elites to swallow, to see their expectations go unfulfilled. To see the Israelis, not the unarmed Jews of WW2, defeat their attackers and build a thriving country.

Some Brits can not get over the fact that Jews are no longer sitting in the back of the bus.

cyllan

yeah dereck, is all peace and love from the arab media and palestine television and hamas and hizbollah, and the muslim brotherhood....and Iran and syria... yeah and pigs can fly....

Yisrael Medad

To be a bit more precise on your words that "the British response was to reward that terror by offering the Arabs part of the Jews’ legally binding entitlement". Actually, the area of Transjordan, which was originally conceived as part of the Jewish National Home as proposed at the Versailles Peace Conference in early 1919, through to the April 1920 San Remo Conference, was lopped off and awarded to a Saudi Arabian by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill in March 1921. The May 1921 riots by Arabs caused the High Commissioner to impede immigration into what was left.

John Thomas

I agree with Barry London's sentiment ("The only answer is the wholesale removal of the so called educated elites from any say in the affairs of the nation") - but sadly that's not going to happen any time soon, certainly not before jihadism has so completely taken over that the "educated elites" (mostly white middle class, comfortable people) have been forcibly woken up (by then it will be far too late).

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ms. Phillips: If the BBC is the mouthpiece for Arab propaganda, vulgarity and multiculturalism that you keep saying it is, what's the big deal that, as you say in your column "A Move too Far for the BBC," they're moving to places like Workington and Glasgow? Let them all move to the Hebrides.

J. Isaacs

Superb deconstruction of Foreign Office Arabist camel corps lies as usual by Melanie Phillips.

Sir Sherrard and the camel corps are veritable leaders and exemplars of the cataclysmic mismanaged economic, political and cultural decline of Britain since the War.

Derek BLADES

Tuttitrumps wants to know "Why was there no Palestinian state created between 1948 and 1967"

The answer is that during that period the Arabs who had lost their ancestral homes in what had become the Jewish state were still hoping that they could recover them.

Since then, the overwhelming superiority of Israel’s American-supplied death weapons have convinced the Palestinians that they are most unlikely to ever regain their old properties. They have now reluctantly accepted that the best they can hope for is there own country in the West Bank and Gaza. Not a welcome prospect for most of them but, as the Palestinian papers have shown, they are willing to make peace with Israel by important concessions on the right of return, East Jerusalem and land swaps. (Israel, by contrast, will not even concede a halt to settler land-theft.)

Nothing very mysterious about it Tutti, old chap. I would have thought you could have spotted the answer yourself.

Jerry

No doubt Mr. Cowpox would blame Israel if it went under, not recognizing his own handy contribution to the situation.

Raymond Douglas

The British establishment, Arabist to the core. Probably our establishment thinks this makes good, pragmatical sense. But, there is a higher force at work which our establishment appears ignorant of. The God of Israel, has promised that those who bless Israel shall be blessed , and those who curse her shall be cursed. As a Bible believing Christian , I would say this to our "pragmatic" establishment. Do you want our country to live under the curse of God ? Or do you reject blessing in order to curry favour with those who hate the God of Israel ?

Jerry

Al Ramy says, "The chatter in London has no influence on the region because Britain is not a player."

Britain continues to play the role of troublemaker - and does so with a rather unique passion.

The British elites have at their disposal MI5 and MI6. Their agents act as provocateurs in Samaria and Judea - that is well known. I am particularly impressed with Britain's supplying legal and propagandistic support for the establishment of an apartheid Palestinian state in the form of aid to the "Negotiation Support Unit."

Though the establishment of such a Palestinian state might lead to catastrophic war, it will not be the British who will be dying, but the Jews and Arabs. That is just fine!

Victoria Williams

The fact that arabs rejected the 1937 proposals is hardly surprising given that they a) understood themselves the rightful occupiers of the whole land, and b) that promises made to the arabs by McMahon in 1915 (Hussein correspondence) promised this land to them. However leaving that aside and considering facts of the recent past including the Palestinian papers, it is abundantly clear that Israel has consistently resisted the two state solution. Netanyahu has grudgingly acknowledged the concept but his Foreign Minister remains totally against any negotiation which might involve concessions. Sir Sherard is right, the impression created and believed by a growing majority outside Israel is that Israel would indeed prefer to continue to survive by force of arms.
Unfortunately for Melanie Sir Sherard is an expert with experience and an awareness of the real world and the relevant facts.
Good for the BBC

I am always interested in Melanie Phillips analyses, since she does provide a robust voice to the prevailing mood of left-wing comment, however she is not always convincing. I totally accept that the behaviour of Hamas etc. is foul, but it always strikes me as odd that the pro-Israelis never address the unnecessary and cruel settlement programmes which are at the heart of the conflict. Of course this is not justification for terrorism, but neither is terrorism justification of it. Hence my bafflement at the polarised stance of so many commentators, as they seem to suggest that whichever side they support has never done any wrong, ever. Surely this is false? As a neutral observer, the only response which seems coherent to me is "a plague on both your houses".

Jon

As an American who has lived in London for the past four years, the only possible reason for the drivel spouted by folks such as Cowper-Coles is that all the alcohol ingested here in this country makes people in high-ranking positions a bit deluded.

The problem is that when a good portion of the British populace is also regularly too drunk to learn the facts of the situation in the Mid-East, then they will hear this inane drivel and actually believe it as fact, thus increasing the anti-Semitism in an already highly anti-Semitic country.

Ditto for the Channel 4 website's page for the tv series "The Promise" in which "historian" Lindsey Hilsum (actually the International Editor for C4 News) gives one of the most warped and biased explanations of the history of the Palestinians. Would love to hear your thoughts on Hilsum's piece, Melanie.

Truthtriumphs

Blades.
"Well done the BBC".

Especially their dishonesty in suppressing the Balen Report, eh Bades, commissioned by them to investigate bias in the BBC's reortage of the I/P conflict.
You still haven't given us an answer about that, and I shall continue to remind you on every thread until you do.

Ehoop

"Nation shall speak lies unto nation". And that's not only the BBC. How stupid does this government think people are?

Reuven

For Cowper-Coles, Derek Blades and sadly others, I will use a cliche, but wholly appropriate - None are so blind that will not see.

Owen Morgan

Ben-Tsiyon, I don't believe that a major part of British public opinion does share the views of Sherard Cowper-Coles, or of the troll in these comments. They are, however, prevalent in the Arabist Foreign Office, in the BBC and in the poisonous pages of the Guardian "news" paper. I expect it's fair to say that most people who read the Guardian actually work for either the Foreign Office or the BBC, anyway, since its wider readership is microscopic. Since the Foreign Office itself shows an unseemly haste to off-load its responsibilities on to Brussels, it is plain that even its inmates have a dim view of its current level of influence. As for the BBC, its relentless bias on several subjects, including this one, is one of the prime reasons that many of us want to see it broken up. I doubt, however, that it is nearly as influential as it would like to be.

DougS

Sir Sherard:

‘We will all suffer if Israel persists in this present course of trying to survive by force of arms’.

Call me thick, but I'm having difficulty getting my head around this statement.

'Trying to survive' sounds like a fair appraisal - not wanting to be annihilated - but not presumably: 'by force of arms’.

I don't think abject surrender will do the job!

MArk2

Dereck Blades' answer really does no justice to the question raised

We know they didn't want the Jews there. However people don't park all aspirations in the face of a major crisis. If I might draw an analogy - the present basis of the welfare state in the UK was formulated during the closing years of World War 2.

To take the case of the Palestinian Arabs, they might say, have decalred a state on the West Bank and Gaza (or campaigned for one in the rest of one time "Palestine" i.e. Jordan) without prejudicing any claim they might have had on what is now (or, earlier, what became)Israel. Why not? The strong suggestion must be that the sole purpose of Palestinian nationalism was as a battering ram against the Jews. This is thrown into particularly sharp relief when one recalls that the Islamism that is now feeding the Paletinian cause is non (anti) nationalist and believes in a single Islamic state.

Anyway good to see from your other comments on the leaked Palestinian Papers that you don't (any longer?) believe that the Israli settlemenst are an insuperable obstacle to peace. Well, some of us always knew that was always rubbish - congrats on catching us up.

blue_&_white_avenger

Fascinating, Melanie.
I remember when Sir Sherard was UK ambassador in Tel Aviv. Before his appointment, he spent time learning Hebrew & he was very friendly. I heard that his tenure was cut short as he was getting too friendly - i.e. getting into bed with the natives. 'course, then he went to Riyadh & presumably had a completely different education. Fascinating how someone can change round so completely - it's like "& then a new king arose in Egypt who didn't know Yosef ...."

Herzen

I'm curious about those like the contributor with the ironic pseudonym "Truthtriumphs" who make such a thing of Jordan's annexation. Jordan's claim on the West Bank rested on precisely the same basis as Israel's on Galilee and much else besides. The question rightly directed at Jordan could equally be directed at Israel: why was a Palestinian state not established on the land where they had lived for generations? The answer is that others wanted to annexe it and the Palestinians didn't want them to but were too weak to stop them. Jordan has at least renounced its dubious claim on the West Bank in favour of the inhabitants. If anything, Galilee etc. is more "Disputed Territory" than the occupied territories.

blue_&_white_avenger

Miranda - this is very unfriendly of you "Let them all move to the Hebrides." To settle the atheist BBC types amongst the G-d fearing in the Scottish Isles is not a nice thing to do ....

Truthtriumphs

Derek BLADES
February 10th, 2011 9:32am
"Tuttitrumps wants to know why was there no Palestinian state created between 1948 and 1967.
The answer is that during that period the Arabs who had lost their ancestral homes in what had become the Jewish state were still hoping that they
could recover them".

Talk about hoist on your own petard!
Is that the best you can do?

That answer doesn't wash---- there are 1.5 million Arabs today in their "ancestral homeland" ie Israel.
But what happened BEFORE 1948 when there was no Israel--- why did the Arabs reject the Peel Commission?
And why was there no Palestinian state EVER?

Azzam Tamimi, Hamas's representative in the UK, is more honest, and knowledgeable than you.
He said,on your beloved BBC, that they do not want another Islamic state in the region.
He said that any distincion between Palestinians, Jordanians, Syrians etc. is wholly false---- they are all part of one ummah.
They just don't want a Jewish state in the region.
Take it up with him!

BTW are you still having problems cooking up a response to my request for you to explain Balen?
Coy about that, aren't you, old chap?

ade

@Raymond Douglas
I was actually impressed that most people on here have tended to avoid the religious "rights" supposedly granted which obviously should not hold any water. The superstitious and therefore unprovable declaration of ownership has to be avoided. A belief is a belief, it isn't "what is".

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Victoria Williams: "The answer is that during that period the Arabs who had lost their ancestral homes in what had become the Jewish state were still hoping that they could recover them."

Well, Jeez, Victoria..Funny what can happen when you start a war....and the fact is, of course, Israel accepted the Partition Plan and the arabs didn't, just as they accepted the Palestine Constitution and the Arabs didn't.. Now they want Israel to forgive 'em for going to war so any times to try and wipe 'em off the map. How very ungenerous of dem evil Jews!. You go figure.

"Since then, the overwhelming superiority of Israel’s American-supplied death weapons have convinced the Palestinians that they are most unlikely to ever regain their old properties. They have now reluctantly accepted that the best they can hope for is there own country in the West Bank and Gaza."

"Death weapons", ha? What are they? Uniquely jewish?

dear oh dear..

Forest Fan

Derek Blades…”Israel’s American-supplied death weapons..”-Sounds like something from War of the Worlds.

Joshua

'Ditto for the Channel 4 website's page for the tv series "The Promise" in which "historian" Lindsey Hilsum (actually the International Editor for C4 News) gives one of the most warped and biased explanations of the history of the Palestinians.'

To fully understand Hilsum's prejudices, you need to read this piece from 2002:

I am not an anti-Semite - Lindsey Hilsum

http://www.newstatesman.com/200205130008

just Louise

Brilliant analysis, Melanie,
That wretchedly ill-informed man, Cowper-Coles, should apologize to Israel, "the Jewish Diaspora", which he invoked, and tote misled radio audience.
I hope Ron Prosor makes a formal complaint to the FO.

