A strategic and moral error of the first magnitude

Derek Pasquill

There is no cure for dhimmitude.

Laurence

"Bloodthirsty child-killers"???Outrageous allegation - see
http://bit.ly/f1j7um

Truthtriumphs

Twas ever thus.

As the wonderful Denis Mc.Shane
once remarked in a letter to the Telegraph:-

"What is it in the DNA of the British establishment that blames the Jews first, last and always."

As for the hostile home-grown Jews who are "critical" of Israel, they just crave acceptance from those who hate them.
Simple.

Keith D

And yet the British government treats Israel as if it were a rogue state acting in defiance of law and human rights, the regional aggressor and the cause of regional instability and Muslim rage.

I know,its too tragic to be laughable.We should all have guessed by know that rage is a permanent condition in the muslim mindset.A rage based on cultural inferiority and a deep fear of what they dont understand.
Namely humanity.

Maya

Reading the comments at the bottom of Ben Brogan's piece seems to indicate that he's fighting a losing battle.It seems that the MSM and the BBC have done a good job of convincing most people of the victimisation of the Plaestinians by the Israelis, and that the establishment of the state of Israel by 'invading foreigners' i.e. European Jews, in 1948 is the true history of the region. His one voice in the wilderness will not convince people otherwise.

Truthtriumphs

A terrific article!

Brogan has so eloquently analysed the root causes of the hostility to Israel.

Interesting how he realises that its the jealousy and fury of the left with Israel's success against all the odds that drives so much of the hatred.

Olaf Rye

I am not certain if this government, or any succeeding government in Britain, will substantially alter its rather disgraceful stance on Israel. The current mob of politicians want to remain in power and thus espouse policies based on their popularity. It is shameful that anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish sentiment is widespread and a widely subscribed to in this country, so most of the political parties pander to this in one form or another. Any decent policy towards Israel would be unpopular and therefore anathema to these careerists. Until the public attitude changes, and groups like Hizbollah and their ideological fellow travelers are no longer seen as some sort of heroic underdog fighting tyranny but religious lunatics that want to destroy Occidental culture, I cannot see us offering Israel anything more than platitudes and obstruction.

Grumpy true Zionist

see that the 'quartet' has postponed its march meeting with Israel, till maybe sometime in april

no doubt so that it will give ashton and co, time to kinda figure out who amongst this bunch of ragtag rug traders in the ME, they are in fact dealing with down at the shouk

can hear it now;
'now my good man, you told me yesterday that the camel bag was ten pounds, and now you asking twenty'

'yes madam but that was before i figured how gullible you are' (educated arab with a degree from el-ess-ee)

tiki

Anti semitic Jew hate blinds & deafens 'any intelligent perspective or observation. It attaques & ridicules anyone with a different (pro jewish) opinion. Can't be helped, it has always has been that way, it will never change. Anti Semitic Jew hate is and always has been at the 'core of every "civilisation & uprising. It's the 'plaster on the wound, the 'oil for the world machine, the 'brain food for the self proclaimed interlectual and the 'tool for the simple and easy to manipulate masses who, without it, might not follow the 'leader. One shouldn't try to understand or question it, not feel hurt or attaqued by it, for 'that just feeds the beast. One should only expose & fight it without question or explanation.

Andy Gill

In fact if you look at the 'bet-rated' comments, you will see a considerable amount of support for Israel.

Given the anti-Israel propaganda pumped out by the British press on a daily basis, it's quite remarkable.

Islam here in Britain will become a great recruiting sergeant for Israel. As more people wake up to the stealth jihad in the UK and Europe, the Zionist cause will find increasing support. We should leverage and encourage this trend by exposing what the Islamists and extremists are doing to this country at every opportunity.

RCE

Hague needs to go. Now. And Cameron is rapidly achieving Dhimmi status; I've just read that he's endorsed the judge's verdict that Christians should be prevented from being foster parents.

I'm beginning to feel a greater affinity to Israel than I do to Britain.

Peter B. Marcus, M.D.

Bravo, Melanie! We are fighting the same sick thinking in US government. Maybe the hearings on "radicalization" in the American Muslim community scheduled for today on Capitol Hill will be a step in the right direction, but don't hold your breath....

raymond

Absolutly, RCE, absolutly !

Augustus

Why doesn't David Cameron take a leaf out of the former Spanish Prime Minister's Book,
and launch a 'Pro-Israel Initiative'? Launching it last September, Jose Maria Aznar said: "This idea is the consequence of my convictions,
and the convictions of many different people. We believe in the values of the Western world and we believe that it is necessary at this moment to enforce our way of life...For us
Israel is a part of the Western world. Israel is not a country of the Middle East, it's a Western country in the Middle East, therefore the interests of Israel are our interests."
But instead, this government appears to want to barter away
the Jewish State piece by piece,
even to the point of contributing towards its destruction. The formula: land for peace, doesn't work.
Radical Islam doesn't tolerate
a Jewish state. This is the same
multicultural left-wing thinking which saddled us with Eurabia and the live-alongside-
each-other-society by the pathfinders of islamization. The false prophets of dead-in-the-water liberalism which has brought enormous damage to the fabric of a dearly fought for free Western culture. If the West spent a fraction of its energy condemning Israel in forcing Arabs to adopt peace and
live in peace with Israel we might be getting somewhere. Until that happens there will never be peace, because Arabs will continue to use its very existence as justification for their continued war of hatred
(look at the withdrawal from Gaza as a prime example). As long as that aggression is supported and accepted by these weakling politicians, there will
never be peace in the ME.

David Lindsay

"the one country which is not only its sole indisputable ally in the region"

Drivel. Historically and geopolitically illiterate.

Merlyn

In the past week, I have been spending many hours responding on the blogs about antisemitism in the Telegraph.
One article was about John Galliano and celebrity antisemitism, the other is 'How-anti-semitism-entered-the-zeitgeist'.

It has been a war of nerves to politely answer the antisemitic slurs with facts. Even worse than the Guardian, but I feel it is imperative to put these facts out there where the non Jews can read them, other wise we are just consoling each other.

aelle

Is it not enough for David Cameron to declare " I will always be a strong defender of the Jewish people. I will always be an advocate for the state of Israel. " ?

Benedict Brogan, whose views should hardly come as a surprise to anyone, calls for David Cameron to visit Israel to reassure Netanyahu of his support in a meeting face to face.
But did we not very recently despatch our Foreign Minister to Israel? And did the Israeli foreign ministry not select the day of his arrival to announce the postponement of joint Anglo-Israeli talks on security matters? And did the Jewish Chronicle not report an Israeli diplomat as saying, after Hague's departure, " The only thing that matters now is what Obama will do after the mid-term elections and how Netanyahu will respond. Neither Hague nor the British government have any influence on that. "?
It would seem that the political establishment in Israel is supremely indifferent to opinion in this country - official or otherwise.
And to equate a civilised and humane desire to arrive at an equitable solution to the conditions of displaced Palestinian Arabs with an endorsement of genocide is an affront to the politicians and people of this country who were the first to declare support and sympathy for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

It was the people of this country, lest we forget, who stood alone against the monstrous perpetrators of the holocaust, and who prevailed.
Those who founded the state of Israel fought with us then against a racist dictatorship, side by side.
Perhaps, at this point in history, that is something that should be remembered, both here and in Israel.

Adam B.

Sure David Lindsay - the Saudis, funding all those extremist preachers in the UK, must really be your true friends (!)

Or which other corrupt tyrannical ruling family did you have in mind?

Marc Oliver

I loathe Islamic extremists and support Israel as a bastion of democracy in the Middle East. But just to clear my mind, will someone - anyone - without being abusive or quoting ancient scripture, please explain to me why the continued Israeli settlement building is justified? I have noticed that some people who don't appear to hate Jews seem to consider the issue important; and I would like to hear the case in favour expressed in terms which didn't involve calling me anti-Semitic for asking.

RCE

aelle @ 4:05
Yes, Britain "stood alone against the monstrous perpetrators of the holocaust". But that didn't stop the holocaust from happening; which may explain Israel's ambivalence toward us, distrust of the 'international community', and policy of self-determination.

Mr R

David Lindsay describes his pronouncements and himself with uncharacteristic prespicacity: "Drivel. Historically and geopolitically illiterate."

Augustus

Marc Oliver - You say that you
'loathe Islamic extremists'.
Here is a list of the Palestinian groups which were founded with the declared aim of
destroying Israel by violence,
and have had a history of terrorist activities:
PLO, FATAH, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al-Saiqa, PFLP, PFLP-GC,
PPP (Palestinian Peoples Party),
Fatah Revolutionary Council,
The Palestinian Revolutionary Communist Party, The Palestinian
Democratic Union (FIDA),
Fatah-Uprising,
Palestine Liberation Front,
Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Popular Resistance Committees, AOLP (Active Organization for the Liberation of Palestine).
And only the PLO has renounced this aim officially.

The West Bank border line is only about 11 miles from Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem and other
places are within artillery range of any Palestinian state.
So, in view of the historical
Arab obsession with wanting to destroy Israel, it would need some pretty watertight guarantees for its security before allowing the West Bank to be a completely non-Jewish
Palestinian state. With a list of terror groups as long as your arm (see above), it's pretty obvious that creating a
Palestinian state is simply going to be a base for terror groups. And, regarding the expansion of the settlements, all one can say is look what happened when they were suspended for ten months last year, that didn't end with the Palestinians rushing to make peace. So, basically, the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours has existed long before the first settlements were built. It is a red herring issue.

gareth

Europe is now in the same position as Israel - and, very slowly, even the intellectuals are beginning to realise it. Richard Dawkins has dared to say that islam is an evil religion....

