A change of direction?

TomTom

Cameron needs to secure his party funding and antagonising donors is dangerous

Louis Berk

Melanie, the man is a jelly on a plate. He'll wobble in which ever direction he is placed. You can't seriously believe there is any practical substance to his opinion?

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Maybe Cameron is a little uncomfortable learning that our Northern kinsmen have offered Gadaffi asylum in Scotland.

E.R.

It isn't enough to listen to what he says to a Jewish group. You also need to know what he says to Muslim groups. In general, Cameron has been a huge disappointment in just about all policy arenas. He doesn't have firm convictions and is way too politically correct. One good speech does not a summer make.

devilfish13

'Is he merely trying to repair the damage done by HMG’s position on Israel by using warmly sympathetic words which specifically identify Jewish victimisation? Is he trying to face two ways simultaneously? Or has someone in his immediate circle switched on a light bulb for him somewhere?'

The Prime Minister has no reason to 'damage' Israel, therefore there's nothing for him to repair. Just because Melanie has a conviction, no doubt shared by I guess 90% of posters on her blogs, on the legality of the settlements on the West Bank, doesn't mean that she's right.

But whatever the micro-interpretation that goes on about the legality or otherwise, what makes Israel's position about the territories so indefensible is its utter gratuitousness. There is absolutely no reason for Israel to promote the settlements that cause so much misery. The settler movement is built on pseudo-Biblical foolishness, bad history, greed and worse a racist doctrine which doesn't deserve any tolerance, consideration or respect. Israel could have not only peace, but vastly increased security tomorrow if it chooses. It has all the options and the Palestinians none.

These are the latest consequences of Zionist expansionism in the lands once known as Palestine. Even if the Zionists had never dreamed of taking all of Palestine from the Palestinians, its plain unrealistic to suppose that they would not come to do so, bit by bit.

Alex Bensky

The idea that it's Israel that is the barrier to an outbreak of sweetness and light in the area is a pleasant one, devilfish, but all you have to do is check www.memri.org from time to time, which carries items from Palestinian and general Arab media (not the stuff they say to willing westerners but what they say among themselves) to be disabused of that notion. It would make life simpler, though, wouldn't it?

And by the way, calling any manifestation of Zionism "racism" is just another indication that the word has been drained of any meaning other than that the speaker doesn't like something. Jews may be many things but all you'd need to do is walk down a street in any Israeli city and you'd see a range of people from sub-Saharan African to blond and blue-eyed. Zionism may be exclusive, it may be ethnocentric (I don't think it is but you could so argue) but it's not "racism" if "racism" is supposed to have any meaning.

Paul Freeman

devilfish13

"no reason for Israel to promote the settlements"?

How about the security of its citizens, given the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist?

MairT

Anne Wotana Kaye 1
March 4th, 2011 6:30pm

Maybe Cameron is a little uncomfortable learning that our Northern kinsmen have offered Gadaffi asylum in Scotland.

Think you may find that you have got it wrong. Suspect an uprising would be brought about if that man set foot again in this Country, be it Scotland or England. The majority of Scots were against the release of Megrahi. What annoys me is that it was announced that further information had been brought to light and he was going to make an appeal. This appeal has never been heard and part of the deal for release was to not go ahead with it.
Got any ideas Anne?

I'll give you a starter for 10-Westminster courtesy of Wiki-leaks

Penny

The local election campaigns have begun.

No cynicism intended; just a knowledge of when the local politicians begin to hit the campaign trail. Clegg's speech in Luton was part of the LibDem campaign. Perhaps Cameron is revving up his party's motors, too.

DougS

Malanie:

Off topic but I've just received a 'chain' email that states that all references to the holocaust have been removed from the British school curriculum - so as not to 'offend' Muslims, who don't believe that it happened.

Can't be true surely.

C.Gee

One cannot expect Cameron to get details - like what the Road Map requires of Israel - correct when he is not too clear even about his own Jewish forbears.

“Last year Dayan Ehrentreu presented me with the original copy of the Lexicon written by my great, great grandfather Emile Levita — a German-Jewish banker who came here to this country 150 years ago.” So said Cameron in his speech.

He confuses his great, great, grandfather Emile Levita, with the greater, but far earlier ancestor, Elijah Levita (1468 - 1549) grammarian, Masorite, lexicographer and poet.

Hanna

I remember at the time of the Second Intifada, when Israelis were being suicide-blasted all over the place and the British media were ever more vociferously attributing the responsibility of the Arab perpetrators to the Jewish victims, there was one Times columnist who became my hero. His name was - still is - Michael Gove. When he went into politics and then into government, I felt sure the Tories would always have to hand a truly clear-sighted man as far as the Israel situation was concerned and that he would never agree to stray too far off a righteous course with regards to it.

Roy

... nor snippets of sense make a true about swing.

gareth

We are swamped by trivia now in this media age, and it's acceptable for people to make up their own narrative without the tyranny of facts and truth - like Devilfish and Goebbels - whatever gets you through the day.
btw - if anyone here doesn't really like reading the endless drivel from Massie et al. - check out nationalreview.com which has the highest quality articles - Victor Davis Hanson, Mark Steyn, Kevin Williamson, Thomas Sowell etc... it's really the best thing on the web by a country mile - except for Mel.

Derek BLADES

@ Paul Freeman.

When devilfish13 saw "no reason for Israel to promote the settlements" your reply was this:

"How about the security of its citizens, given the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist?"

I have thought long and hard about your reply, but cannot think of a single way in how the settlements could help Israel's security. I would be grateful if you explain what you had in mind. Other readers may also have been puzzled. Thank you.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

MairT
March 4th, 2011 11:33pm
MairT,
Calm down, it was only a silly joke, dear :-)

Grumpy true Zionist

no what makes Israels position 'so indefensible' is when it retreats from its rightful territory ie Judea and Samaria, for hollow exchanges of 'land for peace', as clearly elaborated here by Moshe Ya'alon who knows just a little bit about Israels security needs: 'We said that we do not want to control them, and indeed they conduct their own civil affairs. If they do not have a clear willingness to recognize our rights, then we won’t mention even a millimeter of concession. The question is whether there is a willing partner in the process who will prove himself as serious, with an ability to govern, manage the economy and especially educate their youth to accept Israel's existence, or whether they prefer to educate them to explode on us. Now they prefer to educate them to explode, they deny our existence, and their maps [including Israel,ed] are all covered with the flag of Palestine, so there is nothing to discuss regarding conceding space or, G-d forbid, dividing Jerusalem. It is clear that any paper we sign will be lit with the fire of terrorism'

NEVER AGAIN

Tiberius

Cameron is not changing direction.

But in the same way that he had to free his party incrementally from the straightjacket of opposition, so he has to speak about Islamism and Israel's position in the struggle against it.

You cannot confront directly the established leftist opinion on British politics, Israel, or indeed climate change, and expect to survive. You have to be more covert in your approach.

Carl

Illegal settlements, destruction of olive groves, displacement of Palestinian families, oppressive and vindictive security measures - there is a lot to be quiet about.

Merlyn

Interesting piece of news, the BBC has not commented on;

"With huge uprisings against autocratic rule in Egypt, Libya, Tunis and across the Middle East, a rally for democratic change in Gaza City was organized through a Facebook post. The leader described it like this:

“We are a group of independent youth. The Egyptian and the Tunisian revolutions moved us and gave us a feeling youth can make a change".

Then he was punched in the head and security forces sent everyone else home.

Coupling their zero tolerance for dissent with intimidation of the press, Hamas showed their true colors while publicly commending the protesters in other countries.

