A light in the darkness: British Muslims for Israel

Graeme

IT does not surprise me that there are Muslims, who side with Israel. In a discussion with a Muslim workmate about two years ago, he mentioned to me that Israeli Arabs were the most free Muslims in the Middle East and should be glad that they live in a free democracy with a working parliament. Israeli Arabs are in indeed the Muslims in the Middle East with the most political rights compared with neighbouring Arab countries. Israeli Arabs must be conscripted into the IDF as they have a sacred duty along side Israeli Jews to defend free speech, democracy and the rule of law; something sadly lacking in Arab countries. A few years ago, three arab MP's in the knesset, stood up in the chambre and called for Israel's destruction. Have these 3 Arab MP's been charged with high Treason? Have they been found guilty in a trail? Have they been executed? The answer to these questions is no, they have not. Tell me the name of any Arab or Muslim country where this would be accepted.

Brian Meadows

It cannot be stated often enough that Arabs started coming into Palestine ONLY after it was clear that 1)the Jews were settling there and 2)the Jews brought opportunity for others. Between 1920 and 1948, the Arab population of 'Palestine' more than doubled--LARGELY THROUGH IMMIGRATION!! Without the Jews' return, their land would still be a thinly populated strip of (almost) God-forsaken desert! In 1920, barely 500,000 Arabs lived in what was still called (right up to the late 1960s) southern Syria. By 1948, there were 1.2 million inside the mandate with just over 600,000 Jews. This--and the probability of the 'Palestinians' having Hebrew antecedents--cannot be stated often enough! We need to keep on saying both--and perhaps it would behoove Israel to prepare a crash-conversion course for when enough 'Palestinians' find the courage to (re?)join their brethren(?)?

Andre

Watch his interview on Channel Ten I find it quite moving that it is a quietly spoken young British muslim who speaks more sense about Israel than all the donkeys in our talking shop of a parliament. God bless you Hasan Afzal

Richard Collumbell

I hope this group is legit. Offers hope for the future I think

And I too make a judgement on someone with regards to their views on Israel (as in do they at least as a bare minimum accept its right to exist).

mcmrjp

Yes indeed it is a good sign. Anyone who stands up and is counted is worthy.

WonderingOne

How much is he paid?

Ruth

British Moslems for Israel are indeed "A light in the Darkness" and I hope that they will have some influence in the current climate of anti-Israel hatred in the UK.

H R Thomas

I was surprised to learn Muslims serve in the IDF and that one holds the rank of major. There is a BBC piece on the topic at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/09/090901_world_stories_israel_muslim_soldiers.shtml

BalaamsAss

I am amazed at this Melanie and greatly admire the courage of these people. I wish them well.

Bill M

Is it April 1? If this is true, this is wonderful.

Sterling

oyish now I feel bad for not doing enough to make their job easier (Polishness anyone?)

Roger K

It is indeed heart warming and a relief when instances such as British Muslims for Israel appear. May they be mightily encouraged and blessed.
Here in New Zealand a few months ago the biggest mosque in New Zealand had a new leader from Pakistan. This new leader apparantly preached a fundemental jihad with intolerance to differences even within the Ulma, Muslim community let alone the West. They threw him out and he was subsequently thrown out of the country because he then didn't have a valid immigration permit. well done Kiwi Muslims.
Unfortunately we also have the useful idiots like John Minto who are insult visting Isaeli tennis players and make fuss and complain because Dame Kiri Te Kawana is going to perform in Israel.
Re: WonderingOne 8.39
Take a hike and take Minto with you please.

David

Its a welcome start...but with the vast majority of British people getting the overview of Israel via the idiotic bbc and its politically corrupt views I wonder if it will have any real impact. And thats what we are talking about...the absolute reversal of 20 years worth of lies about Israel thanks to the left wing bias of this now utterly discredited news organization. I wish the BMFI luck in its endevours....but even that wont be enough to change the level of brainwashing commited against the British public concerning Israel.

Merlyn

Dr Tawfik Hamid, speaking to Israelis and the Muslims.
"Do not give concessions as it is a sign of weakness"

Jens Aage Ibsen

Melanie:
A guy from Aabenraa, a small town here in North Schleswig, has written an informative book on Islam. He will give the British Muslims for Israel a warm hug, since one of the points he makes is the following: Islamic Fundamentalism is a recent development inside the Faith. Islam WAS tolerant in most of its history. A sure signal that sanity and classic tolerance has reappeared among Muslims would be tolerance of, peace with and yes, respect and love for Israel/Jews/Judaism. - The writer's name? Jes Asmussen. - Thanks for your comment. No, the world is not all darkness.
Yours
Jens Aage
P.S.: 'Schleswig' can be googled. (You are very erudite, civilised and cultured, but even you may never have heard of 'Schleswig').
Jens

gary ashton

this is indeed a ray of light in a very dark age

daniel maris

Well any support for Israel's right to exist is welcome (although one wonders exactly how many Muslims are involved in this initiative, if any).