Augustus

Yisrael Medad - I have some sympathy with what you say about
Transjordan, but a closer look at the relevant Colonial Office
papers reveals that Churchill believed that the presence of an
Arab ruler under British control
East of the Jordan would enable Britain to prevent anti-Zionist agitation from the Arab side of the river. Furthermore, he had also allowed the Negev to form part of the Palestine Mandate, thus allowing it also to be open to further Jewish settlement. However, I agree that Weizmann's pleas for Transjordan to be included in the Mandate fell on completely deaf ears.

Michael White

Mr Blades - what specifically would you like to see from Israeli government policy over, say, the next 5 years, and what results would you envisage if that were followed?

TDH

The Zionists accepted partition explicitly as a first step. They said explicitly that they would not be bound by any borders defined in such a partition.

The notion that Israel did not resist a Palestinian state, unlike Egypt and Jordan, is risisble.

The Generous Offer of 2000 was no such thing, as the Israelis engaged in the negotiations have confirmed. Serious concessions were only discussed at Taba, when Barak was laready a lame duck. He terminated the negotiations because an election was imminent.

Olmert also waited till he was a lame duck with an election looming. He tells us that he thin insisted that Abbas sign without studying the maps or consulting his colleagues - as if he should trust Israel after the charade of Camp David, Oslo etc. etc.

The Arab states and the Palestinians have long offered full diplomatic recognition in exchange for peace based on the 1967 boundaries.

Have we not read the Palestine Papers and Wikileaks, and what they confirm about who has made a Generous Offer only to find they have no "partner for peace", and what they confirm about the role of the US as "honest broker".

Moshe Dayan famously said that, if given the choice of land or peace, he would always choose land. Wherever possible, this has been Israeli policy throughout.

The notion that the Zionists had a "legally binding entitlement" to Palestine none of which could legally be offered up to the Arabs is unambiguously not bourne out by the historical documents.

Dr Michael Ward

"Israel doesn't want to rule the Arabs in the territories. It has repeatedly offered to give away most of the territories. Sir Sherard seems not to have noticed but the Arabs keep refusing to take them. And if Israel gives them up and Iran promptly moves in -- the most likely scenario -- what price Sir Sherard's Jewish state then?"

Eh? So should Israel give away the territories or not?

Why not use one of your articles to say what YOU think ought to happen instead of criticizing the views of others? I wrote to you and asked you. Even though you wrote back, you refused point blank to say what solution you would find acceptable. Why not just tell us what your views are? There might then be some basis for a constructive discussion between people who think like you and the rest of us.

Okey

The british ruling classes of both right and left have never forgiven the Jews for being among the first nations to shake off their imperialist yoke, hence the insane ravings.

Grumpy true Zionist

one can really begin to understand the growth of anti leftist conservative parties such as we see in Holland and Denmark as well as the strong emergence of groups such as the English Defence League

part of this is to prevent the islamization of their countries, but i now can see that a lot must be based on a desire to get done with the kind of goverments which produce soft flaccid and dangerous individuals like hague/cowper

britland has been trading on its past glories for way too long, and i suspect that the leadership in Israel, know full well that they are 'babyshoes'in terms of real events in the ME

regarding anti-semitism in britland - this is what occurs when you have society based on class vs one based on achievement
you get mean twisted litle mothers, frustrated by their station in life and they move from kicking the dog to kicking at anything as they get older and their frustration grows

no wonder alcohol and violence is so prevalent in britland - there is a serious screw loose with some of the inhabitants and this column attracts its fair share

Richard

You are so correct. Am I not right that Arabs sit in the Israeli Knesset? Would Jews be able to be elected into an Arab government?

Celato

Dr Michael Ward:

Your appeal to Melanie for an article setting out her idea of a solution to the Middle East conflict has my wholehearted backing.

But if that shouldn't be forthcoming, perhaps some of her supporters might fill the gap.

I, too, have noticed that the main contributions of C.Gee, Truthtriumphs, Roosevelt,et al, are either reiterations of Israel's historic claims or condemnation of her enemies and critics - but not a word about the shape of Middle East map THEY'D like to see.

Here's hoping...

PeterG

Surely it is time for a little honesty. Illegal settlements on Palestinian land are continuing with the connivance of the Israeli state. If Israel truly wants to progress towards peaceful cohabitation with its neighbours it will stop the illegal settlements, no matter how much that might upset the fundamentalists on both sides of the Atlantic.

raymond

Ade. You are quite at liberty to believe that my comment is invalid because I invoke scripture. But you have a "belief" also. You chose to believe that the God of Israel has no say in the matter. I chose to believe he does. Time will tell which of us is right.

David

The world is upside down.

Eliyahu

Melanie's column hits the spot about the lies told by the high & mighty in the British Isles. Most of the comments here are intelligent and informed too.

But Derek needs to know that when Israel won the 6 Day War of 1967, it did so with French combat aircraft, not American "death weapons." Indeed, Israel did not receive any heavy weapons from the USA before the 1960s. I suppose those weapons could be called "death weapons," but isn't that redundant? What about the weapons wielded by Mr Cows Piles' govt in Afghanistan? Can they cause death too? How about the Arabs' weapons? I suppose they are only meant for play like the rubber or plastic swords that we played with as little boys.

As to "east Jerusalem," it is part of a city that has had a Jewish majority since 1853, according to the French historian & diplomat, Cesar Famin who wrote at that time. In 1853, the Old City was the whole city, and Jews were the majority there. The Old City came under Arab Legion control (the Arab Legion was commanded by Sir John B Glubb & other British officers] in May 1948, after which the synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City were blown up with explosives. Jews owned much real estate elsewhere in what became "east Jerusalem." Such as around the tomb of Simon the Just. As to "1967 boundaries," before 1967, the Arab states refused to make peace with Israel or recognize any Israeli boundaries. There were only armistice lines, not borders.

Lastly, the Guardian et al. have misinterpreted the "palestine papers." The supposedly generous peace terms that Abu Mazen offered, were actually Olmert's offer to him, which he did not accept, but told Olmert he would bring back to his advisors for consideration and possible approval.

Augustus

Yes, what a facile, false, and implausible interview by a former diplomatic representative
of Her Majesty to Israel. Peace on offer since 1937! Before the ink on the Israeli Declaration of Independence was even dry the
Arab League states declared war on the new state, in defiance of UN Resolution 181. They even
issued a Statement (dated May 15
1948) admitting as much, and making it quite clear that the intent of their invasion was to destroy the new state, was not just to defend portions of Palestine allotted to Palestinian Arabs under the Resolution. In the document they
state: "The Arab States most emphatically declare that...they
aim at nothing more than to put an end to prevailing conditions". Prevailing conditions being the Zionist state. THEIR rule of law had to prevail, THEIR independence was all that mattered, THEIR absolute sovereignty was the only rightful one, Only THEIR democratic principles mattered,
and peace and security could only be achieved on THEIR terms.
They said as much, and that is a matter of record.

John

How can we "the British" be so hypocritical. This is the country which had concentration camps (Boer war) before Nazi Germany was even thought of and sold so many countries and peoples down the drain after WW2. Britain is an ignorant country and there are vast swathes of people who haven't a clue about the world or history - they don't teach it anymore do they?

Derek Pasquill

Nowt so thick - and by thick I mean really multi-ply, industrial grade thick - as upper class UK toffs.

Or a stupid class is a perpetual feast.

Grumpy true Zionist

in answer to many who believe that the Israel/palistinian situation is at the root cause of all that happens in the ME.....understand this one thing

arabs are a tribal society (defined in western terms as sunni/shia/sufi/wahabi...whatever)
who have been sucessfully killing and mutilating one or another for thousands of years

they know nothing of western style democracy and are divided up into despotic regimes on the one hand and fundmentalist theocracies on the other - there is no neutral territory (see turkey as a good example)

brits don't get it - the yanks under oblama are in a wish fullfillment state of mind and europe will bend whichever way

trying to negotiate anything with arabs is defined by their belief in 'taqiya' which means lie to any (Jew in Israel/Christian Brit/Yank/euro) all in the pursuit of the greater caliphate

to do business on any other terms with the arab, is just plain dumb (witness the potential ending of the egyption/Israeli peace agreement)
any agreement with an arab/muslim has a built in time limit, which notwithstanding the 'rage on the street' in egypt was headed towards it sell by date 'arab 'style

now for some of the posters this might all be just 'too much'

Gareth

Political correctness is now the dominant religion in Britain. The arabs are part of the proletariat (for some reason) and the jews are all capitalists. It follows that all true believers must support the arabs.

Tilly

Grumpy:

You seem to be saying: Israel is entirely surrounded by primitive killers who are incapable of telling the truth and therefore impossible to negotiate with.

Only two options are open in this scenario: (a) Settle for perpetual war and stop whingeing to the world about it; (b) move somewhere else.

Mycroft

"Nowt so thick - and by thick I mean really multi-ply, industrial grade thick - as upper class UK toffs."

Sherard-Coles was a Classical scholar at Oxford and got a double first. Sounds a right thicko doesn't he?

Eliyahu

"Illegal settlements on Palestinian land are continuing with the connivance of the Israeli state" -- PeterG

The Jewish settlements in Judea-Samaria are not "illegal." That is simply a partisan, pro-Arab misinterpretation of international law. Firstly, Geneva IV, article 49, forbids "transfer" of a state's population into an "occupied territory." But Judea-Samaria are parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home (San Remo, 1920; League of Nations 1922), which was confirmed by the UN charter in Article 80. So Judea-Samaria is not "occupied territory", allegedly occupied by Israel, but part of the Jewish National Home.
Secondly, "transfer" was meant to make up for the void in international law that did not forbid the mass deportations of Jews into occupied Poland for mass murder purposes. Transfer is forced migration. But the Jews going to live in Judea-Samaria are doing so voluntarily, even eagerly. Hence, PeterG, the "illegality" argument does not hold.

Forest Fan

'Mr Blades - what specifically would you like to see from Israeli government policy over, say, the next 5 years, and what results would you envisage if that were followed'?

Probably something like this….’To surrender everything then run away screaming like little girls’.

Okey

Peter G: your post reveals that you are an adherent of the fundamentalist dogma that the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (and also the former ones in Gaza) are /(were) "illegal" in your parlance.
This is an inversion of the truth as egregious as that perpetrated by Cowper-Coles.
You need only to examine the 1922 determination of international law known as the british mandate for "Palestine" to confirm the fallaciousness of your camp's claimed views.

The brazenness of people like the former ambassador in inverting the truth reflects their contempt for Jews.

C.Gee

On canards and lame ducks:

Zangwill did not write the canard: “A land without a people for a people without a land.” He actually wrote: “Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country.” He acknowledged borrowing it from Lord Shaftesbury who said of what was known as “Greater Syria” that it was a “country without a nation” in need of a “nation without a country” (the Jews). Zangwill was perfectly aware that there were people in Palestine, but they were not a nation. Zangwill later became a Territorialist, promoting finding a territory anywhere in the world, not necessarily in Palestine, for the Jews. Among the territories he suggested: Mesopotamia, Canada, Australia, Uganda and a part of what is now modern Libya. These territories were controlled by powers (Mesopotamia was placed under mandate at the same time as Palestine) who may have ceded territory to the Jewish nation in relatively depopulated areas.