A number of photographers who were invited to cover the event were forced to leave the area after being threatened by the Hamas policemen, the eyewitnesses said."

http://honestreporting.com/hamas-keeping-up-with-the-new-middle-east/

Derek Pasquill

The UK will continue to have a negative attitude toward Israel for the foreseeable future. For a number of very good reasons:

a) Muslim demographics;

b) The Camel Corps pucker-wallahs at the FCO;

c) People like Zizek and those of his ilk campaigning for a one-state solution in a hopelessly inept resuscitation of nineteenth-century Romanticism.

I suggest Israel look elsewhere for friends.

Graeme Thompson

On the one hand this is a sign of Cameron following Blair in saying different things to different audiences, on the other hand when it came to the crunch over Iraq Blair showed his heart was in the right place. Let's hope the same will prove true of Cameron.

Dai of Edinburgh

Seems Hilary Clinton has been infected by the same dose of reality too. She recently criticized the UN for constantly singling out Israel for censure when instead it should be targeting the hostile Arab nations surrounding the beleaguered nation. Is a new spirit of rationality emerging at last?

Okey

Don't trust him.

Mr Sponge

Like any politician he had two (or more)faces.

Good to hear he is standing up for the British Jews in the immediate Islamic threat to them in the UK.

But what about the rest of us - jew or gentile we all risk abuse or violence should we venture into an "Islamic Area".

And bombs are not selective.

Kibbitzer too

No mystery here, Mr. Cameron says whatever he thinks his audience of the day wishes to hear. His principles are Blowin' in the Wind.

Augustus

Indeed, some straight talking, at last, about the need for Israel's safety to be protected
following the current insurrections in the Arab world.
From North Africa to the Persian Gulf regimes are trembling. Some will fall, others will change colours to barely survive. In libya Gaddafi
could never have imagined that his thugocracy could so quickly unravel. He might meet the fate of the Romanian dictator Ceausescu, executed by his own rebels, or that of Saddam Hussein, with a noose around his neck. But as the drama continues to unfold, one thing stands out, President George W.
Bush was right in insisting that
'freedom is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity'. Arabs could not be denied freedom, nor condemned to the rule of despots. Bush was right in promoting the freedom agenda, and right in bringing regime change in Iraq. This will be Bush's legacy. The cultural weight of centuries rests on the Arabs, and it is folly to see their values and accepted norms of behaviour as the same as our own. They understand power, but democracy escapes them as an absurdity. Any sort of sexual liberation is not about to happen any time soon in
the Arab world, and without it any sort of democracy they may
attain will never be more than a mirage, an inferior reflection of the original. Their familiy lives are deeply dictatorial, and so is their social life. They will abase themselves in front of those seen as superior, and they will humiliate those seen as inferior. Any other treatment is alien. And all politics in the Arab world is a series of power-plays and power-grabs. And
as far as Judea and Samaria are concerned, ever since the Mufti
and his Arab Higher Committee
waved the sceptre, and insisted
that Arabs should rule the roost
and the Jews and Christians be relegated to dhimmi status, as in previous centuries under Islamic rule, a holy war for the Holy Land has raged. despite the fact that there is
a record nowhere, nor a book written anywhere, that describes
the existence of a Palestinian
people or a Palestinian culture.

Austin Barry

Maybe he just checked the list of Nobel Prize winners and started to appreciate the Jewish contribution to civilisation.

devilfish13

Moderator: Kindly review and publish:
Alex Bensky: You will note that I refer to the 'settler movement' in the context of 'racist' to which you refer.

But to imply that the Jewish state isn't run by, and exclusively for Jews, or that Jews aren't sovereign, or that the state isn't run in their interests, then I suggest you are wrong.

Paul Freeman: The settlements have nothing to do with Israel's security. This is the excuse provided by Zionists for Israel's expansionism.

I'm sure that most Israelis really believe that the Arabs, left to their own devices, will set up murderous “Islamist” regimes, whose main aim would be to wipe Israel off the map.

Ordinary Israelis know next to nothing about Islam and the Arab world. As a (left-wing) Israeli general answered 65 years ago, when asked how he viewed the Arab world: “through the sights of my rifle.”

Everything is reduced to “security”, and insecurity prevents, of course, any serious reflection on the alternatives.

Adam B.

devilfish, do you include in your rant the Jews who live in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, the Jews who have returned to Hebron after they were ethnically cleansed by a Palestinian Arab mob in the 1920's (before Israel was re-established) and the Jews who returned to the Gush Etzion after they too were ethnically cleansed?

Is that "gratuitous"?

Nea

Is a pendulum more reasonable when swinging to the right than when to the felt?
Or is it more balanced during the split second when it passes (at maximum speed) over the dead center?

Nachman

I see Devilfish believes that "Palestine" a name given to the area known as Israel by the Romans after they dispersed its Jewish inhabitants in 70 CE after the destruction of the Second Temple belonged to a fictitious people called "Palestinian". He well knows that no such State ever existed and certainly not one in which an Arab majority had sovereignty which somehow was stolen by Jews but he persists in his fictions. May be he could also tell us how these Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians" differ from the inhabitants of the country called Syria from whence most of them hail?
Secondly, the existence of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria the correct name of the area lying to the west of the River Jordan not the name given to it during the illegal ooccupation by Jordan (strange how the constant repetition of a lie comes to be treated as the truth) is enshrined in law. The tenuous arguments that the 4th Geneva Convention covers the position have been dismissed by independent lawyers not having an axe to ground. Unfortunately those politically opposed to Israel per se will try and convolute the law to suit their purposes and the poster known as Devilfish falls into that category. As to security considerations were the Arabs to control the heights overlooking the trans-Samarian they would be able to cut Israel into two at a stroke leaving it almost defencelss. I have been taken over the area by an army officer and those of you in the UK who think it is a simple thing to withdraw from the area, I suggest, visit the area and see how Israel's hinterland would be under severe threat if Judea and Samaria was surrendered to an entity falling under Iran's sway.

eh-oop

It is possible to test the sincerity of Cameron’s statement about protecting Israel from the uncertainties gripping the Arab world. The same test would show whether he is willing to try and constructively influence these uncertainties, as opposed to pretending that a British Government is thinking of England as it lies back and exposes us and our institutions to the attentions of the highest bidder.
The background to the test is the UK’s interventions in the Egyptian and Libyan revolutions which have been instinctively pro-democracy but all over the place both in terms of realism as to character of the revolutionary forces and in practical terms.
The opportunity comes from the fact that there are incipient revolutions in other Arab states where we have not yet burnt our boats and where better information would be useful in informing our future actions.
The idea is for the UK to test the democratic credentials of the revolutionary forces in such states, and the means of doing so is to make use of the proposition that a key characteristic of a democracy is its willingness to deal respectfully with one’s opponents.
The way to do it is for the British Government to ask the Israelis (can one see them refusing?) to host a symposium on the opportunities and pitfalls of democratic systems and invite members of, let’s see, the Saudi and Bahreini opposition groups to attend.
I thought not. Worth a try, all the same. At least knowing where the refusals come from and the reasons given tell us more about who we’re dealing with – both among our political leaders in the UK and diplomats and in the Arab world, too.

Tintangel

@ DougS
March 5th, 2011 12:12am

Yes, like most if not all chain letters, it's a hoax, an urban myth.

Whenever you receive such an email pick out a phrase or title and google it. Invariably you'll find other references which prove that it's another bit of cyber trash.

I continue to receive alarmist chain letters from well-meaning but duped friends and family.