However, your attempt to turn Israel into a moral litmus test is flawed because you define "Israel" not as something like the UN approved Jewish state of 1947 but as Israel plus the West Bank , or plus whatever Israel cares to define itself as (presumably you were all in favour of settlements in Sinai back in 1970). I don't think we have to be cowed by this rigging of the ethical test.

I don't suppose this post will get past your absurd and over-sensitive censorship bar either.

George Steiner

Statistically insignificant.

Grumpy true Zionist

a lone voice in a vast wilderness of hatred/vilification/doublespeak and murderous intent

too few and i fear too late to change, the mindset and beliefs of the masses of muslims, being brainwashed by their religious leaders on a weekly basis

majority of muslims, will be lining up to carry out a fatwa, on this poor but enlightened individual

C Cole

Regarding the conspicuous bias displayed by BBC News - I decided to stop watching the BBC's news output about a year ago in favour of ITV's. It's a shame, as they have some good correspondents (I like Nick Robinson, for example). The bias that concerns me is not just towards Israel, but it is pretty much the litmus test Melanie refers to. (An added bonus of watching the ITN bulletin at 6.30pm is that it's on just after Eggheads on BBC2.)
As for British Muslims for Israel, if they are on the level - as they appear to be - they deserve the support of all right-thinking people. In this context I would also mention the Council of Ex-Muslims.

Okey

Daniel Maris, there seem to be some lacunae in your knowledge about the Arab-Israel conflict.
The 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution was a RECOMMENDATION to partition was was left of "Palestine" (i.e. 20%) into "an Arab state" and "a Jewish state."
The UN intervened because the "Palestinian " Arabs and their fraternal Arab states had initiated a war which, in the words of Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, would result in " a massacre (of Jews) such as had not been seen since the Mongol invasions."
The partition proposal was itself an admission that Arab intimidation worked, just as it has been working ever since.
For in 1922 international law had recognised the Jewish Nation's right to a sovereign state in the entire Land of Israel ("Palestine" to you.)And this had been achieved not by a recommendation, but by an enforceable directive of The League of Nations.
The Jews, however, did not have the power to resist the whittling away of their recognised rights, and so as the Arab empire grew, the Jewish national home was truncated by imperial Britain and the cowardly international communinity. After all, what were the Jews going to do, declare war on the world?

Things have changed, however, since then. Today if Israel goes down, others will, too.
Israel's enemies, close and distant, will no longer enjoy low-cost Holocausts.

Paul

Yes the existence of Israel is a good litmus test. I am glad I pass it. I support the existence of Israel within the 1967 boundaries. I wonder do the Muslims for Israel support Israel's occupation of the West Bank?

Brian Meadows "It cannot be stated often enough that Arabs started coming into Palestine ONLY after it was clear that 1)the Jews were settling there and 2)the Jews brought opportunity for others. Between 1920 and 1948, the Arab population of 'Palestine' more than doubled--LARGELY THROUGH IMMIGRATION!!"

This is rubbish and is similar to the Boer's claim that the land they took on the Great Trek was all empty too.

Here is the graph of the population of Palestine/Israel, which shows steady growth before any Jewish settlements

http://palestineisraelpopulation.blogspot.com/

Syria's population 1924 - 1.8m; 1939 - 2.5m; 1948 - 3m. So exactly the same sort of growth in population without any Jewish settlements

Louis Berk

I think Hassan Afzal should receive a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Augustus

They seem a decent lot. They say they 'represent moderate Muslims advocating democracy and liberty in the Middle East'.
It is not Israel which hinders democratic development in the Arab world, it is the very demonization of Israel which hinders that development. Israel
has become a scapegoat for democratic failure, not the reason for that failure. And these moderate British Muslims might also like to turn their attention to the harm caused by Muslim school books and teachers
which so often incite hatred towards Israel, and spread the belief amongst the young that the Jews in the Middle East are
nothing else than foreign colonialists. Because there are few better indications of the attitudes of a society than the topics which are taught its schoolchildren.

David D

I salute these courageous people.
How wonderful it would be if this prompted the start of honest reporting about Israel.

Gul

Indeed a light in the darkness. Let's hope it will spread.