J D Bryan

The ever growing anti-Israel global attitude seems to me to be a product of the anti-western viewpoint developing throughout the globe. It can only be challenged when more of us in the west begin to “smell the geo-political coffee”. The threat by Left-wing dogma in its new more moderate guise. Consisting of the minority and vocal Hard Left and majority Soft Left.

The former are anti-capitalist thus hate the west and apologists even supporters of anti-western movement however egregious. Of the latter, as critical capitalists, most assume their own goodwill to humanity demands they admonish the west and give succour to the non-west. Assume any virtues of the non-west, whilst only endorse the west when “sharing” its goods throughout the non-west.

This dogma is loosely based on Marxism, can be described Marxoid - borrowing Peter Hitchins term. Rather than the very brutal extremists: Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist etc., is more acceptable to those of goodwill. It does not accept liberalism (in the classical sense) secures liberty plus western thus meaningful democracy: free, fair and competitive election based on consensus politics, etc. Instead, has perverted liberalism, hold it Left-leaning because the Left is deemed necessarily for the good. Not least, must be in opposition to the free market.

It neither denounces nor endorses western type meaningful democracy. Rather treats the term as a buzz word, as few would openly reject. In this way, it can sustain any vague anti-democratic critiques of western democracies. Also implies democracy secures liberty. That, only through democracy can the ills of the world be resolved. That the present global dichotomy, west and non-west, represents not the progressive west and regressive non-west but global inequality, the rich oppressors and the poor, the victims, which can only be resolved through some form of global democracy. A process, whereby ever more people begin to treat the west as the global force for bad, people thus will then “vote” with their voices, etc. That is, assume that through some “meta- democratic” system, like national elections vote in a new and better governments, this global order could somehow be replaced with a global egalitarian democratic order thus superior to the west if only we work at it.

Anti-westernism thus anti-Israeli can only begin to be resolved when defending the west and capitalism is no longer condemned as nasty Right-wing dogma, almost fascist. A denial of all that is good in the modern world. When it is logically recognised that anyone who claims to love freedom, to be of goodwill to humanity, must by definition assert the superiority of the west.

This does not mean no western leader or nation(s) should be beyond rebuke or we should never praise, even endorse anything that comes from the non-west. But means giving unqualified support for the west as the only force for progress and recognise the non-west is in the scheme of things regressive. That human progress - as any of goodwill would endorse - means exclusively the success of the west. That any advance in the non-west is only whence leading to ways of the west and the reciprocal any rejection of the west represent human regress: the former Communist bloc, Hamas, Iran, Chavez, etc. Recognise all peoples can and will adopt western culture once its values are fully appreciated once the din of the Left is challenged.

Tintagel

@ Merlyn March 10th, 2011 4:01pm

I agree and I've been adding a few responses myself.

The Benedict Brogan article has attracted nearly 1900 comments so far. Many of them are typical anti Israeli slurs with no facts or sources quoted to back them up, but now and again there's one large post from someone who seems to have grasp of the situation. However, it quickly disappears onto page 2 as another flurry of spammy comments appears.

GaryL

Marc Oliver asks a question about Israel's settlements. Before accepting the legitimacy of his question a few other questions should be answered.

For centuries in the west and the east Jews were not permitted to freely choose where they could live. Anyone asking Marc's question should ask themselves if they are in any part subject to the subtle inherited cultural paradigm that Jews have no right to choose for themselves.

His question is firmly based on the idea that those areas will become a state where Jews will not be permitted to live. That's an outrageous idea that should be fought against, not accepted without question. Are there areas of Britain where Jains are not permitted to live?

The future is never predictible. Palestinians might be just another people who claimed statehood but never acheive it. There are currently about 50 such claimants around the world, and many more in the history books or forgotten. Why should Jews be asked to reserve land for potential failed claimants?

david elder

David Lindsay = bravo! Give that man a camel.

Jez

Marc Oliver,

(i feel you may not get the chance to read this as it may be deleted)

I think it may have something to do with the fact that at it's narrowist point Isreal has a strip of land is only 8.5 miles wide (an equivilent 10k funrun plus a bit- you could actually run it in 3 hours) from the Eastern part of the WB to the Sea.

Between the Hamas controlled Gaza to PA controlled West Bank is only 20 miles. In a car you can do that in twenty minutes without really putting your foot down.

This narrow and tactically difficult strip of land to defend, aka Israel is being pressed in the West by Hamas, the North by Hizbollah and to the North East by Syria. To consolidate and expand these areas would make sense on a tactical level.

The events right now justify such policy.

Worst case scanario, a 'Democratic' Islamic revolution in Jordan is then hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, so there and you would have (on paper anyway) a hostile Islamic Jordan and a prospectively sympathetic (at least) West Bank only 20 miles from Hamas controlled Gaza.

If i was a Jewish Israeli then that's why i would want to build outwards.

aelle

RCE

As I think is abundantly clear, I am no holocaust denier, although I fail to see why the reality of that obscene sequence of events should lead Israel to be "amblvalent" towards the British, who were powerless to prevent what was happening, and, at huge cost of life, fought to prevent the Nazi ideology and practice from taking over the Western world , and managed finally to destroy the force that was intent on destroying Jewry in Europe.
Equally I understand that the long and tragic history of persecution and oppression that the Jewish people have been subjected to throughout Europe has understandably created a siege mentality and a sense of paranoia that is not conducive to the establishment of relationships with other nations.
However, the cycle of hatred and mistrust must, sooner or later, be broken.
The alternative is either another holocaust or Armageddon.
Those of us who care for the futures of our children and grandchildren need to do whatever it takes to secure peace, security and prosperity for everyone - not solely in one small corner of the Middle East East- but throughout the world.

C.Gee

Marc Oliver:

“...why the continued Israeli settlement building is justified?”

Because:
It is ordinary economic activity.
Settlers have title to the property they build upon.
Settlements have nothing to do with the viability of a Palestinian state - either within or without its borders.
Settlements do not compromise the establishment of borders: the Palestinians can take the population as it finds it within the negotiated borders.
Jews finding themselves within a Palestinian state should be able to leave - with compensation - or stay and abide by the law of the new sovereign’s jurisdiction.
Jewish property holding does not pre-empt any eventual Palestinian sovereignty over the territory.
It is authorized by the rights to “close settlement” of Palestine accorded to Jews by international law.
Israel is in breach of no undertakings (including the Road Map, please read this closely for dependent and independent obligations) by allowing settlements.
The claims to ownership of the land by the quasi-polity illegitimately represented by the Palestinian Authority are inferior to the settlers’ and to Israel’s.

gabez

Ben Brogan, Melanie Phillips and a handful of others are the only people in Britain who know how to defend Israel properly.
The majority of the Jewish community are an absolute cringe-worthy disgrace. Self defeating arguments, most notably the one using the holocaust and antisemitism to justify Israel's existence as opposed to the Jewish historical right to that land, do Israel's image more harm than good.

Truthtriumphs

Marc Oliver

"But just to clear my mind, will someone - anyone - without being abusive or quoting ancient scripture, please explain to me why the continued Israeli settlement building is justified?"

Easy, and thank you for asking so politely!

There are several compelling reasons:--

1)Following WW1 and the defeat of the Turks, the Ottoman Empire which spanned the Middle East for 400 years, was divided up by the British and French, and new countries were created, namely Iraq (British jurisdiction),and Syria and lebanon (French jurisdiction).
The whole geographical area known as Palestine was designated to the Jews (British jurisdiction) in recognition of their historic connection to the land.
In 1922, Churchill awarded the land east of the Jordan river to the Hashemite dynasty, in recognition of the help it gave Britain defeating the Turks, and Abdullah became King of the newly created Trans-Jordan, which covered some 77% of historic Palestine.

In 1922, the 51 member states of The league of Nations unanimously ratified a document called "The Mandate for Palestine" which called for the Jewish national homeland to be RE-CREATED in Palestine in the area West of the Jordan river, and called for "close settlement" of this area by Jews, which also included Gaza and the Golan heights.
Jews were not allowed to settle on land east of the Jordan river.
The Arabs, in the main (most of whom were immigrants from Syria and Egypt) did not accept this and there were riots, and ethnic cleansing of Jews from areas such as Hebron in 1929.
btw, the Mandate document specified that there should be religious and civil rights for the non-Jews in the future Jewish state, but not political
rights.
When the league of Nations was superceded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which, in the absence of any agreement to end hostilities, remains the legal status of the area to the present day.
There were many attempts to placate the Arabs, by whittling down the size of the future Jewish state, but were never accepted by them.
Finally, the UN, in 1947, proposed a partition of Palestine, giving the Jews a very small proportion of the original area.
The Jews accepted, reluctantly,
(Jerusalem was excluded), and the Arabs rejected.
It was put to a vote in the UN in November 1947, and passed.(Resolution 181)
In the following May, on declaration of statehood, 5 Arab armies attacked the fledgling state, but the new state survived (just!).
Then Trans-Jordan made a land-grab of the West Bank, and annexed it, in a move which was recognised only by Great Britain and Pakistan (but minus recognition of the annexation of Jerusalem).
It became Jordan.
Egypt illegally annexed Gaza and Syria, ditto the Golan.
In 1967, Israel again won a defensive war against the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and by the time the ceasefire was called, had reached the Golan, the Jordan river and the Sinai peninsula up to the Nile.
Israel's offer to withdraw totally to the armistice lines of 1948 (the so-called Green line)in return for peace was rejected out of hand at the Arab summit at Khartoum, which issued a statement known as the 3 NOs... no peace, no negotiation, no recognition.
Subsequently, Egypt made peace, in return for the Sinai in its entirety.
Jordan made peace, but gave up all claims to the West Bank, which was never legally theirs.