Quash it and inform the sender.

Andy Gill

I think Call Me Dave has finally woken up to the fact that Islamofascism has spread like a cancer through British society.

It has infected schools and universities, where it has been allowed to fester by a liberal anti-Zionist establishment that wouldn't know a fascist if one bit them on the backside.

Ordinary people are heartily sick of it, and Dave has cottoned on to the fact that if he won't take a stand in government, people will take a stand on the streets.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish 13.

"The settler movement is built on pseudo-Biblical foolishness, bad history, greed and worse a racist doctrine which doesn't deserve any tolerance".

I suggest that the history that is "bad" is your own.
Before the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The English name "Palestinian", to describe the local Arab population, was invented AFTER the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. These Arabs do not even have a native name to describe themselves in their own Arabic language. The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighbouring Arab countries.

"racist doctrine"--- do you understand the meaning of your own words?
It is racist to exclude a group of people living in a place on account of their race, or religion or peoplehood.
The so called settlements occupy a mere 1.7% of the WB.
There are 1.5 million Arabs living behind the green line in Israel.
Almost all the 800,000 Jews in the Arab lands have been ethnically cleansed from them in recent times.
If the settlements/Jewish presence are illegal, perhaps you could explain how it is that Judaism's oldest and holiest cemetery, where 3 minor prophets were buried, on the Mount of Olives, is 3,000 years old?

"Settlements cause so much misery".
Because Islam is a supremacist creed---- the Palestinians are busy ethnically cleansing the Christians as well.
As Hannan Ashrawi once memorably put it "we are an all or nothing people".

"Zionist expansionism".
Are you serious".
When did you last look at a map of the Middle East?
Do you know how the Arabs came to colonise vast areas of northern Africa and, indeed, Palestine?
Israel is 1/800 th, the size of the Arab lands.
It's called bloody conquest.

"Israel could have not only peace, but vastly increased security tomorrow if it chooses. It has all the options and the Palestinians none."

Really?
Ever read the charter of Hamas and the PA?
Why did the Arabs attack Israel in 1967 when it did not "occupy" the territories?
Why was there no peace for the Jews before Israel existed?
Why did the Arabs chase the Jews from Hebron on land legally bought, in 1929?

Your comment is a classic piece of bigotry, based on ignorance and hatred.

Derek BLADES

David Cameron makes two points about Israel. One, Israel is here to stay and the UK along with North America and Europe are committed to its defence as a Jewish state. Two, Israel should stop stealing Arab land, blockading Gaza and negotiate seriously with the Palestinians on the creation of an independent and viable Palestine.

Nothing revolutionary about that. That is exactly my own personal position for what that counts. The notion that anyone who criticises Israeli aggression and the brutal occupation of the West Bank is dedicated to the overthrow of Israel is absurd.

Hysteria

what Andy Gill said.

Cameron's (and Merkel's) recent anti-multi-culti speeches also tell me that some folks in leadership positions finally "get it".

Political realism dictates they can't just change tack immediately.

Derek BLADES

@ Truthtriumphs.

You told devilfish13 that Israeli settlements occupy only 1.7% of the West Bank. In June of last year, the B’Tselem human rights group reported that "Although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1 percent of the West Bank's land area, their jurisdiction and regional councils extends to more than 42 percent.”

B’Tselem’s report is based on “official state documents, including military maps and a military settlement database”. The report also explains that “Twenty-one percent of the land for these settlements was seized from Palestinian landowners, much of it after Israel's Supreme Court outlawed the practice in 1979.”

Please change your nom de plume for something more in line with the half truths and deliberate misreprentations that are your stock in trade.

Jerry

To Derek Blades and devilfish:

1) Israel holds the territory of Judea and Samaria. It is up to the Palestinian and you to supply the reasons Israel should cede it to them.

2) Israel holds the superior legal claim to Judea and Samaria, given the decisions at San Remo

3) The simple principle of reciprocity needs to be applied to the establishment of a Palestinian State. When the Palestinian Arabs can offer an "end-of-conflict agreement," perhaps some accommodation can be accorded to them.

4) In strategic terms, ceding of Judea and Samaria will lengthen Israel's border and reduce its strategic depth.

5) There is no rational need for another apartheid Muslim state in the world - to be called Palestine. The word "apartheid" can be fairly applied to a state that will not allow Jews to live within its borders or own land.

5) If the a Palestinian state is going to bring no benefit to Israel, then it is a zero-sum game. In which case I vote for Israel, not Palestine.

6) Israel along with Judea and Samaria are the only places in the world where Jews can meet Arabs without being subjugated to them.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

If the regime in Iran does not fall as a result of and Iranian rebellion, then war has to follow...Just a matter of time and too much oil at stake..

All, very simple. Obama and his miltary have to recalibrate for the inevitable showdown and Cameron would do well to get his NATO mates on track.

Perhaps these economic times make another war problematic. If Iran gets its hands on the oil fields of the Gulf, however, the debacle will make a war - now - with Iran sem like a fantasy scenario.

Bunker down, everyone....and stop demonising jews and sucking the proverbial hind t&t of the lib-leftists - the LSE lovelies.. The Jews are the least of our worries and, in fact, may just be our one source of salvation!

SimonB

No, Melanie. It's the politicians' variation of R.P. (Received pronunciation). You start to sound like the person you are talking to.

devilfish13

Truthtriumphs & Nachman
The question that continually surfaces in these debates is ‘the Palestinians were not a people’...to what end this question arises is irrelevant except to throw a smokescreen over the truth of the terrible consequences of Zionism, and which are so apparent today.

What is indisputable is that before the Zionists came, there was a collection of people who lived in the area now known as Israel. Whether they were called Palestinians or the land on which they lived was called Palestine, or even if the people in this area considered themselves a people, are of no importance when debating the present Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

There was no United States of America before the American Revolution. Meaning, of course, that there was no such thing as a citizen of a place called the United States of America before the Revolution. What people are called has no bearing on whether they should accept, not just settlers who intend to become predominant in the region, but settlers who intend to install themselves as sovereigns over that area.

The identity of Palestine or the Palestinians, has absolutely no bearing on whether Israelis should control the territory they occupy or the people within it.

We should be mindful that the Jews also are not a people. Some may, some may not, share the religion. Many are atheist in their beliefs. And what about all the Jews in the diaspora who have become Christian? When Zionism (or the Project) got started the Jews did not have a common language. Hebrew as we know it today didn’t exist. Jews still do not have a common language since millions of Jews speak not a word of Hebrew or Yiddish. Moreover, Jews don’t have a common culture. Moroccan, English and Russian Jews live in far different worlds.

The Jewish people don’t even have a common history. Some were bitterly persecuted, but for others, full citizens in their countries, this was only a memory.

The reality is that the majority of Jews never were in search of a state, nor even desired one. Why should they? That desire was a project of a few European upper and middle-class activists. Many Jews were active nationalists, and still are, in the countries they inhabit. Most were not interested in a ‘homeland’, they already had one, and were not in the same geographical area.

In summary there is no difference between Israelis wanting to be a people and the Palestinians wanting to be a people.

Finally, your use of religion, and/or of ancient history, to make, or justify land claims are both dubious. The truths of these claims may elude scholarly researchers.
forever. And none of this presents, as you seek to do, a valid basis for Zionism.

For that to happen, a minimum credential would be for unanimity among your religious authorities which simply doesn’t exist……does it?