Sergio I.N.

to Paul
March 31st, 2011 10:07am

Interesting graph, very pronounced fall on non-Jewish population and recovery at WWI (shows effect of migration, Turks and Arabs, pity it only singles out Jews and not other ethnic backgrounds). Interesting also the growth in Jewish population from the beginning of the Holocaust in the 30s.
Now, one thing that bothers me is that it does not reflect population from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, but of a much larger area (The British Mandate encompassed the whole of Jordan, and I understand that during the Ottoman Empire Southern Syria was even larger than that, the person who posted it mentions different names but the graph specifies correctly what areas are being depicted), so it is counting people foreign to the area in question. So I am afraid you have not proven Brian's post to be rubbish as you intended, but used graphical deception to help your rhetoric.

About Melanie's post, for me at least, is the beginning of a reconciliation with a wonderful culture (in every art and custom) hidden beneath a veil of extremism and hatred. It gives me hope.

Paul

Okey there are some lacunae in your knowledge.

In the case of ex-League Mandate territories Recomendations by the General Assembly are binding if carried by a 2/3rds majority, which the partition proposal was. It repalced the 1922 arrangements (which incidentally did not give the right to turn the whole of Palestine into a Jewish state).

Therefore Israel has the legal right to exist and the Arabs just have to live with that. Israel doesn't get all of Paelstine Mandate and the Israelis have to live with that.

daniel maris

Okey,

I've read the original Mandate Treaties and can safely say at no point was carte blanche given to the establishment of a Jewish sovereign state.

I'll check on your claim that the 1947 partition was a recommendation but I think Paul is right in his view of what happened.

I fully accept that the Arab armies had to be stopped in 1948, not least because a shameful genocide would have occurred. I fully accept that the main block to peace is the Arab refusal to accept in principle and practice Israel's right to exist.

GaryL

daniel maris & Paul -

UN GA resolution 181 was a recommendation, calling "upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect." That's all. The recommendation included the formation of a Commission under the UN to conduct a range of actions, which it never did. Britain also ignored the actions spelled out for it in the UN recommendation. The Jews of Palestine were the only party which complied with the UN's recommendations.

The mandate of Palestine is the only post-WW1 mandate that gets discussed. For some reason no-one refers to the League of Nations mandate period for current problems in the other mandates - Iraq, Syria & Lebanon, Tanganyika, Cameroons & Togo, Nauru, New Guinea, Western Samoa.

Raymond in DC

Paul writes, "This is rubbish and is similar to the Boer's claim that the land they took on the Great Trek was all empty too." It's not rubbish. News reports from the time describe the mass migration of Arabs especially in the 1920s and 1930s into British Palestine (confirmed by British census reports). Other reports indicate most of the growth in Arab population took place specifically proximate to Jewish settlements in order to take advantage of the economic opportunities they provided.

In response to daniel maris, only a fool would think that the League of Nations Mandate calling for a "national homeland" for the Jews wasn't intended to ultimately lead to a Jewish state in the territories concerned - and yes they extended to the Jordan. That Mandate has a legal standing exceeding the UNGA Resolution of 1949 which was, as already indicated, a recommendation.

Brian Moshe

British governments have a long and shameful track-record of backing with tax-payers' money, engaging in dialogue denied to nearly everyone else, and giving platforms, to dubious self-appointed Muslim groups that are hostile not just to Israel but to Western civilisation and values.

They have made it very difficult for truly moderate, alternative voices among Muslims to be heard.

This is not just a New Labour or a coalition scenario - Margaret Thatcher sat back and did nothing when Muslim mobs rioted and burnt copies of Salman Rushdie's 'The Satanic Verses' in the centres of British cities in 1989. One only has to compare TV archive film of how the police of that time dealt with non-violent groups of striking coal miners and their supporters (some female) and compare it with the kid-gloves approach of the police to these rioting book-burners.

It is astonishingly courageous for any Muslims in Britain to come out and publicly support Israel - it would be just wonderful if British Jewish leaders had the sort of guts this takes and spoke out for Israel - thank you for revealing this heartening development, Melanie.

Let us just hope this new forum is both genuine and successful, and receives the support it deserves from the British government and all who wish to see Muslims in Briain allowed to have opinions about Jews and Israel that are not dictated by a bullying anti-Jewish/anti Israel majority.

Stephen Rothbart

Daniel Maris, don't get paranoid. No one is more pre-Israel than me, and I don't always get my comments printed either. Probably because I was too long winded (Blades) or too extreme in something, or just plain boring. Who knows?

Life just ain't fair.

Just imagine, you are Derek Baldes, and all your Gerald Kaufman-like Jewish friends have been supporting your own prejudices about Jews and Israel, and then along comes someone from the other side doing exactly what he does not want to have happen - criticize his friends and point out that Israel is just not that bad after all.