2)The UN then passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from territories, deliberately omitting the definite article, in return for a cessation of hostilities from the Arab side, (which has never happened).
Israel started to re-settle some of the areas which had legally belonged to Jews before 1948, such as the Etzion bloc, near Jerusalem, for which Jews held the title deeds, and Hebron, in both instances from whence they had been driven out.
Interestingly, although the status of the WB remains legally part of the Jewish state, before any new settlement was formed, every government of whatever hue consulted with a specialist lawyer called Plia Albeck, to ensure that it was built on state land and not privately owned land.
She was an expert in the field and consulted British and Ottoman law before sanctioning the building of every new settlement.

3)There is also the legal precedent of land won in a victorious, defensive war.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Stephen Schwebel, one time head of the International Court of Justice, the court of the UN, ruled in 1970, that where a country had won territory in a defensive war, and that territory had previously been taken by force (ie, by Jordan), then the victor (ie.Israel) had the better title.
Indeed, following WW11, the Axis powers lost land that had been theirs, such as Germany losing the Sudetenland, and other lands which went to Poland.
There are many such examples, and there are never demands to return them.
The only exception seems to be Israel.

It's also worth remembering that the reason that East Jerusalem is often called Arab East Jerusalem, is because in 1948, the Jews were ethnically cleansed from there.
The only time during 2,000 years that there were no Jews in the old city of Jerusalem, was between 1948 and 1967.
The oldest and holiest Jewish cemetery on Mount of Olives is in East Jerusalem, (3,000 years old) as is the Western Wall, so to call new Jewish suburbs in East Jerusalem, settlements, is absurd, and designed to undermine Jewish legitimacy there.

The reason why Western and other powerful nations perpetuate the myth of illegal settlements, when they are no such thing, is because it suits them--- they need Arab oil and Arab/Muslim markets to trade with.
It's expediency.

4)The only people to have enjoyed sovereignty (countries called Judah and Israel)in the geographical area of Palestine were the Jews.
No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth.
The name "Palestine" was given by the Romans, when they were victorious against the Jews (AD 70),and wanted to obliterate the names of Israel and Judah forever.

Hope this brief summary clears it up for you!

eh-oop

Marc Oliver. You ask about the justifiability of settlement building. It can be justified in various ways. First, legally. The area was captured by Israel in a defensive war (Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 despite frantic Israeli efforts via the backchannel to stop them from doing so), so it remains disputed territory pending a peace treaty. The situation is complicated because Jordan both occupied the area illegally in the first place and has since disclaimed any interest. Israel has the best claim to the area (only states can exercise sovereignty) since it is the only successor state to the Palestine Mandate. They are entitled to annex any and all of the land if they wanted to, but that would entail the option of extending citizenship to all inhabitants who don't already have it, and they have chosen not to annex any very large areas so far, thus leaving the door to negotiations open. There is a proviso, and that is that settlement construction should only take place on public land or on land which the developers have legally acquired. Hence the continued effort to demolish illegal settlements.
The second, strategic, justification is something on which many have already commented. I'd only add that, back in 1967, Israel "only" faced state-controlled forces, and their centralised command structure made it conceivable until the last moment that there could be an alternative to war. That is no longer the case today, where heavily armed militias answering to Iran and the Islamist movements can use their mortars and rockets to make life difficult in any Israeli town, so the need for strategic depth is greater than ever.
Third, the moral justification. Ultimately, the purpose of morality must be to save life. Only the Palestinians' track record and their intentions expressed in the course of negotiations can indicate whether they see things the same way or not. Hamas, with their oft-declared devotion to death do not. Fatah merely continues its antisemitic indoctrination of the young, glorification of violence and continual incitement and refuses to countenance the possibility that any Jew might live in territory that it controls. In other words they envisage an apartheid state for themselves. Israel cannot derive any comfort from what either Hamas or Fatah say or do that the future will be less violent than the past, so the moral justification for controlling any part of the area is either there, or pretty well there, too. No nation's leaders should wish to play with its people's lives.
The final criterion that might apply is justification in terms of the viability of a future Palestine. Once the Palestinians show themselves to be serious about negotiating - and they have never, so far, then they might well be able to swing some claims for increased territory (beyond the areas in which they already govern). Especially with Netanyahu, who has been very clear about his wish to help the Palestinians develop a sound civic and economic basis for their society. But until such a time as the Palestinians show themselves as serious in negotiations, Israel owes them nothing. Their good faith is very much in doubt. Any interim solution with interim borders is a reasonable first step and a test which should be seen in that light.

Polaris

Why is it so unreasonable to believe it was a huge mistake for the UK and the USA to impose a new state and mass immigration upon a land whose existing majority population did not want them? Since then our relations with the rest of the Middle East have been irretrievably distorted. Despite that, any criticism of Israeli behaviour is instantly dismissed as anti-Jewish and we are continually expected to put Israel's best interests before our own. I am not ashamed to feel sympathy for Palestinian families forced from their homes to make way for new arrivals from the USA and Russia and I am tired of being lectured by people whose uncritical devotion to a foreign country seems to outweigh their attachment to the one they actually live in.

GaryL

aelle

Stopping the Holocaust was secondary to Britain's war aims. Since the start of their mandate for Palestine Britain did all it could to restrict Jewish immigration and land purchases.

"understandably created a siege mentality and a sense of paranoia that is not conducive to the establishment of relationships with other nations." Israel has good relationships with Germany, Poland, and the other countries such as in Africa which broke off their end of the relationship. Israeli emergency teams are usually among the first to arrive when other countries suffer earthquakes, etc. Statements by countries about wiping out Israel and Israelis are "not conducive to the establishment of relationships with ..." Israel.

Jerry

Mark Oliver wrote, "please explain to me why the continued Israeli settlement building is justified? "

1) Israel has the better legal claim to the area called Judea and Samaria - See San Remo conference of 1929

2)The Jewish towns of Judea and Samaria provide a venue for interaction between Jews and Arabs not provided by any other structure - not Israel and certainly not other Arab Muslim countries.

3) Any Palestinian state will be Jew-free both by Palestinian demand and by Israelis who would need to protect their children and their own lives.

4) A necessary conclusion of the above-point is that anyone who supports an independent Palestinian state, support apartheid.

5) The risks going forward after the establishment of a Palestinian state would fall on Israel alone. Israel at its narrowest point prior to 1967 was ten miles wide. The level of surety that would be necessary for Israel to relinquish strategic depth would be too high to meet. International guarantees have been useless as can be seen in Lebanon.

6) By weakening Israel to the point that the Arabs and Persians believe that they can defeat Israel, those who support such a policy make a nuclear war more likely, because Israel will not be destroyed without making every attempt to survive.

5) The irrationality of world bodies including EU, Britain, NGOs supported by various governments and now the United States under Obama makes the entire world seem surreal. No other country but Israel has had to fight for its survival and justify its right to survive at the level that Israel is required to do so. One must ask how much of the opposition to Israel is due to Antisemitism and how much to "political realism." In the end it makes makes no difference. Israel must face the world no matter what the source of the underlying opposition. No less than whales or the great apes, Jews require enough safety to continue their journey. From this perspective everyone else is irrational except the Jews who take an interest in their own survival.

6) If you have visited the 'settlements" of Judea and Samaria, you cannot but come away with the impression of people who are happy and productive in their lives. They build their communities, educate their children, engage in Jewish culture. They sing, dance, smile, cooperate, plant, heal each other, and enjoy life. This reality sticks in the craw of the lifeless Europeans who behave as though they are to go extinct in the next 50 years. Indeed, at 1.4 children per family on average, Europeans will with certainly go extinct. There is every reason to believe that Israel's positive framing of life and its value is what makes Europeans apoplectic with the them. Calls to give up land by the Europeans mirrors their own lack of sense of self and place. If nothing matters, then why shouldn't the Israels accept their oblivion with the grace of the Europeans?

In closing, in order to understand why Israel should not relinquish the settlements, you must re-frame the issue to take account of future threats. In a zero-sum game I vote for the continuation of the Israeli adventure. The Palestinians deserve no more than they are willing to give.

RCE

aelle @ 1048
I apologize unreservedly for any confusion or offense; of course you are not denying the holocaust.

My point, though, is the one you make yourself, about Britain's 'powerlessness' to stop it then, as remains the case now; why depend on someone who is powerless?

Furthermore, such ambivalence to Britain is surely validated by the stridently anti-Israel BBC and general hostility visible in the comments section of Brogan's article, not to mention the prevailing arabist orthodoxy of the FCO.

As for Israel's paranoia - they are surrounded by those who wish to destroy them, both as a nation and a race: men, women, children, the lot. Yet, strangely, Israel is seen as intransigent and deserving of opprobrium...

Jon_Boy

Polaris,

would you then support removing all non aborignes from Austarlia and all non Mauris from New Zealand? How about the removal of all Europeans and Africans from North America and South America. Why don't we also remove all Anglo Saxons and Normans from the UK too and also those uninvited Vikings. Finally we should remove all Muslim Arabs from North Africa, the Indian sub continent, Central Asia and the Far East as they too were foreign settler invaders. Finally Polaris if you mistrust people who support foreign powers and even support the cultural takeover of the UK what is your view of the large Muslim population in this country? Or are you just concerned about Jews?

Truthtriumphs

Polaris.

"I am not ashamed to feel sympathy for Palestinian families forced from their homes to make way for new arrivals from the USA and Russia and I am tired of being lectured by people whose uncritical devotion to a foreign country seems to outweigh their attachment to the one they actually live in".

Your post should be required reading as a text book case of bigotry and intolerance based on a complete ignorance of the facts. (Read my comments above).

You have no sympathy for the almost one million Jews brutally driven out of THEIR homes in the many Arab/Muslim countries in which they lived for more than 1,000 years, (as dhimmis).
No Arab families were displaced to "make room" for the Jews.
They left because of wars waged by their leaders upon the Palestinian Jews (the original Palestinians), in the same way as refugees from any war are created.
The so-called indigenous Arabs were mainly economic refugees from neighbouring Arab countries, attracted to the Holy land by the economic opportunities presented by Jewish industry reclaiming the barren land.
Your contention is as ludicrous as suggesting that there is a a large exodus from Britain of the indigenous population to make room for the 4,000,ooo Muslims who have made their home here (many illegally) from the Asian sub-continent.