Another canard that still flies is that the British had no right to impose a minority - even foreign - sovereign upon the “majority” population of territory it controlled. In non-democracies, minority/majority considerations were irrelevant. Britain installed Hashemites - notable custodians of Mecca - in Transjordan and Iraq, as a reward for their “loyalty” to forces driving out the Turks from the Arabian Peninsula. Ibn Saud of the House of Saud - a tribe hardly able to claim to be the “majority” of the Peninsula, although it was Sunni - declared himself king of Saudi Arabia, having deposed a Hashemite who had declared himself king of all Arabs. The history of the creation of nations in the Middle East is one of forcing tribes and sects into some sort of national constitutional arrangement, very often resulting in a minority tribe or sect holding political power. In Syria, political power is held by the minority Alawite sect, who control the (secular) government on Baathist ideology. The various national power-sharing constitutions in the new Arab dominated nations - sectarian representation in whatever passes for a parliament, political offices being allocated among the major sects - recognized a demographic fact: within in any set of borders, the people are a mosaic of tribe and sect, their intricate network of loyalties and enmities forming a power-base for an emergent minority elite to take control of government. The Zionists, already endowed with a national identity stronger than identity with place of birth, tribe, or particular religious dogma, were well placed to establish a pluralistic political culture - as they ultimately did, on a fraction of the land originally promised to them. Ironically, the Zionist national endeavor was constrained in ways that did not similarly inhibit the formation of the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan, or of any of the other Middle Eastern nations which were blithely allowed to become autocracies and despotisms.

A national identity is an artifact. That is true of European nations as well as Middle Eastern ones. The “Palestinians” (people living within the boundaries of the Mandate of Palestine prior to the carving out of Transjordan), who make up the majority of Jordan, identify themselves as subjects of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, or Jordanians. The “Palestinians” who stayed in Israel identify themselves as Arab-Israelis. The Jewish “Palestinians” who declared a state of Israel identify as Israeli - but there were some Jewish Palestinians, living in Hebron, say, who might have become Jewish-Jordanians when Jordan annexed Hebron, had they not been massacred by Arab “Palestinians” and exiled to Jerusalem by the Mandatory power.

And now for the canards concerning “lame duck” prime-ministers:

It has been suggested that Taba negotiations were terminated by Barak due to imminent elections, that the requirements of Israeli democracy interrupted negotiations, and that Olmert, knowing he was a lame duck, offered a deal which Abbas would have to refuse.

The Palestinians are very well aware of the fact that Israel is a democracy, that governments come and go, at the popular will. The peace treaties signed by particular governments are not repudiated by subsequent ones. The agreement with Egypt signed by Menachem Begin (Likud) has stood for 30 years.

If there had ever been an compromise on any issue acceptable to the Palestinians, they knew that they could sign it (even as a partial or interim agreement prior to a final treaty) and have that agreement be the accepted basis for subsequent negotiations by any later government of Israel. This is precisely why they will not sign onto certain positions, because they would be locked-in, and could not repudiate them or use them as deal-breakers in subsequent negotiations.

On the other hand, when they walk away from negotiations, with nothing formalized in writing on their position on any issue, the Palestinians accept Israeli positions offered as a “peace deposit” (as Abbas described Olmert’s proposal), and demand that those positions be the minimal basis for the next round of negotiations. The themselves are free to change their demands. (In this they are abetted by the Quartet.)

“Lame ducks” are useful negotiating ploys for the Palestinians. Ironically - there are so many ironies - the Israelis seem to collude in the fiction that a Fatah boss, were he to sign, could deliver and bring in all the factions to abide by the agreement. The likelihood of assassination by a rival of any boss betraying the cause by signing an end to the conflict, should stop the peace process in its tracks. Why would the Israelis negotiate with dead ducks?

Adam B.

Blades let the mask slip. The reason, he claims, that there were no calls for a Palestinian state in the entire West Bank and Old City of Jerusalem (including the areas the Jordanian Arab Legion had ethnically cleansed of Jews) and when Egypt ruled Gaza is because...the Arabs wanted to annihilate all of Israel, and were happy to wait for such an eventuality.

Thus the real agenda is shown. Nothing to do with establishing a Palestinian state - everything to do with destroying a Jewish one.

Well done Blades.

Oh, and the Balen report?

Adam B.

Blades - "American weapons of death"

What other kind of weapons do you know?

C.Gee

DougS:

Yes, chilling words by His Excellency.

Self-defense by force of arms is now - uniquely among nations - not acceptable for Israel.

Expect a new international diplomatic initiative for peace by Israel's friends:

Expulsion of Israel from the UN.
Economic sanctions.
Arms embargoes.
Recognition of a unilateral declaration of statehood by Palestine on 1948 armistice lines.
Arrest of Israeli politicians for war crimes.

Harris

excellent distruction of a really i think ill-meaning nonsensce. Keep up the good work. It is a real pleasure to read your museings.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Edward in the USA is absolutely right ! I well remember as a young man, back in 1948, a non-Jewish acquaintance offering the assurance that the Jews of Israel would soon be begging the British to come back and save them.

The British seem always to make the mistake of underestimating those who they regard as their inferiors.

Derek BLADES

J D Bryan tells me that I ignore “… Melanie’s overall description of history of the “Palestine issue”.

Quite correct JD. I do so because rehashing history from the Balfour Declaration to the founding of Israel is not relevant in the present situation. That declaration and the discussion at San Remo and elsewhere took place in a world where it seemed natural for the First World War victors to dish out bits of the Ottoman Empire among their chums as caught their fancy. That world is long gone.

If you don’t believe me, ask yourself these two questions. When did you last hear any politician on either side of the Atlantic justify Israeli settlements by reference to these now discredited agreements? And do you think that reference to them will carry any weight with politicians in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt …?

Forget them JD. They are not relevant in the world as it is today. Focus on what has happened in the 43 years since 1967.

Derek BLADES

Michael White wrtites “ Mr Blades - what specifically would you like to see from Israeli government policy over, say, the next 5 years, and what results would you envisage if that were followed?”

Acceptance of the Oslo Accords summarize my answer to your first question. You may have noticed that this is also what the Obama administration and the European Union would like to see happen.

My answer to your second question is necessarily speculative but I would expect to see:
• sharply higher per capita GDP and a reduction in poverty and unemployment in the new country of Palestine,
• foreign direct investment replacing grants in that county,
• a gradual acceptance of Israel as a legitimate, non-pariah, state by its neighbours,
• increased trade between Israel, Western Europe and the Middle East,
• a sharp rise in tourism both in Israel and Palestine and an equally sharp decline in anti-Semitism throughout the world and,
• last but not least, a drastic fall in the numbers of Moslem recruits to Islamic terror groups.

Give peace a chance, Michael, and lots of nice things can happen.

Herzen

C.Gee
February 10th, 2011 10:41pm

Another comedy turn from C. Gee.

You agree with what many suspected: The League of Nations mandates were a cynical charade to further the interests primarily of Britain and France, allowing them to draw lines on maps and appoint this man king of this and that man king of that, and impose the Zionists on the people of Palestine.

C. Gee thinks it was all about the mysteries of nation-creation-ism (by the way "country" does not equate to "nation"). It was about nothing so mystical. For Britain, it was about communications with India and the oil fields of Arabia.

I won't bother with the rest of the goats, although I was tickled that the Palestinians are to trust Israel implicitly in negotiations, and sign or initial or accept a verbal promise or a nod and a wink. After all, settlement building halted after Oslo was signed.

Herzen

Mr. Blades,
Unfortunately, the Mandate etc. cannot be dismissed as history. As you will see from the current thread, a gross misinterpretation of it is used to justify Israel's actions against the Palestinians.

Barry

Paul JACOBS - yes, ignorance and bad judgement in foreign affairs is a purely British phenomenon.

Michael White

"Acceptance of the Oslo Accords summarize my answer to your first question. You may have noticed that this is also what the Obama administration and the European Union would like to see happen.
My answer to your second question is necessarily speculative but I would expect to see:
• sharply higher per capita GDP and a reduction in poverty and unemployment in the new country of Palestine,
• foreign direct investment replacing grants in that county,
• a gradual acceptance of Israel as a legitimate, non-pariah, state by its neighbours,
• increased trade between Israel, Western Europe and the Middle East,
• a sharp rise in tourism both in Israel and Palestine and an equally sharp decline in anti-Semitism throughout the world and,
• last but not least, a drastic fall in the numbers of Moslem recruits to Islamic terror groups.
Give peace a chance, Michael, and lots of nice things can happen."

Thank you for your candid thoughts, Mr Blades, although I’m unclear why you feel I might not give peace a chance. Anyway, your views sound logical. But firstly will the Second Intifada not hamper the acceptance of the Accords on both sides? And do you not fear that the violent outcome of the Disengagement Plan has projected an unattractive portent for the Israelis for further land cession? In terms of poverty, can Hamas be persuaded to distribute its own wealth from arms? Would a ceasing of all military operations by Israel convince Hamas deal with her in this regard, do you think? I am most interested by your view that Israel might be gradually accepted. For this to happen, to you accept Hamas could ever be moved change its Charter that includes the removal of Israel and replacement with an Islamic State? I am not suggesting I have the answers, the situation is far too complex, but I am sure you can see the stumbling blocks from both perspectives.

Celato

C.Gee:

I realise you don't have the time to read/respond to every post, but I do think you should consider the challenges issued by myself and Dr Michael Ward at some point.

Arguments about the rights and wrongs of history have been flogged to death by correspondents of all shades in this blog. So, too, have apocalyptic imaginings about the future.

But the only person (so far) who seems prepared to say what they they would LIKE to see happen in the Middle East is Derek Blades (Feb 11, 7.08).

Perhaps if the vision he outlines is addressed - not as a shooting-down exercise, but as a chance to propose concrete alternatives - we might make some real progress...

Pam W

As a blog virgin! I was fascinated to read the comments re the Palestine/Israel conflict,and couldn't wait to contribute. I am not Jewish, but I have always had a huge admiration for the state of Israel.My father was a Dr in the area in 1947 with the RAF, he always said that it was nothing but a desert before the Jews changed the land.God help us if Israel goes under,it would be a desert again.Another reason for admiration of Israel is one of the few nations in the world to have BALLS!Keep up the great work Melanie, you must keep warning us about the threat of world domination by Islamic fundamentalism.

Derek BLADES

@ Michael White

Just two comments on your thoughtful reply to what I wrote.

I see the "violent outcome of the Disengagement Plan" as due to Israel's blockade of Gaza following its refusal to accept the outcome of a (more or less) fair election.

Second, a peace agreement carries risks for both sides and not only for the IsraeliS. The Palestine Papers show that Abbas has the courage to face those risks. Netanyahu does not.

C.Gee

1.“ When did you last hear any politician on either side of the Atlantic justify Israeli settlements by reference to these now discredited agreements [Balfour Declaration, San Remo]”

2. “Forget them JD. They are not relevant in the world as it is today. Focus on what has happened in the 43 years since 1967.”

3. “Acceptance of the Oslo Accords summarize my answer to your first question [what Israeli government policy would Blades like to see]. You may have noticed that this is also what the Obama administration and the European Union would like to see happen.”

Acceptance of the Oslo Accords (see 3) will mean that Israel is not required to freeze settlement building (see 1). As history only becomes relevant in 1967, Oslo is a legitimate focus (see 2):

There is nothing in the Oslo Accords (nor indeed in the Hebron Protocol, 1997 or the Wye River Memorandum, 1998 ) that demands settlement freeze. The only clause used to argue this point is Article XXX1, Oslo II - which prohibits the initiation of any step that will “change the status” of the West Bank and Gaza Strip until the “outcome of the permanent status negotiations”, where “status” refers to legal status. (The settlements were in fact removed by Israel from Gaza without that effecting the its legal status.)

This is recognized by politicians an both sides of the Atlantic (See 1.) That Oslo leaves Israel free to grow settlements is not merely pro-Israel shystering. Oslo’s failure to deal with the legal status of the settlements or their continued expansion is a source of great frustration to Khaled Elgindy, of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, formerly serving with the Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah (the organization whose output saw daylight as “Palestinian Papers” recently). See his article Original Sin: How the Oslo Accords Enable Continued Settlement Growth.

Under Oslo, the PLO is required to cease violence to Israel by all factions (including Hamas). As repudiation of violence by the PLO was the core of Oslo, acceptance of the Oslo Accords (see 3) as a basis for Israeli policy would mean that Israel would be right to insist on compliance by the PLO (Fatah) with those anti-violence undertakings, including the prevention of violence by Hamas, as a condition for the continuation of the Oslo Accords as a framework for negotiations.