So ‘Truthtriumphs’, and to anyone else who feels the same way. I’m not about ‘Bigotry, based on ignorance and hatred’ but simply a fellow who sees Zionism for what it really is; a blight on the Jewish people, and the real enemy of the genuine Jewish aspiration for peace and harmony wherever they choose to live.

By the way, I don’t do invective either!

Jerry

According to devilfish13, Americans, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, etc. have absolutely not right to their own countries because they are diverse in religious belief, country and language of origin, race, and political views.

Israelis have a right to their own country because 80 percent - the Jews - are unusually happy being together.

And, by the way, many of the non-Jews in Israel would not relinquish their citizenship there for that of any other country.

Indeed, many Palestinian Arabs without "full" political rights would not trade the status quo for a full fledged Arab state. Note, please, the rush of Jerusalem Arab residents into Jewish areas from those that might have been returned to the PA under some forms of agreement.

Israel is a successful state under the worst of circumstances, which includes the habitually sour evaluations of devilfish13 and Derek Blades.

Paul Freeman

Derek BLADES

@ Paul Freeman.

When devilfish13 saw "no reason for Israeul to promote the settlements" your reply was this:

"How about the security of its citizens, given the Palestinians don't accept Israel's right to exist?"

I have thought long and hard about your reply, but cannot think of a single way in how the settlements could help Israel's security. I would be grateful if you explain what you had in mind.

Mr Blades, without wishing to put you through a further excruciating experience on my account, perhaps nevertheless you might consider this.

Israel is a tiny country without a single friendly neighbour and obliged to occupy a defeated population committed to its destruction. At the centre, the Green Line is a mere 10 miles from the sea – a distance a fit person might run before breakfast.

In these circumstances it is self-evident that any land beyond this border in which Israel can station its forces gives it a security advantage it would not otherwise have.

“There’s none so blind as those who will not see.” There are indeed those who, even though they think “long and hard” about this crucial factor in Israeli policy-making, still won’t get it. That is because, like many in history, preferring their Jews without protection and vulnerable to attack, these individuals are temperamentally and ideologically incapable of seeing the point of view of Jewish self-defense.

Perhaps you are one of these people?

Derek BLADES

Jerry thinks that "Israel along with Judea and Samaria are the only places in the world where Jews can meet Arabs without being subjugated to them."

Try Britain, France, Australia, United States, Argentina ... Jerry. In these countries Jews and Arabs meet on equal terms - unlike In Israel and the Occupied territories.

Augustus

Devilfish - You may be a simple fellow, but you don't 'see Zionism for what it really is'
at all. By the tail-end of WW2, in 1945, there were five Arab countries in the ME: Syria, (including Lebanon), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Transjordan. Between them they had a total population of more than fourteen million, and a land area of nearly 1.2m square miles. Compared to this, Palestine from the Mediterranean
to the River Jordan was 10,500
square miles (less than 1% of the Arab territories which had been liberated from the Turks in 1918). On 12th July 1920, Lord Balfour had made a speech at the Royal Albert Hall. In it
he said: "So far as the Arabs are concerned, I hope they will remember that it is we who have established an independent Arab
sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember it is we
who desire in Mesopatamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing autonomous
Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will
not begrudge that small notch -
for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically - that small notch in what are now Arab territories, being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been seperated from it." And twenty-
eight years after that speech,
if all British restrictions on Jewish immigration had been lifted, and the quarter of a million survivors of the twenty-
four fold of that number which had been ruthlessly exterminated in the Holocaust,
together with other displaced persons, had all been allowed in
to the area, the Arabs would still have been in the majority.

But they did begrudge them that small notch. They did aggressively attack the small Jewish State when came into existence, and then henceforth
proceeded to label it as the aggressor. They did want to destroy it, because they couldn't have cared what the
non-believers had done for their
liberation. Their only concern was war and the Jewish presence
and how to destroy it. And you have the gall to preach to Melanie Phillips about 'the terrible consequences of Zionism'. What you have said is
the purest example of bigotry that ever there was.

blue_&_white_avenger

John Roosevelt: - hi - you write "Cameron would do well to get his NATO mates on track."
Sounds good - but with what?
All the Europeans have been reducing their defence spending whilst ratcheting up on social benefits, giving money to 3rd world countries etc.
Basically, they all rely on the good old US to provide their defence (except they don't want nasty American missiles based on their territories). UK is now redning defence further relying on paper-mache ships with no aeroplanes &the hope that somone else will lend them. The ship that Cameron's just sent was diverted from the scrap yard ....

devilfish13

Augustus: You've missed the point I've tried to make by a million miles. What I've sought to do is to make an assessment of Zionism.....not the Jewish people, but those right-wing Israeli demagogues who are blind to the consequence of brutally subjugating a people, and then deny them the right to defend themselves. Or deny someone like me who believes that for the most part, the Palestinians are in the right, and Israel is in the wrong.

The Zionist settlements and the measures taken to preserve them are a cruel burden and totally unnecessary. The Palestinians have neither the power nor the recognised legal status to challenge any Israeli decision concerning their fate. New and terrible constraints are imposed upon them without warning, negotiation, or even prior notice. Israeli has them completely at its mercy.

And that is what I mean by 'the terrible consequences of Zionism'.

In the interests of both Israel and the Palestinians....this has to change. Surely, even you can see that.

Your reference to 'bigotry', I suggest, says far more about you, and similarly minded people, than it does about me. It is precisely those who have a complete intolerance of an opinion other than their own to which the term applies.

Yathrib Shelanu

Simon B,

Excellent point, but slight correction, if I might. You mean "communicative competence" rather than "received pronunciation," which is the term once used to describe upper class or BBC English. Of course, the use of communicative competence is a distinctly left-liberal phenomenon, betraying both a sense of superiority and guilt thereof, thus marking the 'competent communicator' as something of a ****.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish13.

"Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism"
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.in a letter to an anti Zionist
". . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.
"Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism."

"The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it."

Chaim Weitzman on Zionism...

"The real opponents of Zionism can never be placated by any diplomatic formula: their objection to the Jews is that the Jews exist, and in this particular case, that they exist in Palestine".

Derek BLADES

@Paul Freeman. I asked you how Israeli settlements could add to Israel's security.

You answered that because at its narrowest Israel's border is only ten miles from the sea (a distance which you think a fit person can run before breakfast) “…it is self-evident that any land beyond this border in which Israel can station its forces gives it a security advantage it would not otherwise have."

I must admit that I had not thought of the settlements in this light - as deliberately placed where they are by the Israeli government with a view to giving it more secure borders. But a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank makes me wonder if what you say is true. And of course it raises the question of “a security advantage against whom?” Jordanians or Palestinians would be the only potential enemies able to take advantage of what you describe the run before breakfast but neither seem remotely up to the job.

More to the point, Israel's security in the short-term is guaranteed by its massive advantage vis-a-vis its neighbours in terms of military hardware including weapons of mass destruction. In the long-term Israel’s security depends on its ability to get on with its neighbours. State supported theft of Arab land in the occupied territories looks like it might be a problem here. What do you think Paul?

devilfish13

Truthtriumphs:

The claim that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitic is unworthy of discussion for two reasons. First it is patently false. Since not all Jews are Israelis or supporters of Israel, to be against all Israelis or Israel is not to be against ALL Jews. Secondly, opposition to Israel is almost always opposition to Israeli policies, not to the existence of Israel, and you will already know my belief that such policies are in fact harmful to Israel, Israelis and Jews. This cannot be considered anti-Semitic. Indeed your accusations can hardly be made in good faith. This does you no credit, and is irrelevant to whether or not Israel is in fact in the wrong. Many people oppose fascism for racist reasons, but it does not follow that such opposition is mistaken.