To suggest that British Jews are less loyal to the UK is deeply offensive, as well as utterly false, and a typical anti-semitic trope.
A prayer for the Royal family is said in every synagogue of every stripe on every sabbath in the UK.
Jews have punched above their weight in every field of endeavour in this country, and their contribution has been totally out of proportion to their tiny numbers, as have the number of Jewish servicemen to die fighting for Queen and country in both world wars.

As to the UK and the US "giving"
Israel to the Jews, I think you will find that that was the decision of the league of Nations....all 51 members.
They made it clear that it was a re-constitution of the Jewish homeland, which existed long before the UK was even dreamt of.

Finally, I wasn't aware that Benedict Brogan is Jewish... he isn't, but recognises that Israel's interests are identical to ours.
If she falls, the West will follow, as surely as night follows day.

TDH

C.Gee
March 10th, 2011 11:05pm
I do not see how defining the settlements as "ordinary economic activity" helps your case. Surely, the point is where this activity is taking place?

You say the settlers have legal title. Do you mean title under Israeli law? If Israel itself has no title to the territory, does title under Israeli law have any bearing on the status of the settlements under international law?

You say that the settlements need not affect the borders finally agreed. This may be so. However, Israel is not investing in these settlements to have them incorporated in another state. Israel is not claiming that its security requires it to occupy the Jordan valley just to give it up to another state. Israel is monopolising the water supply because it depends upon it for the lifestyle of its citizens, whose perceieved needs in the eyes of the Israeli government no doubt trump those of the Palestinians. The settlements are intended as "facts on the ground" that will affect the borders fianlly agreed upon. So your point is surely beside the point.

You refer to international law. The same international law has it that the territory is occupied and the settlements illegal. What kind of law do you think it is where you feel able to insist on its authority when it suits and defy it when it gets in your way?

The Mandate said that Jewish immigrants could settle the land. It said nothing about the state of Israel granting its citizens legal title to anything. If you point to its mention of a Jewish National Home and self-government, surely you should also bear in mind the protections offered the rest of the population (then 95%).

Israel's only claim to this part of Palestine is military conquest.

TDH

Truthtriumphs
March 10th, 2011 11:50pm

Palestine was not "designated to the Jews". The Jews were allowed a National Home in Palestine subject to the proviso that the rights of the inhabitants were not harmed.

At the time the Mandate was signed, it is not true that most of the Arabs were immigrants from Syria and Egypt. You have been provided with the findings of population surveys for the century up to the Mandate. You appear to prefer anecdote.

"When the league of Nations was superceded by the UN, the "Mandate for Palestine" was incorporated into Article 80 of the UN Charter, which, in the absence of any agreement to end hostilities, remains the legal status of the area to the present day." - If you are correct, then the whole of Palestine has the status defined in the Mandate. I am not sure you would want to agree with yourself on this.

" the UN, in 1947, proposed a partition of Palestine, giving the Jews a very small proportion of the original area.
The Jews accepted, reluctantly" I am sure you are aware that the Jews accepted explicitly (at least within their own councils) as a first step to a state in the whole of Palestine.

I am sure you are also aware that the civil war that ensued was well under way before the Arab state intervened. With the Israelis implementing Plan D, the Arab states could claim to be coming to the defence of the Palestinians. As far as I know they did not invade the territory notionally allocated to Israel (although the Egyptian forces crossed Israeli territory on their way to an unsurprising defeat). There is much evidence that Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was part of a reluctant pact between Jordan and Israel, with British approval.

That 1967 was a war of defence is contentious, especially if you study Israeli behaviour in the run-up, and if you read intelligence assessments by the Israelis and the US.

"Jordan made peace, but gave up all claims to the West Bank, which was never legally theirs." It was as much theirs as Galilee etc. is Israel's - they both took them by conquest. Jordan did not renounce its claim in favour of Israel but the Palestinians.

"The UN then passed Resolution 242, calling on Israel to withdraw from territories, deliberately omitting the definite article..." Why should the elucidation of the wording given by the drafters to Israel trump the elucidation given to the Arabs? Why should the English version trump the French? Who among the drafters had in mind other than minor mutually agreed adjustments to borders?

"although the status of the WB remains legally part of the Jewish state..." You will have to explain this. Is it part of the Jewish state "legally" because Israel took it by conquest, or what?

"In a landmark ruling, Judge Stephen Schwebel..." As I understand it, this was not a ruling made in any official capacity, but a personal opinion. I cannot find the basis for the claim that territory acquired by military force in a war deemed by the state acquiring the territory to be defensive is acquired legally. Even if there were such a law, there would still be a requirement to demonstrate that the war was indeed defensive. Germany after all waged a "defensive" war against Poland in 1939.

If you argue from the League of Nations Mandate then Jerusalem is part of Palestine, and Israel's claim to it is again based on military conquest.

"The only people to have enjoyed sovereignty (countries called Judah and Israel)in the geographical area of Palestine were the Jews.
No independent country of Palestine ever existed--- neither was there ever a Palestinian people--- that is a myth."

If you are basing your claims on international law, this is not relevant. I know Julius Stone has used a definition of a "nation" to argue otherwise. He is indeed one of the most distinguished jurists of the last century, but in this instance he is acting as advocate for Israel and not as objective judge. I assume you have read contrary opinions, and as laymen I suppose we can do no more than state our difference of opinion. However, Prof. Stone does not provide an argument (that I have seen, at least) why his idiosyncractic definitions should take precedence over the League of Nations, the UN or the ICJ.

Polaris

Truthtriumphs:

Many Palestinians have been evicted from their homes and forced to resettle elsewhere against their will. Can you honestly say this has not happened?

I am also sympathetic towards Jewish people who have been persecuted and forced out of their homes in other countries; but how does that make it right to inflict the same misery elsewhere?

It is not British Jewish people supporting Israel I am complaining about, it is those British people whether Christian, Jewish or of any other faith who have elevated the cause to a status it does not deserve and who let it distort our relations with other countries with whom we have to do business and conduct diplomatic negotiations.

Israel means no more to me (and no less) than any other country; why should it? Why do you think you have the right to call me bigoted and intolerant when other posts on here have flung insults like dhimmi and antisemite at anyone who disagrees with them?

This column complains almost every week about Britain's failure to support Israel, but it is the government's duty to act in the best interests of this country even if that means having to disappoint some of its friends in the process. We can't please everyone.

MArk2

"It is not British Jewish people supporting Israel I am complaining about, it is those British people whether Christian, Jewish or of any other faith who have elevated the cause to a status it does not deserve and who let it distort our relations with other countries with whom we have to do business and conduct diplomatic negotiations."

Excuse me but is this another way of saying "its all about oil?"

Herzen

Truthtriumphs,
"No Arab families were displaced to "make room" for the Jews.
They left because of wars waged by their leaders upon the Palestinian Jews (the original Palestinians), in the same way as refugees from any war are created."

You will struggle to put together a case on the historical evidence (from Israeli archives and eyewitness accounts) to justify denial of this magnitude.

You will also struggle to find a justification for refusing to allow refugees to return to their homes. If you read the diplomatic history of the aftermath of the war in 1948, you will find that the UN, the US, and everyone else except Israel, expected Israel to observe the rules of international law and allow the refugees to return.

What is the reason for calling the Jewish immigrants the "Palestinians"? I have noticed others saying this as well. Is it because the Mandate allowed for Jewish immigrants to take Palestinian citizenship?

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Aelle: "Equally I understand that the long and tragic history of persecution and oppression that the Jewish people have been subjected to throughout Europe has understandably created a siege mentality and a sense of paranoia that is not conducive to the establishment of relationships with other nations",

Perfidious drivel..or, should I say, twaddle.

..and, by the way, Jews do not suffer from paranoia, Aelle. They suffer from justifiable fear..There is a big difference.

Stephen Rothbart

An interesting debate so far and with good manners all round.

I would just like to make a point about whether there was any "ethnic cleansing" of the Arab populations, and sorry, Truthtriumphs, but there was.

Once the anatagonists on both sides of the religious divide knew the British would pull out, they both knew that since the Arabs had not accepted the partition of Palestine,there would be a war.

Even Ben Gurion knew that this Jewish state was not going to be accepted by the Arab nations and realised that some "jostling for position" tactically was going to be necessary before the war started.

At the time, the principle resistance movements in Israel were divided among three groups.

The more popular, moderate and enlightened Hagganah, which later became the template for the IDF, the Irgun, which was a much smaller and much more aggressive group (think of the IRA Provos) and then the Stern Gang, which was mainly comprised of thugs and rejects from Irgun.

The Hagganah tried to rein in the activities of both of these splinter groups and even fought against them on several occasions, inflicting casualties.

The King David Hotel bombing was an act by Irgun, even though it has been used time and time again by critics of Israel as an excuse to claim all Israelis are terrorists.

In mitigation of this act, it would also be fair to say that the Hotel was being used by the British Government at that time as their HQ, and a warning was given to evacuate the hotel.

The warning was however ignored by the British as a hoax, and many Briish servicemen died along with Jewish and Muslim workers and guests.

Anyway, getting back to "ethnic cleansing" some of the extremists gangs did use terror tactics on some Arab villages in order to force Palestinian Arabs to flee their homes.

Some Arabs did the same, both to Jews and also to some fellow Arabs who did not mind living among Jews.

Israel at the time was not a solid "governed" nation, with a civilian and democratic infrastructure. It could not police everything certain Jewish militants did.

It was not government policy. But it happened.