The Obama administration and the European Union would like to see settlement freezes as a condition for negotiation. They do not accept Oslo (see 3). Mr. Blades may well be out on his own in accepting Oslo as a satisfactory means to peace. But then, if he puts his mind to it, he can find other post-1967 legal stuff - the sort of stuff that will “carry weight” with Arab nations - that will suit his purpose: an Israeli plea of “guilty”, with punishment to include: restitution of some of the land, which must also come with the admission of returnees (the Arab Peace Initiative), and the acceptance of continued hostility by Arab factions who want restitution of all the land.

Mike

As usual Melanie you hit the nail on the head.
Britain has done untold damage in the middle east, in its imperial days through its stoking the flames of hatred between jew and arab all the better to rule them both, and now by trying to increase its exports by way of denigrating Israel at every opportunity.
Maybe one day British governments will wake up and realise that their ONLY friend in the middle east is that tiny democracy Israel constantly being attacked (yes, the BBC only seems to be interested when Israel retaliates. The Grad and Kassam rockets are being fired on Israel most days)

Barbara Wertwijn-Keilson

A protest will not help anymore.

C.Gee

Celato:

As I have said before: the status quo is the best option for Israel at the moment, costly as it is.

When you say “we might make some real progress” I am not sure who you mean by “we”, and it is precisely the definition of progress that is at issue in this space.

The Arab Peace Initiative is the current pet policy formulation of those who believe sufficient Israeli concessions will disarm her enemies. It does not point to progress, but more of the same.

I have indeed suggested concrete alternatives to the current situation - meaning action which would take account of the reality of the situation, which is low-grade war.

The immediate action would be a unilateral declaration of borders by Israel - to include all of Jerusalem and satellite settlements.

Followed by declarations that 1. recognize the de facto separation of the Gaza political entity from that of the territories, and the existence of a state of war between Gaza and Israel, 2. rescind recognition of Fatah and the PLO as legitimate representatives of the people residing within the territories, and 3. affirm its right under international law to defend itself by force of arms from threats to its peace and security from the territories regardless of the legal status of the territories.

These actions would clarify: that Israel is a sovereign state on that geographical territory; that Israel has given up land for a separate Arab entity, not precluding a state; that Israel has control of her borders including immigration; that peace is obtained on a “peace for peace”, not “land for peace” basis; that claims for Palestinian sovereignty depend on Israeli concessions of power; that full sovereignty - monopoly on force, military power, control of airspace, sea access and borders - is the prerogative of statehood; that statehood is a legal status that does not depend on the extent of the state’s territory nor the exact designation of borders (which may continue to be in dispute), nor, a priori, on the size of the population, the make-up of the population, the natural resources or deficits of the land, or upon assessments of economic viability (which depend on government policies ).

It would be interesting to hear speculation on how this would play out - without moral posturing.

Ricardo

We are grateful to the learned C. GEE for taking the trouble to consult Wikipedia to give us the "correct" version of Zanwill's slogan (replacing "land" with "country").

We would welcome the "correct" Wikipedia approved version of the following from Zangwill:

"We must be prepared to drive out the tribes (he means Arabs) in possession (of the land...sorry, country) or grapple with the problem of a large alien population". He thought that, because the Arabs "backward", they should not be allowed to thwart the Zionists' "valuable reconstruction". They were "not entitled to the rules of democracy". They should "fold their tents and silently steal away". They needed to be "persuaded to "trek"".

He no doubt agreed with Ben Gurion that the Arabs should never be allowed to exceed 15% of the population of the planned Jewish state. (We know how he intended to ensure that in 1947).

What does Wikipedia make of Asher Ginzburg (Ahad Ha'am), who after a visit to Palestine in 1891 said, "We are used to believing that the Land of Israel is now almost totally desolate, a desert that is not sown. But in truth this is not so. Throughout the country it is difficult to find fields that are not sown."

Better stick with Mark Twain.

Herzen

Mr. Blades,
Unfortunately, I think you are mistaken in believing Oslo a blueprint for an equitable peace agreement.

Read the comments of Dov Wiesglas on the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and you will understand why Israel prolongs the "peace process" of which Oslo was a part (or preserves it "in formaldehyde").

Israeli policy is driven by the old Zionist maxim, "as much land as possible; as few arabs".

Oslo was just one further step: divide the Palestinians into (what was it Sharon called them?) enclaves or cantons; lock the gate; throw away the key.

Thus Israel achieves its goal: the maximum of land but minimum of Arabs.

If you want to judge Israel's good faith, look at its actions. At Oslo it agreed a phased withdrawal, prior to final status talks within five years. Yet at precisely the same time it accelerated its settlement building dramatically. In other words, had no intention of withdrawing from anything it really wanted (most of the West Bank).

The Palestinians were warned of all this by the more percipient of their advisors at the time (see Reja Shehadeh).

C.Gee

Ricardo:

I did not go to the trouble of consulting Wiki for the correct quote of Zangwill in order to exonerate him. He can stay on your list of Zionist beasts and criminals, along with Ben Gurion and anyone else you want to put there.

I corrected the quote and gave its origins to correct the misinterpretations of his meaning. “People” means “nation of people”. The density of a population over a given area makes absolutely no difference as to whether those people were citizens of a nation. Twain saw few folks, Ginzburg saw cultivated land. However many people there were at any point in time did not alter their legal status either before or after the exodus, for whatever reason the exodus occurred.

The density of a hostile population is relevant in war. People do not always fight as citizens of a nation. They may fight in ethnic, religious, and tribal solidarity. When they lose, they might mourn the loss of land they have “sown” for generations, without mourning the loss of it as part of national territory. By all means regard what happened to the Arabs in wars as a Naqba, and Israel as a bastard for being the victor, and taking account of numbers of a self-identified hostile population. How is your indignation enhanced by pretending that the Arabs were a nation?

Adam B.

Mr Blades, it is somewhat disingenuous of you to pretend to care about anti-Semitism when you have, on these very blogs, blamed anti-Semitism not on those who perpetrate it, but on the Jews themselves.

Furthermore, you accept as perfectly reasonable the Arab states' attempts to annihilate Israel between 1948-67, and go on to use this as an excuse as to why there were no calls for a Palestinian state at the time in the Arab world.

And you are still silent about the Balen report.

Adam B.

Ricardo - "hard to find fields that are not sown".

Well, considering that even today, after a huge agricultural revolution inside Israel since 1948, and the advent of agricultural technology, (shared by Israel with Egypt), large sections of the country like the Negev are still desert, I find this assertion rather hard to believe.

Also, who was cultivating the fields? What was the demographic make up of those farming?

There's a bit more to it than you claim.

Ricardo

C.Gee
February 11th, 2011 10:25pm

I should say straight out that I don't understand what you say about nations.

You appear to be inconsistent. In your response to Celato, you appear both to endorse the maxim that the strong do what they want and the weak do what they have to, and the proposition that there is such a thing as international law that dictates some of what sovereign states can do.

In your response to Celato, it is possible to discern a cogent and consistent defence of Israel founded on power, not morality.

Others here couch their apologia for Israel on strong moral claims. You yourself often show fervent moral indignation about Israel's enemies and critics. All of which suggests to me that you want Israel to be not just strong enough to dictate, but in the right.

Your remarks on what is due to a nation seems to confirm this. I am not clear what you think a nation is and how it comes into being. I am not clear why you think a nation, and only a nation, has a right to statehood. There are counter-examples thoughout history of nations without states and states with many nations.

You appear to hold oddly that a people (or a people of a single religion) scattered across the globe can displace the people living in a country simply because they claim to be a nation and claim the inhabitants are not.

As I say, I do not understand what you say about nations, and the inconsistency I think I detect may be apparent not real.

As a footnote: are you sure Wikipedia is authoritative on the quote from Zangwill and on its interpretation? You employ sarcasm in saying you don't seek to exonerate him. Yet you endorse what he says.

As another footnote: It is a very long time since I did economics. I recall no theory and no empirical evidence that prosperity can be achieved by government policy alone. Growth theory and geographical economics would suggest that the scattering of lands allowed the Palestinians would struggle to achieve anything approaching prosperity. Your comments have the appearance of a contemptuous jibe - but again I may simply misread you.

Ricardo

Adam B.
February 11th, 2011 11:48pm

You make a bit of a meal of denying the meaning of Ginzburg's rhetoric. His meaning is clear. Read a bit more of what he said. Read also Yitzak Epstein. There were early Zionists who were not dishonest about the "Arabs".

Ricardo

Adam B.
February 11th, 2011 11:48pm

Or if Ginzburg's trope is too tricky, try another, quoted on a recent thread. After the first Zionist Congress in 1897, the rabbis of Vienna sent two of their number to Palestine to see whether it was suitable for a Jewish state. They sent a cable back to Vienna, "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man."

Or, if that is too tricky, try Benny Morris, without any rhetorical tropes. "A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population...If the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948...because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself..."

There was a population already in Palestine with a way of life established over many generations. The Zionists knew that their state required the eviction of this population.

They also knew that the population would resist. Jabotinsky (again without rhetorical tropes), "Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement"

Moshe Dayan in 1956, "Who are we to argue against their hatred? For eight years now, they have sat in their refugee camps in Gaza, and, before their very eyes, we turn into our homestead the land and the villages in which they and their forefathers have lived. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and the cannon we cannot plant a tree or build a home."

Truthtriumphs

Blades.

re: antisemitism.

Martin Luther King, in answer to a question about Zionism:

"When people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews.
You are talking anti-semitism".
Harvard University, 1968.

C.Gee

“As another footnote: It is a very long time since I did economics.”

Not since 1823? (Sorry, hard to resist. I shall respond more seriously to your post when I can.)

Gábor Fränkl

Ricardo dear, the notion that gives away your distortions (in casesamounting to lies) are the occult mantra that there was a "country", a COUNTRY no less! of the mythical Palestinians (there is obviously no such people, that's a fully contrived rubbish). country is the sense like Denmark or the Netherlands. Too bad for you that others are reading your posts. Benny Morris has since rewritten his book substantially and too bad that you can only cite from the outdated version. Look, any grievance Israel may have caused anyone for it to undermine its legitimacy is 1/1000th in scope and volume for others to do the same. Notably Britain. As you with Israel, I don't particularly support to continue existing based on the last 50 years only, let alone 500...

Truthtriumphs

Victoria Williams.

"However leaving that aside and considering facts of the recent past, including the Palestinian papers, it is abundantly clear that Israel has consistently resisted the two state solution."

Fatah Constitution.1964.
Article 12.
The complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence".
Article 19.
This armed struggle will not cease until the Zionist state (Israel) is demolished.

And how about the opinion of Walid Shoebat, former PlO terrorist, who wrote in 2004:--

"Most Jews believe in a 2 state solution. I do not believe in this.
A Palestinian state will concoct its own rules and laws to continue the killing of Jews....never in history was there a Palestinian state.
We never wanted a Palestinian state---even today, Palestinians do not want a Palestinian state.
They want the destruction of the Jews.
It's a religious holy war. It's in the culture, the tradition".

Williams.
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Your post is malicious and ignorant, and designed to adapt the facts to your theories.

Miranda Rose Smith

_&_white_avenger
February 10th, 2011 11:50am
Miranda - this is very unfriendly of you "Let them all move to the Hebrides." To settle the atheist BBC types amongst the G-d fearing in the Scottish Isles is not a nice thing to do ....

Dear Avenger: You're right. I'm sure the Hebrides are beautiful and full of good and G-d fearing people. I was thinking of the Hebrides as remote and cold. Let the BBC move to Iran. Shavuah Tov.

Ricardo

Gábor Fränkl
February 13th, 2011 12:52am
I'm sorry, I don't understand the latter half of your comment.

In the first half you make much of "country". I first used "land". I was corrected by C. Gee, who told me that Zangwill had said "country". Whatever. The point is that the people who inhabited that particular bit of land, territory, terra firma...were denied the right to determine their own government. Whether they were previously part of the Ottoman Empire, a bit of Syria which was part of the Ottoman Empire...whatever, is neither here nor there. Whether they were previously a nation, a state, a distinct society or culture, whatever, is neither here nor there.