I suggest you shed yourself of your emotional and sentimentalist baggage and apply more logic and commonsense to your arguments.

Adam B.

devilfish, could you address the issue of Jews in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, of Hebron and Gush Etzion? The fact that these Jews were there before Israel was reborn, and that they were ethnically cleansed in 1948 by the Palestinian Arabs, seems to have escaped you.

What do you think should happen to them - being "settlers"? Should they be booted out (i.e. ethnically cleansed by the Palestinian Arabs - for a second time?)

Truthtriumphs

Blades..the Balen-denier.

"State supported theft of Arab land in the occupied territories looks like it might be a problem here".

The problem is in your head.
How is it Arab land, when Jews bought the land in e.g. the Etzion Bloc in the 1920s?
How is the Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives-----Judaism's oldest and holiest--- Arab land?
How is the Western Wall----Judaism'd holiest site-- Arab land?
Ditto...Hebron.
How is it Arab land when these areas were illegally occupied by Jordan, before Israel took control in a defensive war?

Repeating these lies ad nauseam, like Goebbels, doesn't make them true.

cityca

Cameron will have to do more than make one speech to a Jewish audience to have me convinced he has seen the light.

His comments in Istanbul re the Gaza convoy defined his view on Israel for me - it will take something pretty convincing to make me (and many others) revise our view of his true beliefs.

Truthtriumphs

Derek BLADES
March 6th, 2011 5:01am
@ Truthtriumphs.

"You told devilfish13 that Israeli settlements occupy only 1.7% of the West Bank. In June of last year, the B’Tselem human rights group reported that "Although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1 percent of the West Bank's land area, their jurisdiction and regional councils extends to more than 42 percent.”

And who listens to B'tselem's lies.... only the likes of you.

BTW, don't you think that the BBC refuses to publish Balen because it is ashamed of its findings?
Blades, isn't that the only plausible explanation, and you know it?
Still waiting for your answer.

Oh, just to say that truth does triumph in the end.
Hope you're enjoying the discomfiture of the hypocrites who run the LSE as much as we are!

devilfish13

Adam B
I have to disappoint you. I’m not going to be drawn into the minutiae of forensically examining each and every incident that took place between Arabs and Jews once Zionism had set in motion the terrible sequence of events that have followed.

The attempt to establish Jewish sovereignty over the Palestinians was far from being unforeseeable. That Jews were victimized, even in other countries in the Region, was hardly not to be expected. That millions of Palestinians should be forced into a squalid, dangerous exile which bred further hatred and violence should also not have been of any surprise.

My consistent view about all of this is that Zionism initiated a process whose evolution was entirely foreseeable. It was a deliberate act of unleashing ethnic nationalism into the Region, and this explains why, as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, the blame for the conflict falls heavily on Zionist shoulders and lightly on the shoulders of the Palestinians.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish 13.

So you don't like the sentiments of Martin luther King?
He was wrong, and you are right?
I think not!
Now I'll fisk your ridiculous assertions and expose them for the lies they are.
"What is indisputable is that before the Zionists came, there was a collection of people who lived in the area now known as Israel."
Is that so?... let's see.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. In 1695 there was not a single Muslim Arab in Gaza, Nazareth, and Um-El-Phachem. All Arabs there were Christians. Historically, a "Palestinian" people never existed. The English name "Palestinian", to describe the local Arab population, was invented AFTER the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. These Arabs do not even have a native name to describe themselves in their own Arabic language. The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighboring Arab countries.
Unknown to most of the world population, the origin of the "Palestinian" Arabs' claim to the Holy Land spans a period of a meagre 30 years - a drop in the ocean compared to the thousands of years of the region's rich history.
Before the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land. In 1695 there was not a single Muslim Arab in Gaza, Nazareth, and Um-El-Phachem. All Arabs there were Christians. By contrast, the Jews, despite 2000 years of persecution and forced conversions by various conquerors, have throughout most of history been the majority population in the Holy Land. In Jerusalem Jews were always the largest demographic group [1][2], except for periods when conquerors specifically threw them out and prevented them from returning.
Arabs and non-Arabs alike, have documented their observations of the population in the Holy Land beginning more that a thousand years ago.
Starting at the early days and continuing into the Ottoman period:
•The historian James Parkes wrote: "During the first century after the Arab conquest [640-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons."[3]
•In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: "the mosque is empty of worshipers... The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population" (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?). [4]
•In 1377, Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, wrote: "Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years... It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement".[5]
•In 1695-1696, the Dutch scholar and cartographer, Adriaan Reland (Hadriani Relandi) , wrote reports about visits to the Holy Land. He was fluent in Hebrew and Arabic. He documented visits to many locations. He writes: The names of settlements were mostly Hebrew, some Greek, and some Latin-Roman. No settlement had an original Muslim-Arab name with a historical root in its location. Most of the land was empty, desolate, and the inhabitants few in number and mostly concentrated in Jerusalem, Acco, Tzfat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest Christians. There were few Muslims, mostly nomad Bedouins. The Arabs were predominantly Christians with a tiny minority of Muslims. In Jerusalem there were approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians. In Nazareth there were approximately 700 people - all Christians. In Gaza there were approximately 550 people - half of them Jews and half Christians. Um-El-Phachem was a village of 10 families - all Christians. The only exception was Nablus with 120 Muslims from the Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites.[6]
•In 1835 Alphonse de Lamartine wrote: "Outside the city of Jerusalem, we saw no living object, heard no living sound. . .a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, in the highways, in the country."[7]
•In 1844, William Thackeray writes about the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem: "Now the district is quite deserted.
•In 1857, the British consul in Palestine, James Finn, reported: "The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population."[9]
So what are you talking about?
There has always been a Jewish presence in the land, and, indeed, until 1967, the Jews were called the Palestinians.

devilfish13

Truthtriumphs

If Martin Luther King were alive today and had witnessed the consequences of Zionism as it has evolved, that he would have approved? I think not.

Perhaps you have nothing else better to do these days, but to take so much time, use so much energy, trying to make such an issue out of my earlier comment....."What is indisputable is that before the Zionists came, there was a collection of people who lived in the area now known as Israel." is beyond me.

Are you seriously claiming that not a single living human being lived in the area now known as Israel before the Zionists came?....because that is what you are implying.

Are you writing so close to the page that you are unable to see the substantive?

Why not take a look at my response to Adam B and deal with that...if you can. I feel sure he won't mind.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish13

"If Martin Luther King were alive today and had witnessed the consequences of Zionism as it has evolved, that he would have approved? I think not"

Pathetic! Is that the best you can do?
King made those remarks AFTER the six day war.
So you have the gall to presume his attitude would be different today, because you cannot answer his timeless accusation.
Is the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians in all the Muslim countries because of Zionism?
You, and the other anti-semites are mighty quiet about that, aren't you?

"Are you seriously claiming that not a single living human being lived in the area now known as Israel before the Zionists came?....because that is what you are implying".

Go back to school---your comprehension skills are seriously wanting.

As a matter of interest, are you as excercised about the sovereignty or legallity of any other country on the planet?
If you are just singling out the sole Jewish state for this treatment, you are considered an anti-semite, according to the EU's definition.
Read it.

What have you to say about the creation of Pakistan in 1947, and the disaster that caused, involving the forced expulsion of millions of Hindus from their land by the Muslims, which has led to dangerous enmity between 2 nuclear powers.... a situation which makes the I/P conflict pale into insignificance?
Nothing?
Thought not!