The point is, that Israel is like any other nation on this planet full of good people, bad people, innocents and the guilty.

However, it has a good heart, is compassionate to its enemies, has equal rights for all,including Muslims in its Knesset.

This is palpably not the case with any of its neigbours. A Palestinian boy of 11 died yesterday in the grounds of a hospital in Lebanon, because the father had no money.

Isael treats Palestinians for free.

Yet the morons of the Left and showbiz accuse Israel of being the apartheid state, and blame her for everything.

Sadly this is true of David Cameron, William Hague, and all the other pols who are either just too lazy or too ignorant to look for the truth.

C.Gee

“Israel's only claim to this part of Palestine is military conquest.”

No. It has legal claims, among which is conquest in a defensive war. Possession, and actual control, however, moot a lot of legal argument.

The Arabs base their national claims to Israel and every other part of Mandate Palestine - except Jordan - upon residency and (former) property ownership rights. They may be compensated for their property loss in Israel, but that is all. Those keys will no longer open doors to those old homes and olive groves. The only way back to live in Israel is by Israeli immigration law.

The truly astonishing aspect of the history of the region is the Arabs’ refusal of (yet another) state offered to them: a state theoretically conjured out of (forfeited) property rights and physically carved out of land the Jewish State is entitled to.

Look at it this way: the Palestinian Arabs displaced from Israel are former “facts on the ground.” The Palestinians’ claims to a nation-state on the West Bank are based on the presence there of facts on the ground moved from another state. These facts on the ground are kept in sordid “camps” waiting for the day of return, precisely so that the Palestinians may use them as hostages in negotiations. Comparing these Arab facts on the ground with the Israeli facts on the ground in (voluntary) settlements, the Palestinian use of them politically is clearly illegitimate - legally, politically and morally.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 11th, 2011 5:07pm
"A few rogue elements" "a few regrettable incidents" - this is so often the plea in mitigation, and, as here, is so often very far from the whole story. The mainstream Zionists from the very outset knew that the local population would not acquiesce. They knew from the outset that a Jewish state would require the transfer of the bulk of the local population. Plan D was an expression of this logic of Zionism. It was a practical means to achieve what no-one else was going to do for them, and what was necessary for the Zionist project to succeed. It was a bona fide military plan. That is not in dispute. The Jewish settlers had every right and good reason to look out for their own defence. It was also a plan for systematic cleansing. That Israel occupied the territory it did by 1949, minus 700 000 Palestinians, was not simply fortuitous, or the work of rogue elements. What Israel did is not nullified by atrocities committed by Palestinians (which are also a matter of record). Israel and its supporters should be able by now to acknowledge what the historical record reveals.

Herzen

"The truly astonishing aspect of the history of the region is the Arabs’ refusal of (yet another) state offered to them..."

Could someone explain to me all this talk of "the Arabs" and their being "offered" a state.

These "Europeans" have already been "offered" (who by?) a state in - the Arctic tundra or wherever. What? - oh, you mean there are "Europeans" who have settled in different parts of this so-called "Europe" and they prefer to continue to live in the parts they have lived in for generations? and they really don't fancy being "transferred" to make way for others? fickle lot the European street, eh? and the calibre of their political leadership - what a shocker! they have been "offered" after all. Why can they not just "accept"?

And another thing:

"“Israel's only claim to this part of Palestine is military conquest.”

No. It has legal claims, among which is conquest in a defensive war. Possession, and actual control, however, moot a lot of legal argument."

So, not a claim of military conquest but a legal claim of military conquest!

And somehow saying "defensive war" makes military conquest legal.

And possession and control tend to follow military conquest.

...so...

..."however, moot a lot of legal argument." - Of course, it goes without saying...

David

I am bored stiff by what comes out of Cameron's mouth. Like Obama before him...its completely irrelevant what these people say about Israel, the only thing that matters is what they do. Which is why Gordon Brown's speech in Israel was so important. He went over there and actually showed support and made a commitment to the Jews directly. With the bleating Hague in a permanent huff with Israel over the way he was 'treated' his comments continue the drip drip effect that has been a fixture of this countries politics for well over 20 years concerning Israel. If Cameron is serious about supporting Israel then his first act should be to tell Hague to shut the Hell up.

Augustus

Herzen - It is indisputable that there was no 'theft' of Arab land because nobody complained of any. No Arabs were driven from their homes by the Zionist pioneers, but in fact, as a study published by Columbia University demonstrated
regarding the demographics of the area, the Arab population grew tremendously during the period when the first rebuilding
of the Jewish homeland occurred,
in part because of the economic development that the Jews helped to generate. It is also a fact that in the previous 3.5
centuries (between 1514 AD and about 1850) this region of the Turkish Empire had remained virtually static and only began to increase after that, so that by 1947 a fourfold increase in the Arab population had occurred
in less than 100 years. It stands to reason that far from driving out any Arabs, stealing their land, or dissipating their economy in any way is far from the truth. The truth is that much of the land which the Zionists purchased was mostly uninhabited, or deemed so by the Arabs, or it was swamp land or desert. During the Ottoman era the typical Arab society was comprised of the
effendi-fellah (land-owner/serf)
relationship. What the Zionist pioneers did was to enable the Arabs to enter the modern era and to slough off the shackles
of that serfdom. And while they were doing that, and turning that wasted land into prime real estate with flourishing farms and growing communities, even more Arabs poured into the area, with hundred of thousands seeking a better life. "We had the desert before our eyes but we didn't do anything with it.
When they took over, they turned it into a green oasis."
(Sheikh yusuf al-Qaradawi, speaking on TV, May 2005)

Jeremy

Ahhh... moral courage!

Don't see much of that these days do we?

Snortwood

Marc Oliver asked, explain to me why the continued Israeli settlement building is justified.

Here's the deal, Marc. It may in some locations be justified, in others it might not. Not everything that is called a settlement is a settlement. Jerusalem, for example, is not a settlement.

But then you have Gaza, where it was clear that the only Israelis living there were settlers. You may recall that a few years back the Sharon-led government unilaterally decided to leave Gaza, to remove all Israelis from all settlements, and de-occupy all lands. This came at a great expense of emotion and conflict within Israel, and within Israelis. There were soldiers who refused to participate in the actions, and there were plenty of settlers who were opposed to the inevitable up until the very end. But in the end, the decision to remove all Israelis from Gaza was carried out. And the result was? Thousands and thousands of missiles and bombs raining down on Sderot and other towns on the Israeli side of the border, and reprisals, and blood was shed. And eventually, to put an end to the incessant incoming fire, Operation Cast Lead, for which Israel was excoriated by all the howling dogs. But not by anyone who was paying attention.

So now, put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli leader in the government. You've already tried a major unilateral concession at great national expense, and that brought terror and bombs and sending soldiers into battle and UN investigations, none of which are pleasant.

Put yourself in the place of Israeli citizens -- we pulled out of Gaza and couldn't even turn around before they started bombing us and we had to put on a siege to keep them from getting bombs that would reach Tel Aviv, and for this the world says we're the bad guys, because there's no doubt that if they could bring in bombs that would reach Tel Aviv they would fire them off, first chance they got. Hezbollah, without any siege restrictions, sourced and fired off missiles that killed civilians in Haifa. Hamas would do the same if it could. As an Israeli, why should you support a government that would tear settlers out of West Bank enclaves when it did no good whatsoever to uproot settlers out of Gaza? And, it could strongly be argued, that concession was viewed as a weakness and invited the bombs that followed.

Imagine yourself a settler, and it's easy - the ideological bent that decrees all lands from there to here must be ours is upon you, and you build.

This brings a near perfect storm. The settlers will build and expand their grasp any chance they get. The Israelis, exhausted as they might be by the endless scraping and clawing of the settlers at the land to grab another foot, another inch, have lost interest in stopping them because, what is the cost? If they build, the other guys will try to kill us whenever they can - they have raised a generation or more in utter hatred, and murder is the harvest. And you realize that on the other hand, even if the settlers do not build, they will kill Jews and Israelis whenever the opportunity presents itself. So, why stop the settlers? Let them build. Politicians and country leaders usually get the biggest spreads in the pages of history, but in the short-term course of events they are grass in the wind, and lean like everyone else, and only very rarely are capable of moving against public opinion. And for now, while most Israelis are not settlers, there is no reluctance to respect the inclination that says, I'm here and I'm staying. At heart, that is what all Israelis are about. To tear at the settlers is a form of self-destruction, and the system balks at that prospect. Or at least, at repeating it again too soon.

Is it "justified" that the settlers build? In some cases, yes; in others, no. But it is understandable, since they have the will to build, and those who can stop them have lost interest in doing so because it is not healthy to scratch at oneself non-stop. And that there is no partner for the peace that would make it worth the risk of stepping in for the good of the settlers and the country again means there is no external pressure to fix this now. The response to the removal from Gaza was telling. Bombs and terror. Justified or not, it will be a very long time before any Israeli politician or the populace will have the energy to rise far above ambivalence and begrudged acceptance of the settlers' argument.

TDH

C. Gee
"The Arabs base their national claims to Israel and every other part of Mandate Palestine - except Jordan - upon residency and (former) property ownership rights."

This emphasis on "national" claims suggests too great a reliance on the arguments of Julius Stone.

He defined a "nation" in a way that fortuitously matched the Jewish diaspora.

The relevant treaties however also talk of peoples and communities that lived in the former Ottoman Empire.

The Palestinians are the descendants of the people who have lived in the land since ancient times mixed with the various invaders. They have formed a settled community for generations over hundreds of years. It is unworthy of Prof. Julius to repeat the falsehood that they are somehow a recent "invention" because he thinks that they may not meet his definition of a "nation". His integrity is legend, so I suppose it must simply be ignorance on his part.