On Benny Morris, the quote was from 2004. He may have transformed himself into a political thug (as well as still in some respects a considerable scholar) - but about some things he is still honest.

Ricardo

C.Gee
February 12th, 2011 10:55pm

I like the quip. I look forward to the response.

Gábor Fränkl

Re: Ricardo - "Whether they were previously part of the Ottoman Empire, a bit of Syria which was part of the Ottoman Empire...whatever, is neither here nor there. Whether they were previously a nation, a state, a distinct society or culture, whatever, is neither here nor there." Oh yes, for anti-Israel bigots, certainly. For you. Not for others though.
Strange when the so-called British Empire denied countless other tribes, populatinos, nations etc. the exact same, and even for longer, much longer. Unfortunately fo you, the Jews were the original inhabitants of that particular land, not the Arabs. This tiny ointment in the soup complicates things, alas.

Gábor Fränkl

Oner more thing Ricardo, I graciously refer you to "Truthtriumphs" comments. May be useful for you.

Augustus

Ricardo - "They also knew that the population would resist."

Yes indeed! Why should the Jews
choose a country which has a
'population' that does not want to receive them in a particularly friendly way? Why choose a country, a small country, which even so had been neglected and derelict for centuries? In fact, why chose Palestine at all? Why not Alaska? Or Mexico? Or Texas? How unusual on the part of a practical, hard-working and shrewd folk like the Jews to sink their effort, their sweat and blood, their very substance
into the arid sands, the rocks and marshes of Palestine. Of course, perhaps it wasn't the choice or responsibility of Twentieth Century Jews at all.
Perhaps it was Moses who had acted out of divine inspiration,
who might have brought them to America, and then instead of the Jordan they might have had the Mississippi instead, which might even have been an easier task alltogether. But he chose to stop there, in the Holy Land.
And when you are an ancient people with a very old history indeed, surely you cannot be expected to deny that history and begin afresh. "The foundation of Zionism was, and continues to be to this day, the yearning of the Jewish people for its homeland, for a national centre and a national
life." (Chaim Weizmann, 1917)

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
February 13th, 2011 10:22am
Israel has indeed consistently supported a two-state solution, in the Barak sense (if they want to call it a state, then let them) - a state of Israel and a scattering of ghettoes for the Palestinians in which Israel can warehouse all those pesky Arabs who constitute a demographic timebomb. I suspect Victoria Williams was talking about a two-state solution negotiated in good faith.

Adam B.

Ricardo - the accusation that you level is that Israel expelled 700000 Arabs. Ignoring, as most who make this accusation do, that 900000 Jews were indeed expelled from the Arab countries at Israel's rebirth, and that the Jews of Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria were themselves ethnically cleansed by the Palestinians and the Jordanian Arab Legion, the accusation that every one of these Arabs was expelled at the point of a gun is utterly false. Now we can argue sources, contexts, and different accounts, without coming to one agreed picture. I agree that the picture is not clear cut - but it is also certainly true that many became refugees because that is what happens in war, and one flees the fighting. It is also true that Arab propaganda played into this, because invented horror stories (often concerning invented accusations of rape) terrified the Arab population, whilst calls exhorting Arabs to leave to clear the way for the conquering Arab armies were also made. Jabotinsky, speaking of "indigenous population" may have been referring to the Jews, who, after all, are truly indigenous, (your quote is without context), I have heard Dayan's quote disputed, and Benny Morris has repeatedly warned against those who selectively quote his work to further an anti-Israel agenda.

But let's say, hypothetically, that none of this is true. Say all your accusations are correct. What is your central point? Where does this get us?

Adam B.

Herzen, the two state solution has been offered to the Palestinian Arabs at least five times, dating back to 1937.

It has been rejected every single time - even though the offers on each occasion have been different. Could you explain why?

Ricardo

Gábor Fränkl
February 13th, 2011 4:17pm
I know it is not a satisfactory response, but I do not quite understand what you are saying.

It would be difficult to establish that the Jewish diaspora are the aboriginal population.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 14th, 2011 12:11am
In the 1937 and 1947, the Palestinians were incredulous that they were being told by the authoritiy holding their land in trust that they must accept an alien state on more than 50% of the territory for what was by then still only one third of the population. They knew by then not to trust the trustee. They also knew that the Zionists made no secret that they would not be bound by any such partition and required yet more of the land. In these circumstances, and in their ignorance of the true balance of military power, and without the foresight to see what was coming, it seems to me, that they did not accept partition is no puzzle.

In 1967, an offer was briefly mooted by the Israeli cabinet, but not formally made, and very quickly withdrawn.

The offer at Oslo, Arafat's clique foolishly accepted.

The offer by Barak and Olmert is as I described.

Celato

C. Gee:

Many thanks for your reply setting out a concrete position.

I did send some comments in return, but (as is becoming far too frequent in these blogs) it vanished somewhere ...

Sorry - do not have the health and strength to rewrite. Maybe another time.

Ricardo

Adam B.
February 14th, 2011 12:09am
I'm sorry, but you're making a meal of it again. I quoted you staunch Zionists. Nothing to do with "my" "accusations". By all means, study the context of their remarks. I will tell you that Jabotinsky was arguing for what has become known as an "iron wall" against the Palestinian Arabs, what he here calls the "indigenous people". Both Moshe Dayan and Benny Morris have been very clear many times, so it should not be too difficult for you to put their remarks in context. The cable from the Viennese Rabbis speaks for itself.

What is my "central point"? Re-read the blog. It is my contention that a dishonest account of what has been done in the past is used here to justify current actions which cause needless suffering. A more honest account might make it more difficult to garner support for such actions. Israel's rejectionsim is founded on myths.

Adam B.

Herzen, it was not "their land" being held in trust - it was never land that was part of any independent Arab entity, nor was most of the land in question privately owned - and in any case, private ownership was not disputed. The Arabs did not reject the offer because the Zionists may have been reluctant to accept (and accept they did) - they rejected it in principle. The language of Arab leaders made clear that the very concept of a Jewish State of any size was to be rejected in principle. To you, this seems perfectly reasonable - because you reject any Jewish connection to the land. To me, it is utterly bigoted and ignorant.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 15th, 2011 12:01am
It was "not their land". It was "never part of any independent Arab entity". Therefore the Zionists could take it, regardless of the wishes of the population. This is an example of your reasoning?

Why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted a Zionist state, even in principle? I may just not have noticed, but where have you supplied a good reason?

Truthtriumphs

Herzen

"Why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted a Zionist state, even in principle? I may
just not have noticed, but where have you supplied a good reason?"

More to the point, why should the Palestinian Jews have accepted 2 Arab states on 77% of the territory allocated to them in international law?
Just to remind you, the Arabs come from the Arabian peninsula, hence the name, just as the Jews come from Judea, hence the name.
Interesting how people like you churn out all kinds of phoney statistics, mis-quotes and quotes taken completely out of context, to "prove" your case.

It always interests me how those like you try to argue that the international community didn't intend a Jewish state in Palestine, yet you have no problem with the way the Ottoman Empire was carved up to create the artificial countries of Syria, Iraq and lebanon---those mandates you have no problem with----only the Jewish mandate.

You can dress it up however you like, but for you there is no place for the Jews.
Just as the pre-war European anti-semites used to scream "Jews, go back to Palestine", your shout is "Jews, get out of Palestine".

Oh, and another thing, you're mighty silent about the almost 1,000,000 Jews who were indigenous to the Muslim countries and lived there for more than 1,000 years and were ethnically cleansed from those lands, and have now been settled in Israel.
If I had the time, I would fisk your posts and take you to the cleaners.
For the moment, this will suffice.

Augustus

Herzen - when the Jews could not reach the Arab leaders in any Arab state to show that they would prefer to coexist with them, how can any debate about 'supplying a good reason for accepting a Zionist state' be considered informed? Hiding behind the idea that the state itself is deplorable because it
is in Palestinians' territory is no justification for failing to discuss the merits of the state of Israel itself. An enlightened debater would at least consider the Jews' own position, and their own reasons for being in that land.

C.Gee

“Why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted a Zionist state, even in principle? I may just not have noticed, but where have you supplied a good reason?”

Because they would have had a better life - as did those Palestinian Arabs who stayed and accepted a Zionist state. They all should have accepted a Zionist state on the principle of self-interest: the attainment of civil rights, economic opportunity, welfare, the rule of law, individual liberty, freedom of speech ...Look what happened to the Palestinian Arabs who “accepted” a Hashemite monarchy next door.

Upon what principle should they have refused? Hatred of Jews? All the (later )Marxian refinements - Zionists were colonialist, capitalist, orientalist, exploitative, non-native, culturally insensitive - summed up by “Zionism is racism”, boil down to the same old thing. Bigotry. I challenge you to find another reason for Arab conduct.

Herzen

Augustus
February 15th, 2011 9:36pm
Again you miss or sidestep the question. This has nothing to do with the Zionists co-existing with other states. This has to do with the inhabitants of Palestine. Why should they have been expected to accept a Zionist state imposed in the land they and their forebears had lived in for generations? Still you provide no answer.

Herzen

Truthtriumphs
February 15th, 2011 5:10pm
The Palestinian Jews? Do you mean the indigenous Jews or the Zionist immigrants?

The Zionists were not allocated Palestine in international law.

The "Arabs" of Palestine are generally accepted to be a mix of the people who lived there millenia ago (possibly even ancient Jews - as Ben Gurion tended to believe in the 1920s) and every other people who has crossed the territory over the centuries. To make some sort of argument for Zionism from the mistaken assumption that they all came from Arabia is not advisable.

You have taken the time to accuse me of " phoney statistics, mis-quotes and quotes taken completely out of context". In decency, you should also take the time to substantiate you accusation.

I do not expect you to have read my every comment, but, if you haven't, I would expect you to refrain from making erroneous assumptions about my opinions. In particular, about the British and French imperialist carve-up, and about the Jewish communities in Muslim countries.

It would also leave less of a bad smell if you refrained from such as, "for you there is no place for the Jews".

You conclude with the bumptious, "If I had the time, I would fisk your posts and take you to the cleaners."

I don't think so.

Herzen

C.Gee
February 16th, 2011 7:53am

The old colonialist "civilising" mission!

"Upon what principle should they have refused?" - The principle the League of Nations purported to be preparing the "less advanced" peoples for and the UN enshrined in its charter.

Augustus

Herzen - During the Mandate period, both the Palestinian Arabs as well as the Palestinian Jews (both veteran communities as well as new settlers) had no real political independence. Both communities strived for this goal whether they were living West or East of the Jordan. So, a very good reason for the Arab leaders to have accepted a return of the Jews to their undoubted sacred roots was for the Arabs to allow
and trust the Jews, who were by the mid-1930s also having to cope with Nazi racial persecution, to help them with political, financial, and moral
support: A parallel path to independence. This would have been a wise decision because the
lot of the Arabs would have improved, and they would not even have been in a minority because they had land in abundance. The Arabs probably at
that time had more reason to trust and to seek cast iron guarantees from the Zionist leaders than the governments of
Britain and France.

Adam B.

Ricardo, you speak of Israeli "rejectionism" - even though the Jews accepted the two state solution back in 1937, 1948, and since. Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Muftu of Jreusalem, said on Nazi radio Berlin in 1944: "Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history and religion." Yasser Arafat said in 1970 "We shall never stop until ... Israel is destroyed…no compromises or mediations… the goal is the elimination of Zionism ... We don’t want peace, we want victory. Peace for us means Israel’s destruction and nothing else." Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant says "The Prophet… says: ‘The Last Hour would not come until the Muslims fight against the Jews and .. kill them, and until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim Servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him".

How's that for "rejectionism"?

TDH

C. Gee,

If it was indeed only about "civil rights, economic opportunity, welfare, the rule of law, individual liberty, freedom of speech" then the Zionists should have devoted their considerable skills to changing the immigration policies of the British Empire and the USA to allow European Jews to settle in their territory.

Herzen

Augustus
February 16th, 2011 1:49pm

I am beginning to think that you genuinely cannot conceive what the question might mean - which is in itself very instructive.

Herzen

Adam B.