It's enough to make an OECD man weep.

Just so unfair.

Frank

Pretty good. By doing this, knowing who they represent, they risk their lives.

cityca

I have emailed Hasan Afzal, congratulating him and his friends and thanking them for their remarkable new organisation.

Lets hope they herald a wider movement of support for Israel among Muslims and others, but if they don't, their friendship is still highly valued.

JOHN ROOSEVELT

Daniel Marais: "I fully accept that the main block to peace is the Arab refusal to accept in principle and practice Israel's right to exist."

Mr Hitchens take note: this must be incontrovertable evidence that there is a God, after all...

Anil Bhatt

Raymond in DC:

You say about Mandate Palestine:

"News reports from the time describe the mass migration of Arabs especially in the 1920s and 1930s into British Palestine (confirmed by British census reports). Other reports indicate most of the growth in Arab population took place specifically proximate to Jewish settlements in order to take advantage of the economic opportunities they provided."

So what even if this is true? Don't Arabs have the right to migrate to other Arab lands?

If one had a sense of humour one could appreciate those who berate Arabs for moving to a territory a few miles from their homes but think it is alright for the same territory to supposedly belong by right to people from 10,000 miles away who claim descent from others who left the place, er, 2000 years ago.

What a laugh.

The laugh becomes all the louder when one realises that if Israel insists on continuing to rule the West Bank, in a couple of decades Israel plus Palestine will have a majority Arab population, putting an end to the possibility of a Jewish state.

Daniel Maris

Okey/Gary L -

Teh resolution is clearly a legal basis for action, whereas grabbing the West Bank (on the Israeli side) or trying to extinguish the Jewish state (on the Arab side) would not be, in terms of international law as currently understood.

For me the way I view it metaphorically is that the Arabs have their hands around the throat of the Israelis and are trying to throttle the life out of it...but the Israelis have the Arabs by the balls and are squeezing hard. I think both should stop - but agree it's reasonable in the circumstances to expect the Arabs to take their hands of Israel's throat first.

GaryL

"So what even if this is true? Don't Arabs have the right to migrate to other Arab lands?"

... and then pretend they have lived there for umpteen generations. The UN made an exception for Palestinian refugees. They only had to claim two year's residence instead of a few generations like all other refugees around the world.

Palestine was the nerve centre of Britain's footprint in the Middle East. They built railways, port facilities, oil pipelines, all in Palestine. If anyone insists there was no mass migration of Arabs they would have to explain where the Arab labour force came from. It wasn't from local agricultural villages.

hopkins

Melanie's quote "where someone stands on Israel is for me the litmus test of whether they are a decent and rational human being or pose a threat not merely to Jewish interests but to civilised values." Really, what does that mean? That no decent person should criticise Israel? I recall that university acquaintances were friends of Amos Oz. What are his latest thoughts?

Seraph

Paul states that: “In the case of ex-League Mandate territories Recomendations by the General Assembly are binding if carried by a 2/3rds majority, which the partition proposal was. It repalced the 1922 arrangements (which incidentally did not give the right to turn the whole of Palestine into a Jewish state).”

This statement is not a lacunae, but it is incorrect. The 2/3 majority vote rule exists with regard to certain issues in the UN General Assembly, but is only binding with regard to internal budgetary matters.

"Voting in the General Assembly on important questions – recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; budgetary matters – is by a two-thirds majority of those present and voting. Other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, including adoption of a scale of assessment, Assembly resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security under Security Council consideration." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly)

See the UN Charter - Articles 10 and 11 which deal with the General Assembly and clearly state that General Assembly decisions are "recommendations." (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml)

This language is very different from the Security Council. For example, under Article 25: "The Members of the United Nations AGREE TO ACCEPT AND CARRY OUT the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml)

UN General Assembly 181 is a valid RECOMMENDATION regarding the Mandate of Palestine (since there was a 2/3 majority), but this, in no way, means that it is BINDING upon the parties. Indeed, this may partially explain why the Palestinians felt it within their right to reject the resolution.

Bob

A light in the darkness: A single BBC broadcaster (teleprompter reader) for Israel.

THAT would truly be a light in the darkness

Grumpy true Zionist

'The laugh becomes all the louder when one realises that if Israel insists on continuing to rule the West Bank, in a couple of decades Israel plus Palestine will have a majority Arab population, putting an end to the possibility of a Jewish state.'

sadly in the contest of over-breeding, muslims win out against Jews by a factor of who knows......one million to one?

this instead of education/innovation/employment opportunities/giving your kids a better life....just simple self actualization

even the chinese have figured this out and have put the brakes on the over-population runway express-but then they are a very old society, highly productive, and with a yearning to improve their lot - as opposed to what one sees in the arab/muslim me

Steve

Daniel Maris,

"grabbing the West Bank (on the Israeli side) or trying to extinguish the Jewish state (on the Arab side)"

Do you seriously believe that the building of houses is equivalent to attempts at genocide? Do you know what the phrase putting the cart before the horse means?