Talk of residency and property rights is beside the point (although I like the notion that the Palestinians have no rights because they were resident, and the Jews have all the rights because they were not resident). The League of Nations and the UN recognised that the community living in the territory have a claim on it.

Prof. Stone is also in error in adducing ancient history as a claim on territory. Courts and arbitrators who have heard cases of competing claims to the same territory have ruled that ancient history has no bearing on current claims.

TDH

Augustus,
Your comments to Herzen are puzzling.

Around 1850, there were 500 000 "Arabs" and 20 000 Jews. At the start of the Mandate, there were 720 000 "Arabs" and 80 000 Jews. This is the population denied self-determination.

The nature of the community, a traditional agricultural society around more sophisticated cities, has no bearing on the question.

The British government sent commissions regularly throughout period of the Mandate to investigate the acquisition of agricultural land by the Jewish immigrants. They regularly reported back that there was no spare agricultural land. Any acquisition by Jewish settlers dispossessed Arab peasants. Land was purchased for the settlers from absentee landlords. Ottoman law had been changed in the dying days of the Empire depriving the peasants of previous rights. So the settlers had the law on their side in evicting the peasants (who had worked the land often for generations). Legal but still dispossession. The idea that this was the Zionists enabling the pesants to slough off the chains of serfdom is laughable.

The Jewish settlers did indeed, as educated Europeans, begin to develop a more advanced economy in the previously traditional agricultural land. Arab immigrants did indeed enter Palestine to work in this developing economy (and many left again in the 1930s when jobs dried up). It is also true that the Zionists tried as far as possible to restrict jobs for Arabs in Jewish concerns.

Again, it is not clear what all this has to do with the Palestinians' claim to the land they had lived in for generations. That the Zionists felt they were making better use of the land is the usual colonialist pretext for appropriation.

Derek BLADES

Snortwood tells Marc Oliver that as a result of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza there were "...thousands and thousands of missiles and bombs raining down on Sderot and other towns on the Israeli side of the border, and reprisals, and blood was shed."

Tit for tat missile fire from Gaza and artillery shelling and bombing raids by Israel have been going on since 2001. They did not result from Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and cannot be used as a pretext for continued settlement building in the West Bank.

On the other hand, Snortwood's grim picture of an Israeli government powerless to stop the continued land theft by religious nutters from Brooklyn and Eastern Europe certainly rings true.

Augustus

TDH - According to the British census data for the Arab population in the various sub-districts that eventually became 1948 Israel, there was a population stock of 589,177 in 1922 and a recorded 753,822 in the 1931 census. It appears that
the sub-districts that had the largest Jewish populations also
were the areas identified with the largest Arab Palestinian migration. And this doesn't even include the considerable
amount of undetected illegal immigration during the Mandate period. But whatever the exact figures are for the population rise, the Zionist enterprise was undoubtedly the prime mover,
and an Arab working in a Jewish factory or farming enterprise could probably earn in a month what his father earned in a year
eking out a living as a subsistence-level farmer using
medieval technology. And, oh dear, the colonialist chastisement paraded out again!
You betray your colours old chap! But yes, lets call them that tiny colony of Jews who so courageously became a refuge for their compatriots in all the lands where they had be persecuted so cruelly, only to establish themselves as the most effective fighting force and the only democracy in the area. I'm sure Disraeli would have been proud of them!

Victoria

How about David Cameron and his European counterparts start supporting the Palestinians' right to their own state?

Derek

Marc Oliver 10th March 5.38pm

Try for starters:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-illegal-settlements-myth/

Derek

Victoria

Yes, and a good place to start might be for them to sign up at:

http://www.ipetition.com/str-asp-PetitionID_9-end-SignPetition.htm

where the petition reads:

"We call upon the Kingdom of Jordan to declare itself the democratic nation state of the Palestinian people. 80% of Jordan's population are disenfranchised Palestinians and this declaration would be a decisive contribution to finally ending the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Derek

TDH writes

"The Palestinians are the descendants of the people who have lived in the land since ancient times mixed with the various invaders. They have formed a settled community for generations over hundreds of years."

Let us assume that these people were driven off the land, yet managed to keep alive their dream of returning. How many years would be a reasonable time before you told them "Give up your dream; you no longer have the right to return"?

Until 2020? 2050? 2250? 3011?

Adam B.

Victoria, "right" to a state? Where is such a "right" enshrined?

Isn't Jordan a Palestinian state?

Truthtriumphs

Herzen, TDH, Blades et al:--

Do read this, and think about it!

LETTER TO THE WORLD

On November 24, 2006, at the age of 92, a man named Stanley Goldfoot passed
away.

Stanley Goldfoot was born in Johannesburg, South Africa. Subsequent to his
hearing a speech about the Zionist vision by Ze'ev Jabotinsky, he headed for
Palestine where, at the age of 18, he joined a HaShomer HaTzair kibbutz.

After the rebirth of the Jewish State of Israel his main goal, which he
eventually realized, was to establish a Zionist English newspaper, "The
Times of Israel."

In the first issue of "The Times of Israel":---

A Letter to the World from Jerusalem
by Eliezer ben Yisrael
(Stanley Goldfoot)

"I am not a creature from another planet, as you seem to believe. I am a
Jerusalemite----like yourselves, a man of flesh and blood. I am a citizen of my
city, an integral part of my people.

I have a few things to get off my chest. Because I am not a diplomat, I do
not have to mince words. I do not have to please you or even persuade you.

I owe you nothing. You did not build this city, you did not live in it, you
did not defend it when they came to destroy it. And we will be damned if we
will let you take it away.

There was a Jerusalem before there was a New York. When Berlin, Moscow,
London, and Paris were miasmal forest and swamp, there was a thriving Jewish
community here. It gave something to the world which you nations have
rejected ever since you established yourselves- a humane moral code.

Here the prophets walked, their words flashing like forked lightning. Here
apeople who wanted nothing more than to be left alone, fought off waves of
heathen would-be conquerors, bled and died on the battle-ments, hurled
themselves into the flames of their burning Temple rather than surrender,
and when finally overwhelmed by sheer numbers and led away into captivity,
swore that before they forgot Jerusalem, they would see their tongues cleave
to their palates, their right arms wither.

For two pain-filled millennia, while we were your unwelcome guests, we
prayed daily to return to this city. Three times a day we petitioned the
Almighty: "Gather us from the four corners of the world, bring us upright to
our land, return in mercy to Jerusalem, Thy city, and swell in it as Thou
promised." On every Yom Kippur and Passover, we fervently voiced the hope
that next year would find us in Jerusalem.

Your inquisitions, pogroms, expulsions, the ghettos into which you jammed
us, your forced baptisms, your quota systems, your genteel anti-Semitism,
and the final unspeakable horror, the holocaust (and worse, your terrifying
disinterest in it)- all these have not broken us. They may have sapped what
little moral strength you still possessed, but they forged us into steel.

Do you think that you can break us now after all we have been through? Do
you really believe that after Dachau and Auschwitz we are frightened by your
threats of blockades and sanctions? We have been to Hell and back- a Hell of
your making. What more could you possibly have in your arsenal that could
scare us?

I have watched this city bombarded twice by nations calling themselves
civilized. In 1948, while you looked on apathetically, I saw women and
children blown to smithereens, after we agreed to your request to
internationalize the city. It was a deadly combination that did the job-
British officers, Arab gunners, and American-made cannon. And then the
savage sacking of the Old City-the willful slaughter, the wanton destruction
of every synagogue and religious school, the desecration of Jewish
cemeteries, the sale by a ghoulish government of tombstones for building
materials, for poultry runs, army camps, even latrines.

And you never said a word.

You never breathed the slightest protest when the Jordanians shut off the
holiest of our places, the Western Wall, in violation of the pledges they
had made after the war- a war they waged, incidentally, against the decision
of the UN. Not a murmur came from you whenever the legionnaires in their
spiked helmets casually opened fire upon our citizens from behind the walls.

Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift "to
save the gallant Berliners". But you did not send one ounce of food when
Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem. You thundered against the wall which the
East Germans ran through the middle of the German capital- but not one peep
out of you about that other wall, the one that tore through the heart of
Jerusalem.

And when that same thing happened 20 years later, and the Arabs unleashed a
savage, unprovoked bombardment of the Holy City again, did any of you do
anything?

The only time you came to life was when the city was at last reunited.
Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of "justice" and need for the
"Christian" quality of turning the other cheek.

The truth- and you know it deep inside your gut - you would prefer the city
to be destroyed rather than have it governed by Jews. No matter how
diplomatically you phrase it, the age old prejudices seep out of every word.

If our return to the city has tied your theology in knots, perhaps you had
better reexamine your catechisms. After what we have been through, we are
not passively going to accommodate ourselves to the twisted idea that we are
to suffer eternal homelessness until we accept your savior.

For the first time since the year 70, there is now complete religious
freedom for all in Jerusalem. For the first time since the Romans put a
torch to the Temple, everyone has equal rights (You prefer to have some more
equal than others.) We loathe the sword- but it was you who forced us to
take it up. We crave peace, but we are not going back to the peace of 1948
as you would like us to.

We are home. It has a lovely sound for a nation you have willed to wander
over the face of the globe. We are not leaving. We are redeeming the pledge
made by our forefathers: Jerusalem is being rebuilt. "Next year" and the
year after, and after, and after, until the end of time- "in Jerusalem"!"

Stanley Goldfoot Founder Editor The Times of Israel :

So spare us your wilfull distortions of history in trying to deny to the Jewish people, uniquely, the rights to their historic nation state.

TDH

Augustus
March 12th, 2011 5:57pm
Your additional statistics do not address what I said, but merely repeat what I said was not the whole truth or not to the point.

I am always bemused when the fact of Arab immigration is used to justify ignoring Arab rights. There were around 700 000 Palestinians at the outset of the Mandate and around 1.3m in 1947 (UNSCOP figures which are underestimates). There were 60 000 Jews at the outset and around 500 000 in 1947. Some of those classified as Palestinians were immigrants. How many of the Jews were immigrants?