Why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted a Zionist state, even in principle? I may just not have noticed, but where have you supplied a good reason?

C.Gee

TDH:

“Zionists should have devoted their considerable skills to changing the immigration policies of the British Empire and the USA to allow European Jews to settle in their territory.”

“Considerable skills”, eh? Throughout the centuries, Jews were at the mercy of “immigration policy” of empires and nations. At the very time when the Jews were experiencing the ultimate “immigration policy” in Europe, Britain and the USA were squeamish about the riff-raff of Europe washing up on their shores.

As it happened, thousands of Jews did immigrate to America where they became Americans. And some of them, and some assimilated British Jews, did not want Zionism to succeed in setting up a Jewish state and disapproved of the Balfour Declaration. That was before the ultimate immigration policy referred to above was implemented.

C.Gee

Herzen:

"The old colonialist "civilising" mission!"

I had anticipated that old Marxian scoff in my answer to your question.

Do stop repeating the question, as if it were the one brilliant question that reveals the Cretan liar, the question that confounds and dumbfounds your opponents.

The Arabs were "less advanced" (still are) - but not so much so that in Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq, they did not get their statehood without being nurtured into readiness.

Ask the Bedouin of Israel, or Jordan, or Egypt their opinions of the states they find themselves citizens of, and their opinions of other Arabs, including the Hashemites and "Palestinian" Arabs.

No getting around it. Lots of Arab states. One Jewish state. All created by the power of other states. But the Jewish state is the better state.

Augustus

Herzen - I thought I had provided you with an answer. Was that not all that was required?

C.Gee

Adam B.
February 16th, 2011 2:58pm

Quite. The Arabs had an explicit, annihilationist “Plan Dalet” of their own against Jews, long before their implementation of it in full-blown war against Israel made any such alleged Zionist Plan expedient.

Adam B.

Herzen - why should anyone accept any state? Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews - Jerusalem has, since the mid-nineteenth century at least, always had a Jewish majority. Yet the Jews accepted that the land could be divided, into separate Jewish and Arab states. Anyone who knows anything about Judaism understands that the connection to the land is integral to Jewish religion and culture.

Let me ask you this - why would the Palestinian Arabs reject the offers of a Palestinian state and a Jewish state? Unless, of course, you and they both believe that the Jews have no right to be there, and no right to self-determination at all?

Adam B.

TDH - you should note that when the Jews really needed to get out of Nazi Germany, the UK and US shut their doors.

Never again will Jews be at the mercy of some foreign office bureaucrats.

C.Gee

“Whether they were previously a nation, a state, a distinct society or culture, whatever, is neither here nor there.”

In that “whatever” lies pretty much all the political and historical analysis of the Middle East. Perhaps you are a newcomer to the debate.

It is essential to understand the concepts of “nation” - and “state”, “society”,”culture”, “people”, “land”, “country” - because meanings have political consequences . Whether the Arabs of Palestine were “previously” a nation or a state, is most emphatically not “neither here nor there”. It is fundamental to the Palestinian Arab account that they claim a prior national identity over Palestine (minus Transjordan!) so that they may assert ownership of the land as their country, over which they demand full sovereign power as a nation-state. Upon that claim is founded the delegitimization - criminalization - of Israel as land thief, colonialist, racist, ethnic-cleanser and genocide. If that claim were untrue, and the Palestinian Arabs were not a nation distinct from other Arabs within the former Ottoman province, then their “resistance” would lose legitimacy (although there is no right to resistance in international law, despite the best efforts of Khalidi), the suffering of the Palestinian Arabs would lose its special sweetness (because it would be no longer Jew-inflicted) and would have to compete for compassion with, say, Darfurians, the Palestinian refugees would be no different from any other refugees treated badly by their hosts, and the Palestinian Arab leaders - whether Islamic or secular - no different from any other Arabian bosses . Furthermore, Israel would be seen as rightly defending herself, with restraint, from her enemies as should any other state.

"Neither here nor there", indeed! Or perhaps that is where you believe the nation of Jews should be? The traditional European view.

Herzen

C.Gee
February 16th, 2011 5:08pm

Dear me, no! Not a "brilliant" question. A very simple one. And yet one that has not been answered, which I find suprising. Such indignation, venom even, that the Palestinian Arabs did not accept that the Ottoman Empire would be succeeded by a Zionist state. Yet no explanation why they should accept.

"Marxist" appears to be your fall-back insult when giving "anti-semite" a rest. You use them without regard to how apposite they are, or are not.

In this instance, not "Marxist". Liberalism. It is liberal and democratic principles opposed the imperialist and colonialist assumption that the more "advanced" peoples should bring civilisation to the "less advanced" peoples at the end of the barrel of a gun whether they wanted it or not. This civilising mission usually promised gain for the civilisers, not so obviously for those being "civilised". Not "Marxist". Liberal.

And yet somehow you managed to avoid answering.

Herzen

Ausustus,

It is all very well providing an answer - but it should really be an answer to the question asked.

Herzen

C.Gee
February 16th, 2011 6:47pm

That is an interesting claim. I have read the "alleged" (why "alleged"?) Zionist Plan Dalet. I haven't read one drawn up by "the Arabs". Have you?

TDH

C.Gee
February 16th, 2011 4:42pm

One or two points in reply.

You appear to take exception to "considerable skills". Whatever you think of the Zionist project, you surely must admit that its success required the application of considerable skill by a considerable number of people.

I know what-ifs are of limited value. I still think if half the effort devoted to exploiting the prejudices of the British governing elite (and electorate) to advance Zionism had been diverted to explaining the wisdom of allowing free immigration into the Empire (and likewise with the US)it would have been of benefit.

Zionism was, I believe, supported by only a minority of the Jews you mention in Britain and the US early last century. (At least, that is what is asserted in many histories, although I can recall only one or two mentioning surveys of opinion.)

Am I to take it that you think what was at stake in Palestine was something more than "civil rights, economic opportunity, welfare, the rule of law, individual liberty, freedom of speech"?

Adam B.

Herzen, if you wish to believe that there was never any Arab plan to throw the Jews of Israel into the sea, despite the evidence put before you, then fine. But perhaps, having demanded an answer from me, you will now reciprocate and tell us whether you accept that there is any Jewish connection to Israel, and whether Jews have a right to self-determination.

By the way, the Ottoman Empire's province did not result in a "Zionist State" (can't bring yourself to say Israel?) - there was an intervening period of 30 years when it was a British Mandate, when 80% of it was carved off to create a New Arab state of Transjordan, later to become Jordan, with a majority Palestinian Arab population. In the remaining one fifth of Palestine, a Jewish and Arab State were proposed, which the Jews accepted, and the Arabs did not.

There's no getting round that Herzen.

Ricardo

C.Gee
February 16th, 2011 7:26pm

It is kind of you to condescend to me as "a newcomer to the debate".

Was this the considered reply you said you would give me?

You appear to repeat, but not explain, the highly obscure stuff about nations and what is due to nations and no-one else.

And you do not discuss how the argument from force and the argument from what is due a nation fit together, if they do.

Adam B.

Ricardo, any comment on the quotes I provided? Aren't they "rejectionist"?

Plenty more where they came from - unfortunately.

Augustus

Herzen - You are either a twister, or haven't bothered to appreciate my answers. Your question was imprecise. Instead of asking, 'why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted
a Zionist state?', it would be more precise, considering the period under discussion,(both on this and the other blog), to have asked, 'why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted
a(negotiated and agreed) future
Zionist state with a Jewish majority within the British mandate territory'? I believe that the answer which I gave was
not, as you dismiss, irrelevant
to that question. My solution would have provided for both communities a viable construction for two states living side by side in peace and harmony long before the atrocities of WW2, and long before the UN's deliberations
thereafter. That solution, the parallel road to mutual independence, would have intended to produce two prospering and recognized self-
governing states, even though the map would have looked slightly different than it does today. But the Palestinians would have had their state, and
with Jewish help it need not have failed to prosper. But instead of that, what we have actually seen, after decades of
hatred and bigotry, has not even been a state which tried and failed, but no state at all.
It may not suit the picture programmed into you of the trespassing and colonizing Jews,
but it would have been an historial plausibility nevertheless. Remember, the people living throughout the region were no more independent
than the people of colonial Africa or Asia, but they had one
advantage, they were under trusteeship, and trustees are always amenable to a peaceful
solution. But neither you or I can put the clock back, unfortunately.

Herzen

Augustus
February 17th, 2011 12:45am

C. Gee is right that I should not keep repeating a question when I don't get an answer that I think addresses it.

However, you have taken some trouble to explain what you think, and, although I admit I do not entirely follow your explanation, I think I should try in turn to say why it seems to me not to address the question. I undertake not to do so again.

You say that 'why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted
a Zionist state?' is too imprecise. "It would be more precise, considering the period under discussion,(both on this and the other blog), to have asked, 'why should the Palestinian Arabs have accepted
a(negotiated and agreed) future
Zionist state with a Jewish majority within the British mandate territory'?"

The period covered by the blog includes the whole mandate, and so does my question (and indeed the decades before).

My question seems to me precise enough, as precise as yours, and prior to yours.

As I understand it, you say that the Palestinians should have been happy to accept a Zionist state with a built-in Zionist majority.

A "very good reason for the Arab leaders to have accepted a return of the Jews to their undoubted sacred roots was for the Arabs to allow
and trust the Jews, who were by the mid-1930s also having to cope with Nazi racial persecution, to help them with political, financial, and moral
support: A parallel path to independence. This would have been a wise decision because the
lot of the Arabs would have improved, and they would not even have been in a minority because they had land in abundance. The Arabs probably at
that time had more reason to trust and to seek cast iron guarantees from the Zionist leaders than the governments of
Britain and France."

They should have accepted a Zionist state because they should have trusted the Zionists to provide "political, financial, and moral support" in their parallel path to independence.

They would not have been in a minority because "they had plenty of land"

I think I have been clear that I have been talking throughout about those who lived in Palestine. Your last point clearly does not apply to them.

The notion that they should have trusted the Zionists to look after their welfare looks dubious to me.

There were certainly early Zionists who envisaged a bi-national democratic state. There were those who were very critical of the behaviour of the immigrant Zionists in general towards the Arabs of Palestine. There were those among both the Zionists and the Arabs who sought mutual understanding and cooperation. On both sides, these were very much the minority. Amongst the Zionists, they had very little influence (likewise among the Arabs).

For the vast majority of Zionists, the project was as you have described earlier: immigration would lead to an overwhelming Jewish majority, who would establish their own Jewish state in the whole of Palestine (west of the Jordan, after Britain's cynical line-drawing on maps).

The criticism among Zionists seeking an accomodation was that mainstream Zionists simply ignored the Arab population and its interests. They should also have been critical of those who did pay attention to the Arab population but only to discuss how to be rid of them. "Transfer", to use the codeword, was an option much discussed from the very beginning.

Why should the Palestinian Arabs have trusted these Zionists?

Try to picture a land where a well-established population is faced with large and increasing immigration from people who make no secret that they plan to establish their own state in the land. The immigrants for the most part show no interest in the locals. And openly discuss their "transfer". A small minority talk of cooperation and democracy. Would you expect the local population to trust the immigrants? Why would the fact that the local population had previously been subject to an empire and without an independent self-governing polity argue against suspicion of the in-comers?

Imagine a fanciful example: the Hindus or Muslims of the Indian sub-continent decide that their historic link to Britain is such that they should establish a Hindu or Muslim state there. Imagine in this fanciful example that we are back in the early 1940s and the US is strongly anti-imperialist (i.e. it wants to take over from Britain). The US supports the Hindu or Muslim statebuilders (otherwise they would want to come to the US) and instructs the British to make way. Would you expect the British to accept a Hindu or Muslim state with a Hindu or Muslim majority?

By the 1930s and 1940s, it might be possible to argue that the Palestinians should have understood that the odds were stacked against them, and sought whatever deal they could get. It is not surprising, I think, that they did not do so, and not just because of the undoubted incompetence of their leaders or their disarray after the British brutally suppressed the revolt. They were offered less than half of the land for two thirds of the population. The one third of the population getting over half the land was offered the best agricultural land and access to the sea. And the one third were quite open that they did not consider themselves bound by any borders stipulated in any partition. Do yo think the Palestinian Arabs should have accepted the Zionists' "cast-iron guarantees"?