Derek BLADES

Paul writes "Yes the existence of Israel is a good litmus test. I am glad I pass it. I support the existence of Israel within the 1967 boundaries."

I also pass that test - as (I suspect) do 90% of the British population. But that is not the test Ms Phillips has in mind. You are also required to support settlements and give carte blanche to any Israeli aggression against its neighbours.

I fail the full Monty test - as do (I suspect) 90% of the British population.

I have written to "British Muslims for Israel" to ask them about their stand on settlements. If this comment passes the censor, I will report their response. However, I am now being systematically being cut from this blog, which no longer seems to be a forum for free debate on the issues.

Adam B.

Mr Blades, why don't you write to the Muslim Council of Britain and ask them for their stance on Israel existing at all?

What a hypocritical stance.

And please cut the victimhood complex - I've had posts disappear as well.

Mr Melrose

Should not the Phillips 'Israel' litmus test be combined with the Tebbit 'Cricket' litmus test - that would sort the wheat from the chaff!

Adam B.

hopkins

As you know, we have moved well beyond "criticism" of this or that policy, and there is a concerted delegitimization campaign against Israel. You see comments on these blogs questioning Israel's right to exist at all. That's not "criticism" - it is bigotry.

As for Melanie's comment, I am reminded of Shostakovich, the non-Jewish Russian composer, who, during the darkest Stalin years where he had a suitcase ready to go in case the secret police came in the night, said that he always judged his friends by their attitude to Jews. It was, he said, a test. If they expressed antisemitic views, even just in passing, he knew that he could never trust them in the climate in which he lived. It was a warning light about someone's character.

Grumpy true Zionist

'An amendment nullifying a law that allows Israelis to be prosecuted in the UK for alleged war crimes moves to the House of Lords for final approval.' (JPost 01/04)

sanity at last seems to be taking hold in the brit legal system - although some old school 'worker socialist' by the name of gerald kaufman (one of those with a Jewish name, but with a 'kapo' approach) raised an objection

fronting-up to the barbarians and their useful idiot supporters, will mean that in the not too distant future some of us paying a vist, will not have to play silly passport games

Ehad Ha'am

Taki (Taki Theodoracopulos), regarding Hessel here’s my question: Does a position against Israel gain more credence when voiced by a Jew? Or when voiced by a concentration camp survivor? Or when voiced by an old man? (In Hessel you seem to have all three).

If so then I can trump you with the British Moslems for Israel organization, the youtube interview with Hassan Afzal and the pro-Israel positions of Joseph Farah, Reda Mansour, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Lebanese Brigitte Gabriel, as well as many more Arabs and Moslems who support Israel.

However, I would be the first to admit that the age, religion, nationality, and race of a proponent of an idea neither adds not detracts for its validity. I would therefore suggest that your obvious animosity towards us Israelis (well, towards most of us – we are after all a free society and there are as many different opinions in Israel as there are Israelis) is neither supported nor weakened by your mentioning of Stephane Hessel.

elixelx

Paul and Blades "support the existence of Israel within the 1967 borders" Whoopi do-do!
With that and $10 you might be able to get a coffee in NYC!
Don't you youngsters realise...there IS no Israel within the 67 borders BECAUSE THEY ARE UNSUSTAINABLE even SUICIDAL! And if the Arab Armies come across that 67 border, will you, Blades and Paul, come to defend what you support, or will you sit on your overbearing tochuses and remind the killers that you support....?
Also, have you asked the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians , like Hamass, if THEY accept the existence of Israel within the 67 borders?
Go on! ask Haniyeh, ask Assad, ask Ahmedinejad: I dare and double dare you! And please ask for a Yes/No answer! No nuance, no flubbing. Tell them: I, Paul, I Derek, support...and you must too, Ismail, Mahmood, and Bashir! We do, so must you!

You support! YOU SUPPORT! Wow and double wow! Remind me the next time a rocket falls in my backyard that Blades and Paul support...

Ian Townson

What is democratic, enlightened, decent and rational about the Israeli Defence Force slaughtering 1,400 Palestinians (men, women and children) in pursuit of Hamas? Also in the democratic state of Israel, where there are moves afoot to force allegiance to a Jewish state, non-Jews will always be forced into the position of second class citizenship.