You bridle at the word "colonialism". Herzl was not to know when he characterised Zionism as a colonial project that colonialism would so soon be seen as illegitimate.

Can I remind you that bringing "civilisation" to the natives is not a good excuse for depriving them of the freedoms we insist on for ourselves.

TDH

Derek,
You seem to be suggesting that those displace sixty years ago should accept their displacement while those displaced 2000 years ago should insist on restitution.

Israel certainly hopes that "facts on the ground" make it impossible for the Palestinians to get redress.

The Palestinians are still there. And they are seeking a peace settlement which gives them at most a fifth of their former homeland.

And Jordan is not their homeland, any more than England is the homeland of the Irish - all Europeans, you understand.

Stephen Rothbart

TDH, which planet are you on where you think the Palestinians are still trying to make peace with Israel?

You really have to stop reading the Guardian and similar journalistic fantasy sheets, and start reading what the Palestinians are doing and what they are saying to their people, rather than what the leaders in the West choose to hear and what they tell reporters on the BBC and CNN.

Please inform me which Palestinian leader formally recognizes Israel's right to exist. Becasue Abbas will not. He is on record as saying so himself.

If you do not recognize a country's right to exist, it is hard to take the idea of a sincere peace making initiative with such a country seriously.

See how many Palestinian schools show the state of Israel on their maps. How their leaders still call Jews monkies and dogs.

And that is just the "moderate" Fatah.

In Gaza, the more honest Palestinians of Hamas say there will never be recognition or Peace with Israel.

So who speaks for the Palestinians?

Who, TDH, in a life or death decision, do you trust to make peace with if you are an Israeli?

Herzen, your arguments are well made and have some good points, although your decision to dismiss decisions of law that do not fit your case, based on the possible bias of the Judge, is rather a cop out, don't you think?

I have argued many times now that what has gone on in Israel and what has affected the Palestinian Arab is not much different from what went on after practically every single war to every single winner and loser.

Some here have argued that Israel's Jews must have started this war in 1948 in order to ethnically cleanse the Arab populations living there, and I have said that while some of that went on, it was done by hardliners and others like Ben Gurion who knew a war was coming (because the Arabs had already stated it would) and thus were making clear defensive positions.

No sensible Jewish leader in 1947-8 would have started a war with a fully equipped and armed Arab army deployed against them.

The British army clearly favoured the Arabs, and were blocking weapons and ammunition, the Jews were vastly outnumbered, and with the exception of the Czechoslovaks, who did actually help with weapons eventually, without any allies to intervene.

This was a war carried out by the Arabs and they simply lost.

They lost the war and they lost their land and none of them, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, have ever subsequently made peace with Israel, and after the events of this last two months, we will see if these agreements will still be valid when the new leaders, likely to be heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, are in control.

I am sure that there are many Germans whose families lived in Sudetenland or what is now Poland, or Alsace, many Aborigines and Maoris, Indian Hindus and Pakistani Muslims who would love this degree of focus by people like you on why they have right to their own ancestral homes lived in by people who came from another country or continent.

But it seems that the only wrong in the world that needs to be righted, is that of the Palestinian.

You can find an argument to fit your case and so can Augustus, Truthtriumphs, and even me to fit ours.

The question really is "what now?"

You can see from the debacle in Libya right now over the no fly zone, that the UN and the EU is a busted flush, full of people that say everything and do nothing. And Obama is like a rbiit caught in the headlights. Every time he opens his mouth a says something stupid, and he does nothing to help the oppressed.

Should Israel cede to all these demands made on them and rely on anyone to come to their assistance when the Arabs break their word, as they surely will.

Isreal is a 60 year old country, with a Parliamentary infrastructure. It has a leadership, a police force and many democratic institutions, including an Opposition whose leaders never need fear jail for their views, even the extreme Arab members of the Knesset, who have called for similar sanctions on their country as Victoria and Derek Blades.

Let's assume that the world does what Victoria advocates amd recognizes a Palestinian state. What would be the likely outcome?

Apart from a civil war between Hamas and Fatah for control? Which Hamas would win because Fatah has no credibility in the West Bank, which is why they do not allow overdue elections there to happen.

Well, every nation in the Arab League would help arm the victors of this new State, and there would be a full scale war.

Oil prices, already at a ruinous price because right now Arabs are busy killing each other instead of Jews, will reach epic proportions and drive the world into further depression.

History is always written by the victor.

For the moment, Israel has been the victor, and they can certainly justify, in law, most of the actions they have taken.

One day their luck may change, and to the delight of Derek Blades, Victoria et al, there will be a new history written about the Middle East and a Judenfrei Palestine.

Then as the Jews in the disapora try to argue that the UN should interfere to save the kind of cold-blooded slaughter of children shot or having their throats cut by Palestinians (as was reported yesterday) from happening, blocked of course by Russia and China and their Arab friends, the world can watch as history re-writes itself.

TDH

Stephen Rothbart
March 13th, 2011 4:19pm
I suppose the immediate retort is, Read the Palestine Papers. Read also a detailed account by both sides of negotiations since the 1970s (including Israeli accounts other than the official propaganda, and, likewise, Palestinian). You will find that the Palestinians have conceded just about everything they can while still maintaining a position distinct from what Israel demands.

I am always puzzled by the demand that they recognize Israel's "right to exist". There is no such right, for any state. The Arab League has offered full diplomatic recognition in return for a peace settlement with the Palestinians based on what I believe is called the Green Line.

The insistence that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations sounds to me like requiring them to acknowledge that the dispossession was unexceptionable and to concede in advance the Israeli position on refugees.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 13th, 2011 4:19pm
"your decision to dismiss decisions of law that do not fit your case, based on the possible bias of the Judge, is rather a cop out" This puzzled me, but I think you mean Judge Schwebel. He was not making a "decision of law" if by that you mean a court ruling. He was speaking in a private capacity, as I understand it, and his opinions have no more weight than those of any other advocate. Also, Julius Stone. They act as advocates for Zionism. Professor Stone, in particular, was one of the most eminent jurists of the 20th century, so clearly his advocacy has to be treated with the greatest respect. However, he writes as if he is drawing deductions from unambiguous principles, unarguable definitions, and indisputable statements of fact. If you read him you will find that his zeal for Zionism has led him to be more categorical in his assertions than can be justified by the law or the facts. Read him by all means, but also read critiques.

When you say that Israel didn't start the war in 1947-8, I'm not sure if you are treating the civil war that broke out in 1947 separately from the intervention of the Arab states. Who struck the first blow in the civil war is neither here nor there, both were willing to use force (the Jews to acquire a state and the Palestinians to defend their homeland). I suspect the Palestinians were first (at least that is what most history books say). I do not know how many of the Palestinians were aware how ill-equipped they were to fight such a civil war (after their decimation by the British in the previous decade, you would have thought some of them should have realised). In the diplomacy leading up to Israel's unilateral declaration of independence, the Arab states made also sorts of ill-advised threats of (illegal) force to oppose partition (especially after they failed to get its legality tested in court). They were flabbergasted, as were the inhabitants of Palestine, that such an inequity should be seriously proposed. I do not know whether they expected to have to put their threats into action. We will have to wait for the Arab states to open their archives, but the evidence is that they were woefully ill-prepared and in it mainly for what they could get. They only entered Palestine once the Israelis were far advanced in implementing their plan. If you read the intelligence assessments of the Zionists, the British and the Americans, you will find that all were entirely confident that Israel would ultimately prevail over the Palestinians and over any Arab states who came to their defence. (This is not to under-estimate the Israeli war effort and the risks Israel faced.)

You list a number of other instances from history. Apart from the aftermath of the Second World War, when the allies (illegally) sanctioned mob rule, you concentrate on instances of colonialism and its aftermath, which is apt. Kashmir is certainly a case similar in many ways to Palestine (not least in the role of the UK in creating the problem and the US in fomenting strife). Palestine differs from so many such instances, in that there is a peaceful settlement readily available, as outlined by the UN, the Arab League, the US (at various times) the EU etc.

You say Augustus could find an argument to fit his case. I am genuinely unclear what he thinks his case is and how the evidence he brings is intended to support it.

You say the same for Truthtriumphs. As you will see from his last contribution, he is not in the business of providing arguments.

You say that the question is really, What now?

You then invest one prediction with a degree of certainty that is surely unwarranted.

What now? Most likely, Israel will continue to consolidate its expropriation of the West Bank and will be successful in keeping the Palestinians in their ghettoes, hostile but mainly impotent.

Just possibly, Israel might make peace (if the US ever decides that it is in its interests that Israel do so). You say that the Arabs would then gang up on the fourth or fifth strongest army in the world, backed by the only superpower. This would not be in the interests of the current tyrants, and any democracies that emerge from the current revolutions would be kept busy at home.

C.Gee

“The insistence that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state as a precondition for negotiations sounds to me like requiring them to acknowledge that the dispossession was unexceptionable and to concede in advance the Israeli position on refugees.”

By George, he’s got it!

Recognition of Israel’s “right” to exist would confirm the two-state peace solution. Palestinians - including refugees - on one side, Israelis on the other. Of course the Palestinians leaders do not want to acknowledge that. Of course they do not want the refugees to give up the right of return: upon that rests their national claims to the “homeland” in Israel, and their self-claimed right of resistance.

The dispossession was unexceptional, and no more unexceptionable than any other dispossessions during war. The dispossession was not of a “homeland” or a polity - which did not exist - but from property. The Arab refugees are no different from any others - except in their treatment (oppressive) by the Arab states and the UN (special - a whole agency set up for their benefit, a whole division of the Secretariat set up to preserve their rights).