I do not think that I have misrepresented you. I apologise if I have. I do not think you have answered my question.

Augustus

Derek Blades (Feb.9th)- You may defend Sir Sherard Cowper Coles,
if it amuses you to find another reason to contradict Melanie Phillips, but methinks he needs to go back and do his homework. In all the upheavals of recent weeks, and regime changes protests, a common factor has been that not a single protester, or slogan-bearer has summoned up the Palestinian-Israeli dispute as a
factor in the most revolutionary
transformations to take place in
the region's countries in half a century, giving the lie to the decades long claim by the opinion-makers and people like you that the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict was the root cause of instability in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and if it were not settled, those worlds would turn against the West. The force
most energized by the Egyptian uprising turns out to be the extremist Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas -
not only in Gaza and the West Bank, but also in Jordan. In whichever direction Egyptian
'democracy' ends up, it is certain that the Muslim Brotherhood will be substantially represented, and this will enable Iran's military expansion to build up,
both in Gaza and Lebanon. And Iran, as we all know, has often
said that it wants to sweep Israel off the face of the Earth. Israel has never threatened Iran in that way. Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic regime which daily murders and tortures its own citizens. A regime from which many people have escaped - I wonder why? They don't seem to have the same compulsion to escape from Israel, do they? It's not, and never has been Israel who doesn't want peace, but the fundamentalist Islamites
and their religious leaders who have consistently refused it.

Danny, London

Melanie,
Keep up your excellent analysis...

Augustus

Herzen - Thank you for your replies. I suppose whether the Palestinian Arabs should have accepted 'cast-iron guarantees'
really depends on the time frame
in question. I am not an expert in the 20th Century history of
Islamic fundamentalism, but I would guess that in the post-
WW1 era it was less fanatical
towards non-believers than post-
Iranian revolutionaries have proved. Going back to the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which states: "The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the
Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based on exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Balfour Declaration favouring the establishment of a
Jewish National Home in Palestine...Unauthorised statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become 'as Jewish as England is English.'"
He goes on to say that HMG have no such aim in view, but that a Home should simply be founded there with immigration not "so great as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absord new arrivals." Bearing that in mind, it would seem only logical for negotiators for an
Arab dependant population to seize the diplomatic chance to
discuss that 'capacity' thereby
having every reason to hold the
Jewish leaders to account for any future breaches. Without acceptance of the Zionist state,
the Zionist dream (if you will),
they would not have had the power and influence to do anything about it if things were
not to proceed according to agreement.

Herzen

Augustus
February 17th, 2011 4:09pm
I promised not to keep at it, but you remarks prompt a few observations.

I do not think Islamic fundamentalism anywhere near the most important consideration for Palestinian Arabs in their hostility to Zionist immigration in the early years of the last century.

As far as I can tell from the history books, there were those in the British establishment who wanted a Jewish state in Palestine (for a variety of reasons); those who thought it more important to keep it as easy as they could for their Arab proxies to do their job in the new artificial states they had created (again, in Britain's interest, no-one else's); those who already foresaw the trouble the contradictory undertakings to Zionists and Palestinians would cause etc. Any summary of the "British" position is inevitably a simplification.

Churchill is an enigma all to himself. He was a racist, prejudiced against Jews, but also, and if anything more so, against Arabs. He was an imperialist, whose priority was the interests of Empire. He was overweening in his estimate of his own knowledge and competence (sometimes accurately). In this instance (i.e. as colonial secretary) he took important decisions without proper undestanding and without thinking through the consequences.

His White Paper accurately described the legal and diplomatic position. Britain as mandate power would not be tasked with facilitating a Zionist state, but a Jewish National Home, which, despite the intentions of those who drafted the Balfour Declaration, did not amount to the same thing.

Nevertheless, the Zionists, although unhappy (for obvious reasons) with the White Paper and the Mandate, recognised it as a major victory. The ambiguity of the wording gave them sufficient room for manoeuvre to continue to build towards their Zionist state.

For the same reason, the Palestinian Arabs saw the White Paper as a major defeat that left them unable to thwart the settlement of Palestine by the Zionists.

Churchill was well aware of this. Whatever the legal and diplomatic position, Britain was essentially siding with the Zionists. (Again, this inevitably simplifies the continuing in-fighting within government.)

In other words: you say, "it would seem only logical for negotiators for an
Arab dependant population to seize the diplomatic chance to
discuss that 'capacity' etc." - and that is precisely what they tried to do. They failed to get the British to behave according to their undertakings. They failed to stop the British allowing the Zionist project to proceed. Despite all the ups and downs and zigs and zags, by the time the British woke up to the risk they were taking with their strategic position in the Middle East, they had facilitated a Zionist state-in-waiting.

(You may disagree, but I think Tom Segev gives a balanced account of the Mandate.)

As you rightly said earlier, this is all water under the bridge. However, many in Israel and among its supporters around the world, too easily (I think) take a tendentious version of the history as justification for Israel's current actions - justification I do not think warranted by the historic record.

C.Gee

Herzen:

The Arab plan of extermination is in many parts, formed over a very long time: the Mufti al Husseini’s pact with Hitler, and his subsequent incitements against the Jews, the Arab nations’ war plans, Khartoum, the PLO charter, the Hamas charter, every splinter terrorist faction’s statement of purpose, the continuing Islamic exhortations to fulfill Koranic plans. Do reread Adam B.’s responses.

Ricardo:

I considered my response carefully. I did not wish to go back and disentangle your assumptions, clarify the terminology (not having had success with “nation”), and rephrase your queries to have some meaning in context, merely to demonstrate that what you perceived as contradictions in my view, were in fact misunderstandings of your own. Very heavy spadework, and I don’t think that the crops will be harvested, as your reference to “obscure stuff” suggests.

TDH:

You have been reminded by me and others of the history of “immigration policy” with respect to the Jews. That should have been sufficient to stop your nonsense about putting Zionist efforts to negotiating for a large Jewish quota of immigrants to the “Empire”, or to Britain itself or to America. To these intents and purposes, Palestine was part of Empire. After WW2 the British threw off Empire (including Palestine). And which corner of Empire do you suggest the Zionists should have lobbied for? Would the populations there not have objected? (There were, of course, many suggestions for alternative locations for the Jewish national home.) And was not Zionism the nationalism of the Jews? They aspired to statehood, not a condominium.

Your contributions here are a horribly confused, ahistorical recapitulation of the “the Jewish problem”, with only a dim understanding of the solutions, including the “final solution” that were mooted and attempted. Is it not time that the insidious way of thinking that finds a “Jewish problem” came to a final end? Yet it seems that the old obsession - how to dispose of the Jews - may never be dispelled, not even by the re-founding of the state of Israel on its historical national site.

(Your question concerning what was at stake in Palestine for the Jews is best answered by “Duh.”)

Augustus

Herzen - I did appreciate your further response.

Adam B.

Herzen, perhaps I may direct you to my question of 16th Feb 10.41pm?

You demanded an answer from me, which I supplied.

TDH

C.Gee
February 17th, 2011 10:39pm
You tell Herzen that there was indeed no Arab Plan Dalet. This is clear enough.

You condescend to Ricardo with monstrous conceit. That is clear enough. (His questions seem to me reasonable: I too found your abstractions and justifications deeply confused and obscure. I too hoped for clarification instead of a barely disguised retreat.)

What you say to me I don't quite follow. By the "history of immigration policy" I take you to mean the policy of The British and US governments to restrict immigration from eastern Europe in the early 20th centruy and, even more shamefully, in the 1930s. I do not see why an even more vigorous campaign could not have caused a change in policy. After all, the Zionists persuaded them to bizarre lengths in supporting a Zionist state. Could they and the Jewish communities in Britain and the US not have worked similar miracles to persuade them of their own self-interest in allowing immigration? Surely this was especially pressing as Palestine would never have been sufficient for all the Jews at risk in Europe. I don't understand why you take exception.

You also allow yourself to confuse this question of the Jews in Europe with a "Jewish problem" (hints of anti-semitism) as if this allows you to dismiss what I say on moral grounds. The problem I was addressing was the moral and practical one of how those emigrating from the likes of the Russian Empire and Mittel Europa where they were persecuted could best be given succour. Settling them in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada (the Dominions that could decide for themselves) and the US it seems to me would have been much more effective than giving support to a Zionist state in Palestine. Sadly, it is now only "what-if", but as I say I am puzzled that you take exception.

I expect I too will receive a dose of misplaced condescension instead of a reasonable answer.

By the way, could you condescend also on the question of Zionism as the nationalism of the Jews. At what point, did Zionism become the majority ideology of Jewish people around the world?

And why do you think it a good idea to insinuate that everyone you don't agree with on the subjects discussed here must be sympathetic to anti-semitism?

On what was at stake in Palestine, you appear to miss the point entirely - but I don't believe you are that stupid - just evasion again. Curious.

C.Gee

Herzen:

The history of Israel is as much about its place in the changing ideological context as in the geo-political one.

Note that I use the word “Marxian”, not “marxist”, as that better states the moral confusion engendered by Soviet- sponsored European campus radicalism which was reaching critical mass in the late sixties. Attitudes to Israel changed from favorable to outrage after its victory in 1967. Academics - specially in France and Germany were producing many pernicious dogmas in their defense of communism, serving as useful idiots for the one living empire that did base itself on the assumption that the “more advanced” socialists should bring socialist utopia to the ideologically backward “at the end of the barrel of a gun whether they wanted it or not.” To these newspeak moralists, the (nineteenth century) paternalistic liberalism that had set aside a territory for the Jews (and encouraged many other national movements), was an aspect of (western) imperialism and the do-good values which inspired it were supremacist. Nationalism itself was redefined for capitalist nations as supremacist, racist, regressive and an obstacle to the historic inevitability of world-wide revolution establishing universal equality. Israel was the obvious target for anti-capitalist, anti-war, anti-American Soviet machinations (the terror factions were the ideological brainchild of the USSR, and supported and funded by it, as was the CND). Anti-colonialism as you use it in your anti-Israel polemics is not “liberal”, it is “progressive”, the word that the post-national leftists have chosen for their movement.

This is not the place for a description of the ideological climate that blew around Jews from the time of their expulsion from Rome to the present. Suffice it to say that many ideologies - Christianity, liberalism, nationalism, multiculturalism, colonialism, revolutionism, communism, anti-“orientalism”, post-national socialism, political and religious Islam - played and inter-played in forming attitudes for or against the Jews and so for or against Israel. It is not surprising that the strongest of these attitudes - antisemitism derived from religious dogmas and anti-Zionism derived from Marxian dogmas should be spotted as the biases for comments here.

I call ‘em as I see ‘em. My calling someone an “anti-semite” is as insulting as the left’s calling someone a “Zionist”. Each carries ideological freight . Zionism-is-racism has thoroughly defanged “anti-semite”. Most people do not investigate why they think as they do: they are born or educated into a set of attitudes. The prevalent attitude to Israel among the western muddle-class is now associated with political leftism - since that has been the bias of the educational establishment for many decades. Perhaps if what they say about Israel is pointed out to them as borrowing from traditional anti-semitic motifs or current collectivist dogma they will think beyond the slogans and propaganda. (It hasn’t happened yet. )

C.Gee

TDH:

We have already fought those rounds.

"At what point, did Zionism become the majority ideology of Jewish people around the world?"

When did the Hebrew tribes become Israelites? At that point, I suspect. But I would not call patriotism a “majority ideology”. One doesn’t get to vote on one’s national identity - even if one takes - is allowed to take - citizenship of another country.

And now my condescension is exhausted, except to recommend that you read a history of the Jewish diaspora. The confusion and puzzlement of prior generations regarding what Jews were and where to put them will feel familiar to you.