Derek BLADES

elixelx writes "...there IS no Israel within the 67 borders BECAUSE THEY ARE UNSUSTAINABLE even SUICIDAL!" He even uses capitals to show he means it.

At the end of his comment elixelx grumbles about rockets falling in his backyard. A more perceptive person might draw the obvious conclusion: the present arrangements - with 40% of the West Bank occupied by illegal settlements and military zones to protect them - is not bringing the tranquillity he would like in his backyard.

Time to negotiate?

Dr. Avi Eilam Amzallag

God bless you. This comes to you from a Jew with much appreciation of Islam but mainly for your being so brave.
Must say, that I love the Quran al karin and I read it in Arabic. I know all the terror doesn't come from Islam, it comes from few who misunderstand this great book. I have many Muslims friends in Israel, non of them wants to live in an Arab country....

GaryL

Daniel Maris

The UN deals in relationships between states. At the time of the partition recommendation there were no states in Palestine (except Jordan), and currently there is no state immediately west of the Jordan river. The so-called 67 border was only a temporary armistice line with no significance as an intenationally agreed border between two states.

Claims of sovereignty based on a peoples' identity has no validity in international law. Basques, Kurds, and the people of western Sahara are in the same position as Palestinians. No-one knows what the future status of the lands they claim will be, just like no-one knew before 1914 that separate countries would be carved out of the dismembered European empires after the Great War. Neither the UN nor any international court has been able to make a decision or find a precedent about self-determination. All the accusations that Israel's spread of towns are illegal are just bluff - it's never been tried in any recognised international court.

Derek BLADES

@ GaryL

A question for you. Do you honestly believe that the United Nations or any of its member countries - the US included - will ever recognise borders of Israel that are not close to, if not identical with, the 1967 cease-fire line?

Time to stop reminiscing about Balfour, San Remo, Sevres and what members of the League of Nations may or may not have had in mind. This is 2011.

Anil Bhatt

STEVE:

Building houses is indeed not the same as genocide. You are right there.

But if I build a house without your permission on your land, you would be seriously put out -especially if it is the only territory you have.

The Jews got a pretty good deal in Palestine. Israel is considerably larger than the territiory that was set aside for it by the UN. All that for people coming from thousands of miles away against an Arab native majority going back centuries.

So what is the gripe? Do not the Arabs at least have a right to full soveregnty in the small bit of Palestine left to them? Why should Jews have the right to encroach on that when Israel does not let Arab refugees return to their homes in Israel?

Anil Bhatt

GARY L:

You say:

"If anyone insists there was no mass migration of Arabs they would have to explain where the Arab labour force came from. It wasn't from local agricultural villages."

They came from areas a bitnearer than where the Jewish immigrants came, I presume.

Adam B.

Bhatt

The Jews did not build on "Palestinian" Arab land - so your analogy is incorrect. This land was not Arab, neither privately owned nor part of any Arab state or entity. Never was.

then again, you have stated that Israel only exists because of the Holocaust - which is not only grossly insulting to Jews, but ahistoric nonsense.

Adam B.

Bhatt

A cultural claim to a land is not determined by the distance an immigrant comes from. A Pakistani living in Britain is still linked to Pakistan more, than, say, a Russian, even though Britain is further away from Pakistan than Russia.

GaryL

Anil Bhatt

They came from areas which used to be provinces of the Ottoman Empire, and in 1948 pretended they had lived in Palestine for generations. By the mid 1950s half the Jewish population of Israel came from the same areas but didn't have a special UN refugee organisation set up for them.

GaryL

Derek

Ok, forget all the history. This is the status in 2011. There might never be a Palestinian, a Kurdish or a Basque state. It's took a number of centuries for Germany & France to find a workable solution to their Alsace dispute. Switzerland, Canada and India are states with more than one language and heritage. The 1967 cease-fire line is not considered a permanent border between Israel and Palestine by Palestinian leaders and most Arab/Muslin states because they don't consider Israel to be permanent.

Judea, Samaria & Gaza might remain as administered zones for another few generations. As it is in 2011, there are no legal precedents for a Palestinian state to be established, and we know the future doen't often meet our imagined expectations. If the UN resurrected the mandate system and declared that Israel had a mandate to assist Palestinian statehood, then the UN would have real legal say over Israel's practices in the territories.

"A question for you. Do you honestly believe that the United Nations or any of its member countries - the US included - will ever recognise borders of Israel that are not close to, if not identical with, the 1967 cease-fire line?"

I honestly believe this is just one aspect among many of the academic discussion about it, based on preconceptions which might not determine the future.

Derek BLADES

Adam B, tells Anil Bhatt, "The Jews did not build on "Palestinian" Arab land - so your analogy is incorrect. This land was not Arab, neither privately owned nor part of any Arab state or entity. Never was."