And now you see why agreement on borders is not a prerequisite to peace - and negotiations over borders should be abandoned. Now you see why the settlements are not an obstacle to peace for the Palestinians, merely a pretext to avoid it. The Palestinians are about to declare a state on 1948 armistice lines as “temporary” borders. Why? Because they do not want to recognize any borders of a Jewish State. Why? Because they want the land of Israel and Jews out of it. By declaring a state, the Palestinians snatch away from Israeli the negotiating leverage of statehood as a part of the peace. By declaring a state on temporary borders, the Palestinians may continue the war - still “resistance” - without embarrassment at having to refuse offer after offer of land, and without the necessity to offer Israel security (i.e. peace) in exchange for it. Sovereign state may arm themselves without the approval - or despite the disapproval - of the UN.

Palestine will be the first state of this century to come into being explicitly and according to its own charter(s), upon the premise of a continual war aimed at the destruction of another polity and the ethnic cleansing of its people. Palestine will be the first state to be allowed reclamation of a homeland that its people never had. Palestine will be the first state based on myth, and whose “self-determination” is entirely predicated on other-extermination. Palestine will the first terrorist state legitimized by the international community.

As I have said, the Israeli response should be unilaterally to declare its own borders, now, over as much territory and population as it is prepared to defend.

As I have also said, if you support the Palestinians, if you think that justice and truth are with them, there is no need to pretend that they want peace. You should be backing their war effort to send off the colonial intruder. You should be sending arms.

Those who insist Israel is illegal but nevertheless say they want peace between the Palestinians and Israel have neither intellectual nor moral credibility.

Augustus

Herzen - What brings you to hate
this sacred and enduring Zionist cause so much?
Have all Palestinians declared an unequivocal end to violence, as required by the Roadmap to a
Permanent Two-State Solution of
2003? If not, why not? Have the Palestinians ever acquired a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty? I think not. Are the Zionists to blame for the Palestinians lack of comprehensive political reform
in preparation for Palestinian statehood? Obviously not. Do more Israelis get murdered when
Israel takes any measures to improve a humanitarian situation
or ease checkpoint security? Yes. So, in the light of all that, why shouldn't Israel view the whole process of Israeli-
Palestinian engagement with a
very great deal of suspicion and
scepticism? And as for Hamas, well, all one can say is that when losers in their election questioned the result they received flying lessons from the roof of the nearest high-rise building, parachutes not provided.

TDH

Herzen and I seem to be the only ones to admit to reading Julius Stone. C. Gee appeared to rely on his arguments. His silence when asked for clarification I took to mean that he had lost interest in the discussion or didn't deign to explain himself. It now appears he has been following the discussion all along. He now vouchsafes us his March 13th, 2011 8:48pm, which again employs assumptions reminiscent of Julius Stone ("The dispossession was not of a “homeland” or a polity - which did not exist") - but, instead of a rational defence of such assumptions, we get a rigmarole that descends into a rant! C. Gee often promises to "deviate into sense", but in the end always falters...

Truthtriumphs

Herzen.

"You say the same for Truthtriumphs. As you will see from his last contribution, he is not in the business of providing arguments".

Wrong.
On thread after thread I have given concrete, indisputable facts.
You, however, like a bad scientist, adapt the facts to fit your warped theories.

Derek

TDH

You avoided my question.

Victoria

"Adam B.
March 12th, 2011 11:12pm
Victoria, "right" to a state? Where is such a "right" enshrined?

Isn't Jordan a Palestinian state."

No, Jordan is not a Palestinian state. Not least the last time I checked the FCO profile, or my history books.

And if you want to talk about 'right' to a state. Perhaps begin with telling me where Israel's 'right' to a state is enshrined?

TDH

Derek,
I took you to be making a clever comparison of the Palestinians and the ancient Jews of Palestine (some of whose descendants are very likely among these same Palestinians). I will try again. Perhaps if the current system of international law is swept away there will come a time when the Palestinians have no legal claims and the ancient Israelites do.

Truthtriumphs

Here is what Steven Weinberg, American Nobel laureate in physics, wrote about the British media some years ago, after cancelling a speaking engagement at Imperial, following the disgusting attempts by the NUJ to boycott the Israelis.

Rings true today more than ever.

"I just felt this was too disgusting and I didn't want to go there this summer," Weinberg said. "I see in the British press and the BBC signs of a very strong anti-Israel bias - a kind of blind hostility that whatever Israel does, it is always in the wrong - so this is not an isolated action of a small group of anti-Semitic conspirators. This represents a widespread feeling among British journalists."

Stephen Rothbart

Herzen, TDH and Victoria, you can argue and argue whether the fact that the British Mandate in Palestine, the Balfour Declaration or the UN vote in 1948 give greater legitimacy or less legitimacy to the concept of whether Israel has a right to exist until the cows come home.

The fact is that Israel is an established country with its place in the United Nations with a poplation of 4,500,000 Jews and 1,500,000 Arabs and 450,000 "others." And with that demographic split, it shows that as an "apartheid state" with a "proven" track record of ethnic cleansing, according to the anti-Zionists among this blog and around the world, they must have done a pretty poor job.

I am not aware, either, that these Israeli Arabs and "others" are kept in concentration camps either. They can always leave if they want to. Perhaps you know something different.

Oh and yes, they are discriminated against by some Israeli Jews. What a surprise. I guess a Pakistani in Britain is always welcome at every job he or she applies for there, and for that matter I as a Jew would probably not get a job in some parts of Bradford or Birmingham if I applied for one.

Hell, Walloons in Belgium can't get a job in Flemish Belgium either, but I don't hear the world screaming "apartheid state" at the politicians and public bodies that are currently trying to split Belgium in two, on purely racial grounds.

When I asked "what now" I was trying to move on from the exhausting tit for tat of who did what to whom first dialogue.

It is irrelevant now.

The fact is 600,000 Palestinians found themselves displaced, 62 years ago, some through choice (did not want to live alongside Jews) and some through coercion.

800,000 Jews living in Egypt, Iraq and Syria were expelled at about the same time.

All these people have now either died or are very old.

Their descendants have now also developed their own lives.

The Israelis have built homes, busineses, and have had families and some have stayed, some have emigrated to other countries.

The Palestinin Arabs have also had descendants. They now number about 5,000,000, who all claim their Right of Return as part of the Peace Treaty, because they were kept in camps, not by Israel, but by the meanness of their Arab brothers who would not let them integrate into their own societies and because it was to their advantage in their ceaseless campign to irradicate Israel, to keep them that way.

Even Victoria knows that this Right of Return for 5,000,000 Arabs would be suicide for the concept of a Jewish State. And where would these people, most of whom have never lived even where their ancestors lived, live? (Whew!)

Who would pay for that?

And if it is fair that the descendants of Palestinian Arabs get compensated, who compensates the Jews for their properties that were stolen from them?

No one EVER talks about that from the anti-Zionist side.

So ethnically, logistically, morally and financially impossible.

What is the alternative? Peaceful co-existence between two states both agreeing to recognize each others boundaries and right to exist. Trade agreements, sharing and pooling of resources.

Well right now, Hamas and Fatah can not even agree to do that with each other, let alone with the hated Jews.

And Palestinians are discriminated against in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, so there seems to be no chance of acceptance for them by absorbtion into fellow Arab societies.

But why not? Why does the world forgive dicrimination against these people by their own fellow Arabs, but not by Jews?

Is Jordan legitimate? Are the Hashemites legitmate democratic rulers? Is Assad in Syria, ruling a legitimate regime? Who created Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Jordan?

They were just part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries.

Why cannot 5 million Arabs be absorbed in the Arabian Gulf and those other countries like Jordan, where (sorry Victoria) 70% of the Palestinian Arabs once lived, take them on?

Well Jordan tried that once and Arafat stared a civil war, resulting in Jordan killing thousands of Palestinians and expelling them. Wow, sounds like a compelling track record.

Why does it have to be in the Jewish part of the Middle East when they do not accept either the State or the religion of the people there? And why, Herzen, TDH, Derek Blades and Victoria, do you insist that of all the refugees in all the world, these people must be the only ones left in the world that deserve it?

So, again what now? Don't offer me more 62 year old history. Offer viable solutions, and preferably ones that don't turn into a Final one.

Herzen

Augustus
March 13th, 2011 9:57pm
The most alarming word in your comment is "sacred".

TDH

Stephen Rothbart
March 14th, 2011 11:11am
Most of what you say here is not disputed, certainly not by me. I think you may have been involved in earlier discussions where I said as clearly as I could that as far as I'm concerned there is no doubt but that Israel is like any other state and its citizens have the same rights as those of any other state.

I should say that I don't find it puzzling that Israeli Arabs should prefer to live as second class citizens in Israel (as all the indicators of living standards show) rather than as inhabitants of a ghetto, like their kin in the West Bank and Gaza, or in squalid camps, like their kin in the Lebanon etc. (whose plight I agree is too often overlooked).

On the history, you too have contributed. Again, as I think I've said before, the history is only of relevance now because many supporters of Israel use a tendentious version to justify current actions. (Supporters of the Palestinians do likewise, but Israel is by far the dominant player in this conflict.)

As I have said, read in detail about the "peace process" (in particular what Israeli politicians and officials say when not on propaganda duties) and you will find that it is the Palestinians who have not had a "partner in peace".

The outlines of a peace agreement have been clear for over forty years.

On the question of refugees, there have been repeated indications from the Palestinians that a compromise will be required if there is to be peace. The startling compromise offered by the PA does highlight a practical problem, namely that the PA has no authority to speak for those in exile in other countries (not that it has the authority to speak for those in the West Bank either). However, once the principle is accepted, anything else is surely susceptible of agreement.

Herzen

Stephen Rothbart
March 14th, 2011 11:11am
I did say what I think likely to happen, and what I think should happen.