Augustus

Devilfish 13 - You say that your
"consistent view...is that Zionism initiated a process whose evolution was entirely predictable." But this is really just another way of saying that you completely reject Jewish national aspirations. It is also another way of saying that, in opposing
Zionism so strongly, you blame
Zionism for basically creating the Arab-Israeli conflict just because the Jewish community availed itself of the provisions of the Mandate, i.e.
the right to build for themselves self-governing institutions right up to the point of achieving majority and
statehood. If this is so, then you are indeed exhibiting a form of anti-Semitism, because
there is no other interpretation that can be placed on rejecting what was specifically intended to be a harmonious disposition of the
Palestinian world among its peoples, both indiginous and absorptive immigrants. In a nutshell the story of Israel boils down to: The struggle to search for a safe haven from eternal persecution; the further struggle to establish a homeland in Palestine between the two world wars; the curse of
Nazi persecution of untold millions; the rebuilding of Jewish life and the Jewish Homeland after WW2; and finally,
the survival of the State of Israel in the first decade and thereafter. Having leapt all those hurdles, survived all those struggles, I wouldn't think that there was anything remotely predictable about the outcome at all.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Cameron's comments seem to fall broadly into two parts:

- the need to uphold hard-won western values at home. All broadly sensible, though questionable in terms of likelihood of them being carried through in any meaningful way. Disproportionate reaction and endless demands for special treatment from militant (and not-so-militant) islam in the UK, and their apologists embedded in the institutions will see to that.

- a wish to see current upheavals in N. Africa/ Middle East as opportunities to spread freedom and democracy, and so enhance global security. This looks like rather unconvincing wishful thinking - the west has little possibility to influence the unfolding of these events, and both the short and long term consequences remain pretty much complete unknowns. But I have a feeling that the BBC/CNN (now faltering) fantasy of an emerging picture of secular rainbow democracies springing up may prove just a smidge optimistic.

I also agree with Cityca's comment above: Cameron's speech (which I must admit, shocked me at the time) in Turkey on the Gaza flotilla debacle, sad to say, seems to be closer to his true feelings and it will take quite some persuading before I'd change my perception on that.

Still, this speech takes a step in the right direction at home, and is in all likelihood just a complete irrelevance abroad, so overall not to be sniffed at.

Mr R

Who appointed devilfish spokesman for ML King? One thing I kow: King would have seen right through devilfish in a microsecond -- and known him/her for what he/she is!

devilfish13

Truthtriumphs

I've already dealt with your charge of anti-Semitism. Further, if the late Martin Luther King was alive today, I would put to him my view precisely as I've already expressed it on this thread.

I'm not exercised by the issues of the Indian sub-Continent, or elsewhere, simply because this thread, arising from Melanie Phillipe's blog, is essentially about the Middle East

Since I see that Augustus has popped up again, I'll try and deal with him also in this post.

Not unlike you he makes a somewhat clumsy attempt to twist my words to suit his prejudice.

At the risk of repeating myself, the Zionist project as conceived and executed in the 19th and early 20th century could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat, the total domination by one ethnic group over all others in the Region. Some form of violent resistance was, therefore, justified. That the Zionist Jews, and Jews generally, may later have acquired pressing reasons for wanting a Jewish state does not change this. (Suggest you read this again so that you fully understand what I'm saying.) Now, how this can be construed as anti-Semitic is quite beyond me.

What I'm beginning to suspect is that both of you (and others similarly-minded) are so entrapped by your prejudices, and over zealous rush to attack anyone who dares to criticise Zionism, and Israel's policies, that the consequences of Zionism passes you by.

Anyway, this thread has now become for me somewhat tiresome, and its time to move on.

There will be other threads.....of that I'm sure.

James Hoskin

Devilfish, rampant subjectivity is all very well but does your your undoubted energy for 'righteousness' in the Middle East ever extend to role of Jordan or Syria? (for starters).

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish13.

"We should be mindful that the Jews also are not a people. Some may, some may not, share the religion. Many are atheist in their beliefs. And what about all the Jews in the diaspora who have become Christian? When Zionism (or the Project) got started the Jews did not have a common language. Hebrew as we know it today didn’t exist. Jews still do not have a common language since millions of Jews speak not a word of Hebrew or Yiddish. Moreover, Jews don’t have a common culture. Moroccan, English and Russian Jews live in far different worlds."

And you should know!
Your opinion is certainly at odds with the Hitler's Third Reich, which held that the Jews are a people, no matter where they came from.
That's why they murdered the Jews even when they converted, going back 3 generations.
Quite right that many converted.... at the point of death by their host nation.
As to the language of the Jews, wrong again!
Today's Hebrew is that of the bible... same letters, same words and meanings... just adapted to the 21st. century.
You evidently, are ignorant of Hebrew, otherwise you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim.

"The Jewish people don’t even have a common history. Some were bitterly persecuted, but for others, full citizens in their countries, this was only a memory."
Freudian slip... so now they have suddenly become a people, have they?
Tell us, do, in which country has there never been any persecution of the Jews (that is, where there are Jews)?
I think you'll find that the history of the Jews is remarkably consistent, worldwide.
It's rather a pity, isn't it, that Israel hadn't been re-created before the Holocaust, because it would have saved 6 million Jewish lives?
Does that bother you?.... thought not!

As to Zionism, sorry to disappoint you, but it is integral to Judaism.
You have obviously never read the bible, for if you had you would realise, from the Book of Genesis on, that the land of Israel is integral to the Jewish religion.
Now, just for a bit of light relief, why don't you tell us a bit about the Palestinian state (that never was).
Name any monarch, head of state of such an entity.
What was its language, dates it existed, borders?
What was its capital?
Are you not truly embarrassed by exposing your ignorance to such ridicule?

Bigotry and hatred masquerading as concern for the so-called Palestinians.... clear for all to see.

Augustus

Devilfish 13 - Entrapped by our prejudices? Not a bit! Just respect for international law. The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine gave the Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in the area between the
Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan including the Golan Heights. A right unaltered and valid to this day. Those who are
in fact entrapped by their prejudices are those who constantly accuse Israel of violating international law concerning the 'occupied territories'. The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine West of the Jordan River, i.e. The West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza,
has never been terminated, and could only be done through a recognized peace treaty between Israel and its neighbours, and even then only subject to the provisions of Article 80 of the
UN Charter.

Adam B.

devilfish, a bit out of your depth, aren't you? Your "answer" (or rather marked absence of), timed at 8.27 makes no sense whatever. "Hardly unforeseeable"? What on earth do you mean?

Furthermore, casually declaring that the Jews "aren't a people" is quite revealing - do you know more about the Jewish racial or national consciousness than they themselves?

Judging by your lack of historical knowledge of the region, it isn't surprising that your knowledge of the Jewish people (you badly need to do some research) is just as poor.

devilfish13

Adam B

I would refer you to the final paragraph of my 08:27.

Quote:'My consistent view about all of this is that Zionism initiated a process whose evolution was entirely foreseeable. It was a deliberate act of unleashing ethnic nationalism into the Region, and this explains why, as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, the blame for the conflict falls heavily on Zionist shoulders and lightly on the shoulders of the Palestinians.' Unquote.

Hence the Palestinians, the people of Palestine, had every reason to oppose its establishment by any means necessary. Why should they meekly submit to a sovereignty from which they were excluded? To this day the intention of Israel to maintain an ethnic supremacy within its borders justifies the Palestinians considering this a mortal threat, and therefore to resist it by any means necessary.