The land was held in communal ownership by the Arab population. Owning land in a personal capacity is a western invention: communal ownership is the standard practice in most of Asia, North and South America, Africa and Australasia.

Western trained Israeli lawyers took advantage of this to take over Arab land and continue to do so in the occupied territories. Colonialists did the same thing in Australia, North America, New Zealand, South Africa and many other parts of the world. In some of these countries, the indigenous populations are now reasserting their ownership rights - Aboriginis, Maoris, American Indians, Zimbabwians ...

The land in Palestine was, and remains, Arab-owned by any sensible definition. Anil Bhatt is right and Adam B, as usual, gives a hypocritical half truth.

teresa

//where someone stands on Israel is for me the litmus test of whether they are a decent and rational human being or pose a threat not merely to Jewish interests but to civilised values//

What a stupid remark.

Richard

Adam B.
"The Jews did not build on "Palestinian" Arab land - so your analogy is incorrect. This land was not Arab, neither privately owned..."

What are you on about? In what way was land privately owned by Arabs in Palestine not owned privately?

Adam B.

Blades uses the term "communal ownership" - which is a way of saying not owned by anyone.

State land was not Arab - and never was.

Richard

Adam B.
April 2nd, 2011 12:01pm
So you have nothing to say about land privately owned by Palestinian Arabs?

You say state lands never belonged to Arabs. When Turkey relinquished sovereignty in Palestine it passed to the state of Palestine recognized by the League of Nations. The League acted on the legal assumption that the people of the state were ultimately sovereign. No doubt you will come up with ingenious legal reasoning to show that Israel, despite the lack of legal sanction for its establishment, somehow assumed control of the state lands from the people of Palestine legitimately.

Ross

A 10mins history briefing should be taken by all, especially if you don't know of Amin Al Husseini. Please check the link www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

Derek BLADES

@ Adam B.

Here's a challenge for you. Click on http://www.ap-agenda.org/nasser/nasser3.htm and spend twenty minutes learning about land ownership in the mandated territory of Palestine.

Report back to me when you have done so. And I expect an abject apology for telling me "State land was not Arab - and never was."

GaryL

Richard wrote -
"When Turkey relinquished sovereignty in Palestine it passed to the state of Palestine recognized by the League of Nations. The League acted on the legal assumption that the people of the state were ultimately sovereign. No doubt you will come up with ingenious legal reasoning to show that Israel, despite the lack of legal sanction for its establishment,..."

What a remarkable invention. Did you think this up all by yourself? You really should sprinkle a few "allegedlies" through it, or "I believes" because it's only a personal ignorant opinion.

Richard

GaryL
April 2nd, 2011 4:57pm
Thank you for your detailed and learned rebuttal.

Turkey relinquished sovereignty.

The League of Nations "provisionally recognized" the state of Palestine as the inheritor of the sovereignty relinquished by Turkey, and appointed a Mandatory Power to hold the land in trust for its people (and to help establish a Jewish National Home, bizarrely enough).

The international law of the time held that sovereignty of such a state, provisionally recognized, ultimately vested in its population.

Israel asserted that the legal justification for its declaration of independence in part of Palestine (with the avowed intention to take the whole) is to be found in Resolution 181 of the General Assembly of the UN. Resolution 181 was a recommendation. The Security Council had already set it aside by May 1948, because it had been rejected by the majority of the population. The Security Council in May 1948 was seeking to establish a UN trusteeship.

Resolution 181 does not provide a legal basis for Israel. Nor does its military conquest. Unfortunately, the UN had already outlawed the acquisition of territory by force.

I have read your detailed and considered comments with great care, and find nothing in them that addresses any of these points.

Anil Bhatt

Adam B, Gary L:

If anyone could cover the Israeli case for contnuing to rule the West Bank with ridicule, you have done so very well. To quote an old Jewish joke, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

If Jews can claim Palestine despite its having an Arab majority for centuries because they came from there - supposedly - 2000 years ago, the Italians can equally claim England.
North Indians can claim the Ukraine and Caspian regions.

The Italians could claim much of North Africa and Israel.

The Greeks could claim Turkey.

Etc.

Claiming to have been from somewhere 2000 years ago is not a tenable basis for establishing rights to any territory because it would make nonsense of the world we know.

Israel did get a pretty great deal in the circumstances. Its borders are considerably wider than than those allocated by the UN. Even the smallest sense of fairness demands that the Arabs who lost out deserve rights over the small part of the country left to them. They were the ones who lost their homes; Israel certainly won't let them go back to them.

If some Jews in Israel wish to
return to their homes elsewhere in the Middle East, the Palestinians would have no problem with that. It is not their issue nor can it justify their loss of their country.