Ricardo

C.Gee
February 17th, 2011 10:39pm
Ah well, I'm not the first, I find, to make the mistake of taking you seriously when you are in fact simply trying to tease those who do not agree with the prejudices you appear unable to defend by fair means. It is, I suppose, a tactic of sorts, but surely it does you no credit.

Herzen

C.Gee
February 18th, 2011 7:26pm

After so much condescension, such guff!

And bathos. You say to call someone a "Zionist" (someone who supports a "Jewish state") is morally as reprehensible as to call someone an "anti-semite". Such a lack of proportion casts doubt on all you say. At most, calling someone a "Zionist" is morally equivalent, perhaps, to calling someone a "Marxist".

And your final comments to TDH! The ancient Israelites were Zionists. The diaspora had no choice but to be patriots for the fatherland. TDH is to read some history (almost as comical as Truthtriumphs telling others to read some history).

I'm sorry but your self-conceit is not warranted by your performance. I will know not to rise to the bait again.

TDH

C.Gee
February 18th, 2011 8:44pm
If to be anti-Zionist is not an option for any Jew, why did Zionism only emerge at the end of the 19th century, and why when it did emerge were the majority of Jews not Zionist, and why are there anti-Zionist Jews today? You appear to be forced to fall back on the essentially Marxist (sorry, Marxian) concept of false consciousness.

TDH

And so, C. Gee, like a Cheshire sourpuss, fades from the scene, leaving behind only the hint of a superior sneer he hasn't earned, no doubt to reappear in another thread ready with jargon and waffle, but unable to explain what it means.

Adam B.

Ricardo and Herzen, it does yoi no credit to make accusations against C.Gee, yet fail to answer the points put to you. Such obfuscation isn't good enough.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 19th, 2011 4:55pm
I suppose I will respond this one last time: you insist (instead of thinking) on repeating your favourite little debating points, however many times they have been answered, in however many threads. To what purpose?

TDH

...or maybe not the Cheshire sourpuss, but Humpty Dumpty who thinks words mean whatever he wants them to mean.

Adam B.

Herzen, that won't do. You haven't replied. here it is again:

But perhaps, having demanded an answer from me, you will now reciprocate and tell us whether you accept that there is any Jewish connection to Israel, and whether Jews have a right to self-determination.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 19th, 2011 11:13pm
I do want to be helpful. So, here, as a footnote:

You claim to have answered. What you said, as far as I can see, is, first, "what reason is there for anyone to accept any state" and, secondly, "Israel is the ancestral home of the Jews".

We can agree that there is no clearcut answer to your first. However, this ambiguity provides no reason to think that Palestinian Arabs ought to have accepted a Zionist state.

Your second may provide an reason for Zionists to think that Palestinian Arabs should accept a Zionist state. But they already accept the ideology. It does not provide an answer as to why Palestinian Arabs should accept it (which was the question I asked).

So you have not answered.

As to your favourite little debating points.

Israel exists and its citizens have the same rights as the citizens of any other state.

Do "Jews have a right to self-determination?" I don't know if this is deliberately ambiguous. Israelis do. Did the Jewish diaspora in the days before the Mandate? During the Mandate? Did a minority of Jews have a right to exercise a right of self determination in the name of all Jews? It is at best a very vague notion that Jews across the world had a right to decide that they should establish a state on a particular territory where others already lived. There would appear to be no such right in the law of the time or current law. So what right?

Is there "any Jewish connection with Israel?" Again, I don't know if the ambiguity is deliberate. Do Jews have a "connection" with the Holy Land/ Israel/ Palestine. I have not seen anyone here dispute it. Ever. Do diaspora Jews have a connection with the State of Israel? Many do, in one way or another. (Indeed, all do in the sense that the state of Israel has decreed that they can all become citizens if they want.) Is a Jewish "connection" with Israel/ Palestine/ the Holy Land a reason over-riding all others to establish a "Jewish state" at the expense of the locals? You would have to provide an argument to that effect - which was the point of my initial question which has still to receive an adequate answer.

The polemicist most likely to provide an argument, C. Gee, does not deign to, preferring to dismiss requests for clarification of his grand abstractions.

As far as I can see, he bases his faith in the Zionists' right to impose a state on two assumptions: first, that the world's Jews are an ethnic group sufficiently pure, or a society sufficiently coherent, or a nation (in some sense), and not just, for example, co-religionists; and, secondly, that an ethnic group or coherent society or nation (if defined with sufficient clarity to be a concept of practical application) has a right to its own polity or sovereign state, a right that over-rides the rights of others not to be dispossessed or subjected to violence, a right to be exercised even if the relevant "nation" comprises citizens of many different states around the world and is in possession of no territory of its own (paternalistic liberal imperialists apparently have a duty to provide a territory if it is demanded). To put it mildly, these assumptions have to be argued for, and no-one here deigns to do so. It would surely be helpful, instead of simply asserting them as self-evident.

Adam B.

Herzen, that was an answer? I have never seen such twisting and verbal gymnastics to avoid answering a point directly.

You seem to cling to the notion that "because others lived there", the Jews therefore had no right to re-establish their homeland. The fact that "the others" were offered a state of their own - several times - cuts no mustard. The fact that Jews had lived there continuously, and centuries before the Arab conquests, means nothing. The religious and cultural roots of Judaism to the Land of Israel - nada. Fine.

Now let me ask you - why should the Jews have accepted an Arab state? On what historical, moral or legal precedent should the Jews have accepted an Arab state, given that this land had never been one?

You rather disingenuously say "many Jews" feel a connectin to Israel. poll oafter poll has demonstrated that it is a vast majority of the diaspora.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Herzen, there is an Irish nation, some members of which live in Ireland; others are citizens of other countries. There is an Irish diaspora, just as there is a diaspora of the Jewish nation.

You acknowledge the fact that Israel exists and that its citizens have the same rights as citizens of other countries, but despite that, it's clear that you are not happy with the concept of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the land of our forefathers. In other words, a standard that differs from the norm is to be applied when it comes to the Jews !

I don't think that anything more needs to be said to illustrate the real state of your mind.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 20th, 2011 11:33pm
The fact that others lived there does indeed make it less than self-evident that the Zionists had any right to establish a state there over the objections of the population.

The fact that there had been Jews living there since time immemorial does not change this. (I have read that those Jews were not at all taken with the Zionists, but that is another story.)

The religious and cultural roots of Judaism of course mean a great deal. As I said no-one has disputed that here. It is again not at all self-evident that Judaism's roots gave the Zionists a right to establish a state against the will of the inhabitants of the territory.

Again, you simply assert what anyone who accepts the Zionist ideology will accept, but not anyone who does not accept the ideology unless good arguments are provided. Provide the arguments and there will be something to discuss.

Herzen

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)
February 21st, 2011 1:06am

Israel is a state like any other and its citizens have the same rights as anyone else.

This does not mean that its creation was not at the expense of gross injustice to others. (The US is an analogy.)

The formulation "the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in the land of our forefathers" does not refer to any right that others need recognise who do not accept Zionist ideology. Not to recognise the right Zionists asserted is not treating Jews differently from anyone else. Ineed, there has to be an argument provided why Zionists should have been afforded a unique right not given to others.

This would all be of only historic interest were it not for the fact that Israel's supporters use a tendentious version of the history to justify the state of Israel's current actions towards the Palestinians. History provides no such justification.

Adam B.

Herzen, you write of "the inhabitants" - yet the inhabitants to which you exclusively refer, (meaning Arabs - Jewish inhabitants don't seem to figure in your reasoning0 were offered, for the first time, an Arab state of their own. They had already, in 1922, been given 80% of Palestine to form Transjordan. Half of the remaining 20% (and in fact more than half in 1937) was offered to them as well. There was no exclusive Arab claim to the land - land which had never been an Arab state, not had it been in provate Arab ownership.

Again, I invert your question to ask you - why should the Jews have accepted an Arab state? On what historical, legal or moral precedent should a second Arab Palestinian state have been created?

You also write the following:

"This does not mean that its creation was not at the expense of gross injustice to others"

The "injustice" as you call it ( I assume you mean the refugee problem) arose as a direct result of a failed Arab attempt to kill off the Jewish state at its rebirthy. In other words, it was the result of intolerance and a genocidal and racist impulse - which went wrong for its protagonists.No war was necessary, and a two state solution could have been realized several decades ago. (And need I remind you of the greater number of Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from Arab nations - refugees who are always overlooked by those who bring Palestinian Arab refugees into the argument).

I wish you were honest, and simply stated that you don't think Jews have the right to self-determination. It is patently what you think.

Herzen

Adam B.
February 21st, 2011 3:44pm
With the patience of a saint, I will continue to discuss this with you despite the fact that you have yet, despite repeated requests, to provide a single argument for your assertions.

The inhabitants were Jewish, Christian, and Muslim: at the end of WW1 there were 60 thousand Jews (indigenous plus immigrant), 80 thousand Christians, and 650 thousand Muslims.

For the umpteenth time, what was east of the Jordan to those who had lived for generations west of the Jordan? Again, you will have to provide an argument that the arbitrary creation by the British of Trans-Jordan caused the inhabitants west of the Jordan to lose their putative rights under the League of Nations.

You say you invert my question. The two cases are not alike. The League of Nations purported to hold in trust territories for their inhabitants. It took a special and unique dispensation to include the Zionists of Europe and elsewhere in the arrangements for Palestine.

You assume that the injustice is simply the "refugee problem" which is all the fault of the 700 thousand expelled. Again, some evidence other than the tired propaganda of Zionist web sites would help your case. But no, the injustice began with the incorporation of the Balfour letter in the Mandate against the intersts of the inhabitants of Palestine and without consultation with them. The injustices multiplied thereafter, including the ethnic cleansing you allude to, right up to the present.

In your final paragraph you simply repeat your deliberately ambiguous accusation. Are you asking me whether the Jewish citizens of the US, or Britain, etc. have a right to self determination now? Or the Jewish citizens of Israel? Or are you asking whether I think the Jews of the diaspora at the end of the 19th century, or to be accurate, a very small minority of them, had a right of self determination in the sense that they had a right to demand a sovereign state of their own in a part of the Ottoman Empire? If you want an answer, ask a straight question.

And do try to provide some arguments for even a small sample of the assertions I have challenged you on.

If you cannot manage an argument for any of your assertions, there really is nothing further to discuss. Do try.

Adam B.

Herzen, despite your condescension, and a lack of substance in many lines of empty verbiage, you are simply deaf. I have provided you with a reason for the Jewish state, a foundation more valid than most states' of this earth. This is the Jewish homeland, connected to the Jews by millenia of religion and culture - they never had any other. The land did not belong to the Arabs, either as a state or privately. Yet you seem to be of the belief that they alone had exclusive rights to it, whilst you have provided no legal, moral, or historical precedent for this. It is not my responsibility that it means nothing to you, yet one would think it was your responsibility to answer my question, which you have not.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Herzen, Adam B has more than adequately responded to your response to me, but let's get back to basics.

Back in all the decades of the Christian era down to the 1930s and early 1940s, the constant cry to the Jews was to go back to 'Palestine', back to where we came from. Gentile people in those times clearly didn't have any problem connecting us with our homeland. There were the history books (including the Bible - Old and New Ts, Flavius Josephus et alios) and the anti-Semitic Christian church to remind them that we are from Judea/Samaria/Galilee in the Land of Israel, which Roman Emperor Hadrian re-named 'Palestina" in a failed attempt to break the bond between us and our homeland. In the 18th century, for example, the philosopher and anti-Semite Emmanuel Kant (despite his Hebrew forename) referred to the Jews confined to the Frankfurt ghetto as "the Palestinians living among us".

But then we come to our own times, post 1948, following the restoration of Jewish national sovereignty in our homeland, when along come the revisionists like you, people who are "uncomfortable" with the idea of the Jews coming into their own again, and who have accordingly fostered and promoted an ongoing campaign of propaganda designed to vilify, delegitimise and eventually bring down the re-born Jewish state. This is what fuels your antipathy, not your desire for "justice" for the 'Palestinians', and the position would be exactly the same if little green Martians were to be substituted for them.

Adam B.

Ben-Tsiyon - precisely!

Herzen - do try...