Or in short, nobody should be surprised (in the sense of it being 'foreseeable'), of the consequences of Zionism's imposition of ethnic nationalism in the Region.

You may happen to believe there is nothing wrong in this....that no matter the consequences it was the right thing to do. You're entitled to that opinion...of course. But it doesn't change the fact that the awful consequence for the Palestinians are there for all the world to see.

In my opinion, the blame for this conflict lies entirely with the Zionists, and not the Palestinians.

I can't possibly put my argument any clearer than that.

On the pedantic point you've made about 'people' please refer to my 9:02 of March 6 addressed to 'Truthtriumphs & Nachman'

Finally I have to say that since nobody is in a court of law here, there is little point in forensically attempting to dissect every word, every phrase, or even each and every sentence. Its so easy to try and score a cheap 'hit' by quoting someone out of context. So why do it?.....unless you are budding barrister trying to make his mark!

Nachman

@ Devilfish
“I would refer you to the final paragraph of my 08:27.
Quote:'My consistent view about all of this is that Zionism initiated a process whose evolution was entirely foreseeable. It was a deliberate act of unleashing ethnic nationalism into the Region, and this explains why, as I’ve said elsewhere on this thread, the blame for the conflict falls heavily on Zionist shoulders and lightly on the shoulders of the Palestinians.' Unquote.
Nonsense. The first stirrings of Arab nationalism have been detected by some historians as early as the 1860s, but it is more commonly accepted that as a sustained political movement it began early in the twentieth century. This followed the reimposition of the Ottoman constitution in 1908, and the greater freedom of the press and of political expression that resulted throughout the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire. A tendency that has since come to be known as "Arabism" rapidly appeared: It stressed the ethnic identity of the Arabs and emphasized their common cultural roots. It also called for equality for Arabs with other national groups within the empire. As well as being influenced by European models and by reinterpretations of the Arab and Islamic past, Arabism was strongly affected by the rise of nationalism among the Turks, Armenians, and other peoples of the Ottoman Empire at this time.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/arab-nationalism#ixzz1G0jngmwr
So what has this got to do with Zionism?
Your opinion, therefore that the blame for this conflict lies entirely with the Zionists, and not the Palestinians is entirely fallacious – until 1964 the only people who had been called Palestinian were Jews – the Arabs did not have a word for Palestine. It appears facts are not your strong suit.
In any event empowering you by arguing points should be resisted especially after you can make an outrageous (bordering on racist) statement that the Jews are not a people. You may cloak your racism in eloquence but it is thuggish eloquence nevertheless.

Derek BLADES

In his reply to devilfish13, Nachman asks us to look at http://www.answers.com/topic/arab-nationalism#ixzz1G0jngmwr. I did so and found it a useful summary of 20th century Arab politics. I thank him for that.

But Nachman then goes on to make the astonishing claim "that the blame for this conflict lies entirely with the Zionists, and not the Palestinians is entirely fallacious – until 1964 the only people who had been called Palestinian were Jews – the Arabs did not have a word for Palestine."

Nachman's point seems to be that Jews are Palestinians and Arabs are not.

Ignoring Nachman's preference for a private language, would he not agree that the arrival from abroad of many people of Jewish origin with the intent of establishing a Jewish state may have elicited some alarm or even opposition among the non-Jewish People living there?

Come on, Nachman. Don't make us think you are a total idiot.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish13

"To this day the intention of Israel to maintain an ethnic supremacy within its borders".

Does the "ethnic supremacy" over its minority citizens in all 57 Islamic state not bother you?
Oh sorry, I forgot, they've been ethnically cleansed from them---- some are still ongoing?

"Anyway, this thread has now become for me somewhat tiresome, and its time to move on".

Was that a threat or a promise?
Either way, you're not exactly true to your word, are you?

btw, humility isn't you strong point, is it?
Try it--- it's an endearing characteristic.

Artemis D'Arcy

Louis, I like your jelly fish metaphor!! Very fitting.

devilfish13

Nachman:

I resent your charge of racism and I'm going to tell you why. But first Ill remind you what Golda Meir said in 1969:

Quote 'It was not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist' Unquote

What we have here is good old Yiddish 'chutzpah' or 'insolence'. This type of argument persists as we read so often on the threads of Melanie Phillips blog, but its hardly worth considering in the context of the Palestine/Israeli conflict.

Now, to save time and space, I refer you to my 9.02 of March 6 addressed to both you and 'Truthtriumphs'.

This post sets out to try and show there is no difference between Jews wanting to be a people and the Palestinians wanting to be a people.

Note: When I say 'before the Zionists came' this is not meant to imply there were no Jews in Palestine, simply the time before the Zionist project evolved to the point when Jews formed a group in Palestine under a Zionist banner....so to speak. Today, of course, the standard bearer of Zionism is the Israeli Government.

So be off with you, 'Truthtriumphs' and others who talk about 'bigotry'
'racism' and 'anti-Semitism'. This terminology indicates only that you can't stand the 'heat' of criticism, and have lost the argument, or more 'eloquently'....you are on the wrong side of history in the Middle East.

Truthtriumphs

"This terminology indicates only that you can't stand the 'heat' of criticism, and have lost the argument, or more 'eloquently'....you are on the wrong side of history in the Middle East"

Others will decide who has lost the argument---not you.

Quote 'It was not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist' Unquote. Golda Meir.

Quite so.
And do you know why she was right?
Because the "Palestinians" themselves say so.
Ever heard Azzam Tamimi (Hamas supporter) on the subject?
He said that there is no difference between a Syrian, Jordanian, lebanese, Iraqi etc. etc. because they are all part of the same Ummah.
He further said they don't need another Islamic state---- there are enough of those already.
They just don't want a Jewish state--- a bit like you.

Your bad tempered rant is just a smokescreen for your inability to counter history and the truth.

You STILL haven't answered my question about any Palestinian state that ever existed.
OR, why it's OK to have 57 Islamic states--- all of them opressive-- but not one Jewish state, in the Jews' historic homeland, with freedom for all.

Obviously, you, like Blades, cannot.

The "Zionist project" about which you so dismissively speak, began some 3,000 years ago, and guess what, there were 2 sovereign Jewish states in pre-Palestine, which lasted more than 1,000 years, conquered by the Roman invaders more than 600 years before Islam was even thought of.

To add to your rage, the Jews have survived, and are doing rather well in their homeland, as are the Arabs there, and you just can't stomach it, can you?

devilfish13

Truthtriumphs:

Now you are clutching at straws....rage indeed! I was thinking of moving on but ventured back simply because I found I was beginning to enjoy myself. Instead of a mature debate on this serious subject, it has now acquired a distinct air of hilarity. Your unerring ability to select a few words from my posts and turn them into one-liners, is not unlike a third-rate stand-up comic in a pub on the Kingston bypass!

Suggest you take a look at the final para of by 08.44 of today to 'Adam B'....'different peas...same pod'.

Truthtriumphs

Devilfish.

"Now you are clutching at straws...."
Oh, I don't think so!

You still haven't answered a single point that I, Adam B, Augustus, Nachman et al, have put to you.
Why not?

Just to clarify, no one here gives a diddly squat as to your opinions on I/P.

However, this is a public space, so it's important to counter the lies from people such as yourself, lest the ignorant/gullible are misled by them.

devilfish13

Hi guys,

This message has just popped into my 'In-Box' and being mindful of our ongoing chat, I thought I should share it with you.

'Last week, the documentary film “Strangers No More” won an Oscar. It featured the children of migrant workers who attend Bialik-Rogozin School in South Tel Aviv, where Jews, Muslims and Christians from many nations learn together and become Israelis, who look forward to their army service and their lives in their adopted land.