What will Israel do when, in a few decades, Arabs are the MAJORITY in Israel plus the West Bank? Keeping the West Bank means in the foreseeable future NO Jewish state would be possible.

Emet

Anil Bhatt

Transfer the Palestinians to Jordan: a persistent theme in zionist thinking.

Jonathan

It should be remembered that perhaps the majority of Muslim Kurds support Israel, as do a large amount of Albanian Muslims.

Another Joshua

I'd like to add my name to the list of supporters of this extraordinary group. Small it may be, but I hope that others, who must be tired and fearful of being labelled as Jihadis, when they clearly would wish not to be associated with this brand of religion, will join with this organisation and with us to combat racial hatred and to pursue truth, not hatred.

Brian Moshe

I hadn't intended to come back on this thread but seeing Jonathan's excellent comment:

Jonathan
April 3rd, 2011 12:06am

'It should be remembered that perhaps the majority of Muslim Kurds support Israel, as do a large amount of Albanian Muslims.'

I would like to point out that in Albania during the Italian fascist and then German nazi occupation virtually the entire Albanian Jewish population was hidden and protected by Albanian Muslims.

The Holocaust Museum in Houston, Texas ran an exhibition highlighting this little known bravery about three years ago.

Regarding the Muslim Kurds, I have a pamphlet published by a nasty little Trotskyite group in Britain in the 1970s, which castigates a particular group of Kurdish independence fighters for using weapons they had bought from the Israelis. The leaflet calls this 'unprincipled' and hoped in future these otherwise politically correct fighters would seek their arms from 'progressive' regimes.

C.Gee

Emet:

"Transfer the Palestinians to Jordan: a persistent theme in zionist thinking."

This is an historical howler.

For the Zionists, the territory that became Jordan should have been part of Palestine and Jews should have been able to settle there. Transjordan was transferred to a Hashemite emir. It is judenrein.

Richard

C.Gee
April 4th, 2011 9:18am
...which leaves us with the interesting question of where the Zionists intended to "transfer" the natives to? When Herzl et al. said they had better pack up their tents and quietly go elsewhere, where was this elsewhere to be?

By the 1930s and 40s the Zionists were talking to Abdullah. By then, they did indeed envisage "transfer" to Jordan as the simplest option for creating a "Jewish" state in a country with a population two-thirds Palestinian Arab (even after decades of immigration).

Not quite a "howler".

Emet

C.Gee

The British decided that no part of Transjordan would be included in a future jewish state and that was the end of the matter. Correct me if
I am wrong, but jewish leadership didn't(and probably couldn't) pursue the acquisition of Transjordan.

Zionism's success depended on a few lucky breaks: The fall of the Ottoman empire, the British Mandate and a sympathetic Balfour. It might not have happened. The Balfour Declaration was a decision made from a colonial cast of mind, and difficult to imagine happening to-day. As Shlomo Ben-Ami,the former Israeli foreign minister said, "Israel was born in sin", like other nations. Force, not moral right, is what brings nations into being.

I'm away from home just now, so I can't get to my bookshelf, but Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan, and Benny Morris have all written about "transfer to Jordan" in favourable terms and there are many more.

Richard was right, it was not an historical "howler".

Anil Bhatt

C. Gee:

You are of course free to pursue whatever geopolitical fantasies you please. It must be admitted that you are not alone in this.

I have heard of Indians who claim Indonesia on much better grounds than Jews who claim Israel on the unproven basis of having ancestors who left there about, er, 2000 years ago. These Indians correctly point out that Java and Sumatra, the main parts of Indonesia, were Hindu or Buddhists as recently as a few hundred years ago. I am not encouraging the claim.

Not even the US Government will accept any Israeli attempt to expel Palestinians from their ancestral soil to Jordan.

Any such attempt will make Israel the subject of international sanctions comparable to those imposed on Serbia under Milosevic.

If, on the other hand, Israel keeps the West Bank, the prospect for Israel is no more promising: Jews will become a minority in Israel plus the West Bank in a few decades. No Jewish state could survive that.

So the ONLY way out for Israel is: withdrawal from the West Bank.

Period.

Skeptic

Not only do Muslims serve in the IDF and some hold the rank of major, they also hold higher ranks.

At least some Beduins (Muslims of course) made colonel. If we are a bit generous and include Druze as Muslims, then Muslims also made general -- more than once.

Non-Jews in the IDF passed through 3 stages. The first (1950s): "impossible!". The second (1970s): "Wow, isn't that amazing! So-and-so says he served with a Muslim!". The third (today): "I have a Muslim commanding officer." "So?"