Attention to the issue of children of migrant workers and refugees in Israel could not come at a more important time. Currently, 400 children who know no other home than Israel may soon be deported from the country.

Israel’s Interior Minister Eli Yishai, is the architect of the deportation decision.

This is at odds with Jewish history, Jewish values and dedication to an egalitarian and just Israel.

The government has already opened a detention facility for the families of these children at Ben-Gurion Airport. And the ultra-nationalists and ultra-religious who claim Israel should be a country for Jews alone will have won another round, at the expense of those too young and too marginalized to fight back.

The Hotline for Migrant Workers, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the African Refugee Development Center, Physicians for Human Rights and Bina, have already made a difference in the fierce legal and social fight for these children’s welfare.

Yet another example of the Israeli Government....the standard bearer of Zionism, at work.

I'm now wondering who will be the first to join me in condemning the Israel administration for this decision.

Adam B.

devilfish, lots more words signifying very little. Your sense of history is utterly bewildering, and a complete fiction.

You say the people of "Palestine" are "the Palestinians".

No, devilfish - wrong. The Jews are the people of Palestine, and well into the 1940's the term "Palestinians" referred to Jews, not Arabs (who were called, surprisingly, "Arabs"). There has never, at any time, been a distinct separate entity of Palestinian Arabs - largely because many who are called such are immigrants from Syria and Egypt. There were no calles for a "palestinian state" between 1948-67, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza, because there was no concept of such a thing. "Palestinian" nationalism was invented in 1967 - as a weapon to destroy Israel. Arafat spoke of it often - please, do some research.

Nachman has already shown the absurdity of your bizarre claim that it was the Jews who brought nationalism into the Middle East - this is simple historical illiteracy.

And as for your claims about Jews "as a people" - they are simply disgusting. How ironic that you deny Jewish people their nationality, yet invent one to repace them in their national homeland.

Adam B.

devilfish, name one other country in the Middle East, other than Israel, which has taken in Vietnamese boat people and Darfuri refugees (who are frequently used as target practice by Egyptian border guards - several, including children, have been murdered in this way to the silence of people like you).

Just one country will do.

You are simply a propagandist.

devilfish13

Adam B, Truthtriumphs, and Nachman....we're getting nowhere with these exchanges. All you are seeking to do now is fragment my posts into small enough pieces so it becomes easier for you to arrive at a position of personal denigration. These tactics are both cheap and nasty and far removed from the values you purport to uphold.

What I recommend you do is learn from the intellectual approach of people like 'C Gee' and 'Stephen Rothbart'.....these guys are worth listening to even though I don't necessarily agree with their points of view. They have my respect.

I'm moving on.

Adam B.

devilfish, as I thought. You have not engaged at all, because you refuse to reply to any substantive points ut to you. You are simply regurgitating false history to further a political agenda. When that history is challenged, you don't engage, you go on to something else.

Why are you unable to respond to reasonable points put to you?

Jerry

I find everyone's arguments of interest, but irrelevant. The risks to the Jewish state are too great going forward to cede anything without ironclad guarantees for the security of Israel. Giving away the high ground without measurable gain is suicidal. In the real world choices must be made. An apartheid Palestinian Muslim state does not add to the world's security when measured against the loss of Israel's viability. No solution is perfect, but the lack of political independence for the Palestinians is a small price to pay for the political viability of Israel.

aelle

Devilfish -

Wikipedia informs me that ' the devil fish has a limited range and a low rate of reproduction ' leading to it being classified as an 'endangered species '.

You are certainly venturing into deep water by discussing on this site of all places the views of Eli Yishai, described in Ha'aretz as ' Jean Marie Le Pen with a beard '.
His wish to deport several hundred children of immigrant families who have known no other country than Israel is defended on the grounds that allowing them to stay ".. is liable to damage the state's Jewish identity, constitute a demographic threat and increase the danger of assimilation.."

I think it was Likud that adopted as a slogan the title of a popular Jewish song : " I have no other country.

To her credit the Israeli actress Gila Almayor, herself the daughter of refugees from the holocaust, has announced that she will defy the official policy of deportation and give them shelter to save them being removed from the place they regard as their home.

Am I alone in finding a sad and desperate echo in these events?

It was Philip Larkin who wrote :

" Man hands on misery to man,
It deepens like a coastal shelf"

Jerry

To Derek Blades and devilfish: Refutation of your points of view in pictures re Muslim maltreatment in Israel.

http://realjerusalemstreets.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/israeli-apartheid/

jerry

A sign in Jerusalem for Derek Blades and devilfish

http://realjerusalemstreets.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/dsc04916.jpg

yj draiman

“Israel’s Disproportionate Restraint.” 2

Israel is guilty of anything it’s of disproportionate restraint.

Israel has the right and obligation to defend its citizens – Protect its borders

The brutal slaughter of a family of 5 in Itamar just shows that we are dealing with a barbaric mentality.

Add to it the bomb at a bus stop in Jerusalem.

A rocket at a school bus.

The daily launching of rockets from Gaza against civilian population and schools.

No country and government that cares about its citizens would tolerate such atrocities.

Terror should be handled in the following manner. When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.

It is a known fact that any country if attacked, its citizens kidnapped, rocket bombardment on a daily basis.
Has the right and obligation to defend its citizens.

It is sad that innocent civilians are hurt, but that is the cost of war and conflict.

Any government and its citizen who do not resist terrorism and let terrorist organization entrench themselves in their country and utilize those countries as bases of armed terrorism against a neighboring country. Eventually pays the price for permitting such actions.

If you gave the Arab population a vote in Israel and the west bank and Jerusalem the option to vote freely and without intimidation, you would find out, that they would rather be living under Israel’s government. They derive more stability more benefits, pensions, welfare, etc.

If the United States or any other government were to be attacked from across the border on a daily basis, have its citizens kidnapped, rockets launched at them on a daily basis, the citizens would demand that immediate military action be initiated with no holds barred, collateral damage or not. That is the fact of life.

Terrorist and those who support them do not know what peace is, they thrive on violence. That is the only way they control the masses. Any negotiations or compromise only strengthen those terrorist organizations. When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.
There is no such thing as a “disproportioned response to terror.”
Our problem today is “Israel’s Disproportionate Restraint.”
This puts Israel and its citizens in grave danger.
When a poison strikes the human body, the only way to address it, is to remove it and destroy it completely.
That is the way the terrorist organizations should be treated.

“Like all sovereign nations, Israel has not only a right, but moreover, an obligation, to ensure the safety and security of her citizens”.

As quoted in a statement “the only time of a chance for peace is, when the Arab mother would love her children more than she hates the Israelis.

The big mistake is that people are missing the economic benefits for Israel and its neighbors. That is if there was a true peace, you take the Israeli Technology and know how, add to it the Arab labor and natural resources – and you have an economic prosperity beyond your widest dreams.

Nothing will change, nothing can change until the Palestinian people recognize this reality; their greatest enemy is not Israel. The greatest threat to the Palestinian people is, and always has been, their own leaders.

And Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas, anymore than Chamberlain could negotiate with Herr Hitler.
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
Every time there is a terrorist act, Israel should vacate an Arab village and raze it.

Any Arab rioting and or throwing stones at Israelis and violating Israeli laws – should be deported and his home destroyed.

There never was a Palestinian Arab State and there will never be an Arab Palestinian State on Jewish land - Anyone who thinks that there is going to be one is delusional.

YJ Draiman